It is obvious to anybody who has been playing this game for more than few months that conquest is the least popular gamemode in the entire game.
While I can’t speak for every disgruntled player, the issue that I have with conquest is that having 3 or more objectives splits each team up too much. You aren’t playing with your whole team, it feels more like a control point free for all than any organized effort. Because teams are so spread thin, it often creates moments where you walk into an empty control point and sit around doing nothing while it flips colors.
I propose that conquest should be modified to only have one active control point at any given time. After predetermined amount of time, the active control point becomes inactive and a random inactive control point becomes active.
If a team is losing the match, as in, having a certain number of points behind the winning team, they will be able to see which point will be selected next to become active, allowing the losing team to get a head start and fortify the point before the winning team is able to attack it.
Example:
Control point A is active for 2-4 minutes (darkflow should decide on an appropriate timer). After the time is up, A becomes inactive and either B or C becomes active, the cycle repeats until a team holding points the longest wins.
This change to conquest would promote each team to stay together and attack as a group, as opposed to everybody flanking out to random corners of the map. Additionally, because there will only be 1 objective, there will be more action in the game as opposed to walking over to an empty control point, sitting inside of it and kicking rocks around until you flip it blue.
Allowing teams on the backfoot to preview the next objective rotation would allow opportunities for losing teams to try and make a comeback, hopefully making more competitive matches.
The changes described here would also be easy to implement and not require restructuring any existing maps.
Or just follow Berlin example and fill the map with multiple controls points to take, it will be the best mode to do if you need grind because CP conquest are an easy way to get XP and so silver
Largely because unlike the other game modes, you can’t brute-force a win when a single competent player can just make/clear rallies and push the objective.
Conquest is frustrating because it takes away the control anyone experienced with the game has and leaves management of multiple objectives to either your own efforts or an unreliable team.
Except you just put players in a situation where, because there’s only a single objective, the rest of the ticket drain will have to come to attrition.
Not to mention, assuming the intention is to not restructure any existing maps, you’d have to address the fact that objectives may or may not end up closer to one team or the other- At this point, you’d need to have variable spawn locations to accomodate each objective being “fair” to reach for every team.
You can’t really save it since the mode is highly dependent on the average competency of the team you get.
At least in the past, conquest matches that were onsided can end as quickly as 4 minutes, but people complained that this wasted exp boosters at a time when the economy was a shitshow.
Now you’d have to live with the 15-minute minimum games or go through a 30-minute or longer slog.
Introducing SBMM to make sure both teams are “even” would be another can of worms.
Long-term players are just used to be able to solo-carry Enlisted games by only focusing the objective, that being forced into a match that requires a competent team because the map features multiple concurrent objectives will just feel like a drag. The same sentiment goes with the Assault, and to a lesser extent, Destruction.
only way to save conquest is to have them funnel players to certain routes so you can have fight on them.
currently biggest downside of conquest is that you are not guaranteed fight on any point and you need lots of time to get to another point on which once again you are not guaranteed a fight. like i said before some conquest maps are designed good like moscow manor where map is naturally funneling you towards fight or even berlin chancellery where you have 2 funnel points(less optimal). everything else pretty much sucks cause you have long distance between points and arent funneled into battle.
I want as much of the enemy in the way of my bullets as possible. At least with the rework they did a while back I can get triple digit games fairly regularly on Conquest now
Honestly it’s wild seeing the conquest hate. It’s probably my favorite game mode, with the exception of a few maps it really wasn’t designed well on. (Munda Trail, Rhzev 5-point, Burma)
One of the most prominent design flaws is that High Explosive is ever-prevalent. Most other Combined Arms games mitigate their HE by having large maps, multiple open caps, penalties from dying in vehicles (respawn timers, massive ticket drain, etc) or some combination thereof. Enlisted has none of that.
Invasion has one single cap, that’s usually tiny (there are exceptions but they’re not the norm). This leads to the “meat funnel” effect, where no matter how much you flank, you still have to go to this one individual point that can be completely covered by one mid-high BR tank shell, bomb or rocket. For reference this is the effective radius of one HVAR
There is literally no way to escape it because you have to play point if you want to win (unless the team is incredibly bad). Heaven forbid if it’s an open point and the enemy has arty coming it too.
Confrontation is the same thing, but also has the wonky ticket regen/drain that we all know and hate.
Destruction is the same thing, but you might occasionally have two points. But again, they’re tiny and take time to arm/disarm, and a tank can easily sit 300m away and just dump HE on it to keep the enemy from doing the action (be it arming or disarming)
Assault can be one or two points, but same effect since they’re usually within sightlines and teams typically lemming from one point to the next.
Conquest, however, removes the meat funnel by leaving 3-5 points open. Enemy is GZ tanking their home spawn? Okay, cap the other point. Enemy pressuring your backline? Flank rally and back-cap them. It offers greater tactical flexibility for things like paras and APCs since there are multiple areas you can attack.
Additionally, Conquest means both sides are attacking. It removes the mind-numbingly boring games of defense where you’re pushing the attackers into their own spawns because they’re so bad. The games are generally more fluid because there are more ways to back-cap or make sneaky plays than just “I flanked, now let me go to where everyone else has to go”
I won’t pretend this is every game, as there will always be occasional stomps and some maps are just poorly designed. But conquest is the most likely to be consistently fluid and engaging.
I disagree simply because I’ve had plenty of fun and intense conquest battles. My only suggestion is that they should increase the amount of objectives.
I personally don’t like stationary games and if my cap is empty I simply move the 100-150m to the next cap. It’s not hard to find engagements in Conquest if you don’t sit completely still
you forgot the most important thing, conquest is terrible for vehicles both tanks and especially planes, from my experience if enemy has lot of vehicle players it’s easy win. They just can’t do as much the damage they normally would. It’s so odd for such combat arms game enlisted is.
I would propose to make conquest have only one big objective, kind of a siege or something, much more concentrated action, vehicles would play better, extremely easy to do. 3 caps is way to much let alone 5 as people proposed I totally don’t understand why people want fight over empty CPs unless to gain easy exp lmao
