the entire map becomes the conflict zone, as it should be
the fighting will be intense to dominate territory, because right now in conquest you only really care about turning the objectives for your team and killing rallies
just think of an entire quarter of the map being one objective, so you still have to clear that area and the rallies to dominate that quarter to help towards the greater goal of having most territory at the end
do you understand size of the map. ffs even now in conquest you hardly see fight and you have 3-5 zones where game is herding you to fight. how do you expect to conduct fight for the big zone if you dont see enemy?
and do you plan to have all 4-8 zones active at the same time? what if team splits evenly with 1-2 players per zone? you kill them and they dont get back into that zone for e.g. 5 minutes that you would need it to cap.
tl;dr i want to ask how will you make this mode not boring and force the fight? what prevents players from dying of boredom?
I sometimes wonder if you even play this game with such ridiculous comments
of course, players decide which zones are actively fought over, which means there is more incentive to work together as a team and devise plans of defense and attack
Capping isn’t really a goal, it is just about dominating the territory, which means you have to keep numbers advantage, thus clear and preserve
What do you think forces a fight now that won’t force a fight in this mode? The thing you say forces a fight is the objectives, in this mode the entire map dominance is the objective, there is no reason why this would be boring, if anything it is finally exciting and less repetitive as more areas of the map will be used more often than currently used
it depends on the map. e.g. moscow and berlin have relatively ok conquest maps, while normandy has shit conquest maps.
in lot of them you spend more time running to different objectives and not enough time fighting like in other game modes.
in game that doesnt have voice coms and console players cant type and see pc chat.
dominating/capping same shit.
relatively small cap points that you need to fight for. you are herded in cap and you need to fight in and around the caps.
i cant help you if you dont see difference between fighting for a house and fighting for whole block, specially when you have 4-8 such blocks active at the same time.
this could possibly work if that zone was just extra big cap for invasion zone.
for now this mode sounds like you have taken all the worst things from conquest and assault and enlarged the problems from them.
the one in the swamp can be like that if people don’t build rallies or just camp in a bush somewhere and hide, but that can happen anywhere
there is now a conquest map on Normandy that is very active action with the Church in the Center
that is actually a fun one to play and very active, you can literally have fights non stop with good rally locations
well that is an area that needs improvement across the entire game, but I do already engage players in chat and sometimes to very good effect
true, but what I am saying is that the conclusion of the cap might never happen, and it doesn’t matter, since all that matters is who has most territory at the end
and why wouldn’t people do that when the cap is larger?
i see the difference clearly
but this is just a different style, hence the title “New Game Mode”
If you want to control a territory in war, you don’t just fight over one house, you have to take control of the entire area, and this mode better reflects that more fun and immersive war experience then the arcade nonsense in this game with their tiny limited objectives and limited narrow fighting zones.
Quite the opposite, this mode takes the worst parts of the existing game such as tiny objectives and repetitive narrow fighting whilst ignoring the rest of the territory, and opens it all up for a far superior experience for players that understand the benefits of this mode
if you don’t like it or don’t understand it, then this mode wouldn’t be for you,
but critical thing is that you also dont fight with only 10 people for control over the whole block. that is why i said this could be viable with more players and not with current game limitations of 10v10.
if you made invasion mode with big caps this could work. but you essentially proposed conquest mode with extra big zones. you have not fixed conquest, you just made it even worse.
i didnt play HLL, but your suggestion feels like it would have similar gameplay experience with lots of running and trying to find the enemy vs actually fighting.
well remember that 10 people is actually 10 squads including potentially 4 vehicles, 2 in sky and 2 on ground
so numbers would have to be tested until an amount feels right per map size, map sizes might be shrunk or extended depending on what works best
I could not say blindly what numbers of players would work and what wouldn’t work without experimentation
Two different map sizes, so of course the population would have to be different for each size. This isn’t a fix for Conquest, this is a totally different mode, it can however use Conquest maps. And it is opinion based what you prefer. You might prefer conquest, I would prefer this mode.
but this mode could be versatile and also use Invasion maps with more people/squads as you suggested
there would be that extra aspect of needed thinking added to the game where you do have to figure out what the enemy is up to as they would not be as predictably placed for you on a platter the way they are now, because they too would be actively looking for ways to hold or displace territory/enemies
Depending on the ratios of players to map size, that would largely decide how it all plays out, but I doubt you would have to run much more than you already do, you just would have to engage your brain more to work out what the enemy is doing and destroy their rallies and hunt them down to dominate territory
but if a map is divided into 4 parts, the part closest to the spawn would likely be the home territory, and then the two center territories would be the most hotly contested fronts, and then other squads might prefer to flank and get behind enemy lines, this would add a lot of variety to gameplay and would make use of more of the map, since you could literally occupy any part of the map and create a battlefield anywhere
you dont understand me.
invasion with big contest zone is good suggestion cause you would have all players concentrated with fighting over 1 zone, instead of one small cap that is filled with HE spam.
on other hand your suggestion is conquest on steroids with big zones. you would be effectively splitting players over different zones where they would be happy if they actually find enemy.
here is bad illustration of conquest/your suggestion at least how i imagine it.
before you knew that enemy will go to caps 1, 2 or 3 and you can possibly get fight there. if you knew that enemy was in cap, you would usually find him within 10-15 seconds. if you go from 3 cap zones to e.g. 6 map zones you are basically halving number of players per cap/zone in your mode and at the same time enlarging engagement zone by factor of x times (lets say 20). effectively you are making density of enemy per square meter 40 times lower and thus making game slow and boring.
maybe i misunderstood how this mode would work, but this is why i said it wouldnt work without more players.
you are right it wouldn’t work on some invasion maps that are quite large and with the current 10 player size if the entire map is open, that is correct and makes no sense and would indeed end up like a HLL or PS almost bore fest clone
which is why I said that would have to be a consideration and something to be adjusted depending on whether extra players can be handled, or if such maps would be perhaps broken into smaller chunks and the mode could have for example 2 stages of Battle, where once one stage is complete the next stage opens up and the old one closes down (grey zones) so that way you could shrink it down if necessary
but I don’t know what could be handled by the game and what would run best, if 10 vs 10 is the ideal and optimum, then I would say that for example that Conquest Map on Normandy with the Church is ok, and would work just fine, it’s a good size for 10 vs 10 I believe
and there are definitely many sections of many other maps that would work very well with this, especially Urban areas
Looking at your diagram, I would say split it in 3-4 rectangles, and that would be your territories and basically battle lines, for a smaller map 3 territories would probably be ideal, and larger territory if more players are ok then perhaps 4 or 5? but it would have to designed as you say with the idea that it can remain very active warzones, not running simulator game mode
i was referring to conquest map there. even conquest map is too big for something like that. you would need half or third of conquest map for this to work.
maybe alternative would be something similar to planetside 2 zone conquest.
you could only attack adjacent zones after you conquer a zone. that would force confrontation in max 2-3 zones depending on how it is done and not on all zones at same time.
no way, planetside link lines are horrible, they basically end up wasting all the space in that game in the same way space is wasted in Enlisted, except it’s on a much larger scale
yes, some conquest maps might be too large, I don’t know, this would be things that need to be fine tuned and tested
but no to lines for linking, that system is terrible, I stopped playing planetside exactly when they introduce that rubbish
I am trying to get away from the linear limited playstyle here, not go back into it, the goal is to open up the entire battlefield as the designated fighting area, not limit it by linked lines or fake tiny objectives
the lines I am thinking of are just borders of territory, same as the lines around an objective, but they are massive around the entire rectangle (or whatever shape) of land
they are actually good cause they force confrontation on linked zones and not on all zones at the same time. does it make sense that enemy could take and occupy zone that they dont have access to? how do you ensure logistics?
did you even play the game? what wasted space. ffs it is main selling point cause you can have massive 100v100v100 battles sometimes if you like it, or you go for some other sector with 20v20 battle if you dont. if you could go anywhere you want you would had lots of 5v5 battles and game would suck.
Enlisted never had a logistics system to bother with that, you could just as easily use imagination that it represents taking over an enemy important factory or whatever you want to imagine it, not all war is fought in fronts and lines
example with mass paratroop invasion behind enemy lines and missions behind enemy lines to disable certain key objectives such as bridges and disrupt their own supplies etc…
ps connected territories still acted as supply lines before the lines, and it worked better, the fixed lines was put in because they population drop offs after all the nerfs (lol sound familiar?) and wanted to herd the players into smaller areas by no longer allowing back capping
The majority of the contested continents are empty, there are only a few active fronts being fought over at any one time
yeh i played it long ago when it was at its population peak and we rode around in massive outfits, and I played it recently when the meta is now super fast redeployments and you rarely see really large outfits travelling around different unexpected part of the map anymore and would engage in large battles outside the objectives
the connected line system killed a lot of the freedom & fun that the game used to have that made it interesting
yes i heard about that example. it was operation market garden and they took arnhem bridge… how could i have been so stupid not to know that… btw do you know what happened to them?
exactly that. you need to herd players when you have big map and not enough players to fill that map. that is why i gave the example.
what is the point of going alone or 1v1 into some part empty map when it is boring. do you know why invasion is popular? cause it herds all players to 1 zone of engagement giving most action out of any other mode. conquest is mostly shit cause it herds players on multiple location giving less action time and more running and searching for enemy. your idea without some herding mechanism could end up even worse than conquest cause you would fight in several times larger zones than caps and you would possibly have even more caps than conquest.
no thanks, this player doesn’t need to be herded
no wonder enlisted is lobotomizing players with this poor attitude and poor gameplay
it’s irrelevant to the discussion the result of one single operation, the idea of it being possible is the relevant point
that’s the idea, it’s a different way to play the game for a good reason
and this will be completely player driven, not herding rubbish
the only guiding principle for the players is that they have to try to figure out how to end the game with more territory control than the enemy
what happens in between will vary every match thanks to the players
making it more exciting than any mode currently in Enlisted where player always run to the exact same objectives in every brain dead mode in the game currently
maybe arcade shooters arent for you. you cant have big map with small player count and absolutely no mechanism to herd players. player come for action and not for running simulator.
think that this mod would maybe be better in survival genre so maybe in dayZ?
well you also have operation stosser that was major shitshow cause of multiple reasons and then you also have battle of crete and battle of dnieper where paratroopers jumped on enemy and were massacred. but yes there were also successful operations
and most of your squads arent paratroopers, so it is irrelevant.
this will be most boring mod cause you will die of boredom trying to find the enemy in same zone. maybe if zones are open field without cover you wont be having much problems. ffs imagine berlin maps with those zones. enemy could easily hide amongst whole block of buildings on different floors. this applies to any urban map.
that is why i said it probably wont work with current number of players… it would probably need even more players than 20v20 for it to work without any herding mechanism or it would need really small map (even smaller than most conquest maps).
they definitely are not
that is why some testing would be needed to figure out the sweet spot of map size
there is a slight mechanism which is what determines the result of the match, and that is the constant fight over territories
this isn’t a survival mode, at all
the core idea is to be the dominant territory holding team at the end
paratroopers aren’t the only way to get behind enemy lines, flanking moves also do the job, and whilst the discussion of supply lines is interesting and all, it’s largely irrelevant for this mode discussion because there won’t be any such things in it, it’s just a map and a battle over a small territory reflecting a small battlezone, so there is no need to worry about anything like supply lines
If you read what I said about the church conquest map as a potential candidate for this mode, you would know that it won’t take long to find an enemy. So you are completely wrong about your assumptions of this
We would have to select decent zones for this mode, obviously
but if you want to pick out the worst ones, yes there could be some very bad candidates
I’m thinking the focus would be to find the good ones, not the crap ones
Not all urban environments are like that, some are well laid out and would work with this
it all depends on the area and what it has available to players to use as potential defensive zones and zones of control
we cannot forget that once players get out there, they will be setting up their rally points too, and that will change the dynamics
it would need testing before you begin jumping to failed conclusions
was further contemplating the idea
and one the things that could be different in this mode to really help make it a favorite for those players that love fortifying and building is that each structure they make inside the territory would also help increase the territory domination counter, so that it helps the team establish itself as the dominant team on the territory
and the other team would have to actively seek to destroy such structures to change it back in their favor and their own structures favor
this counter would be much softer counter than an actual player or bot in the zone, but it would help contribute to give it some significance beyond the practical significance
improvements and additional structures could also be added for this mode, such as FOB, Command Tent, Different Bunkers Types, perhaps different placeable artillery systems, Triage Centre, Ammo Depot
such things would be slightly more rewarding towards territory control boost than smaller items like sandbangs and barb wire
In case of a Triage and Ammo Depot, that could boost players in that Territory, such as slight health buff or health regen buff, and ammo might give extra clip or slightly faster reload as an example
