[Suggestion] Change to Conquest or new mode.(poll added)

[Berserker Pride]

I'm just going to say it. I really don't like the current conquest mode.  It really feels just like Deathmatch to me.  Basically you end up just hunting down random people for kicks rather than trying to win the match.  This problem is made worse because you can hit any flag anytime.  It tends to spread out the action into random little 1 on 1's or 2 on 1's.  Conquest would be more fun if the action was more condensed forcing players to work together.  What I suggest would benefit from new maps but would work with the current ones too.

  What if you only had 4-6 command points to capture but they were laid out in a more linear pattern.  Both teams would start with half the command points under their control.  The nearest one to the enemy command points would be attackable by your enemy.  Same with your team.  Your headquarters would be the further command point from the middle and would not be attackable at first.  So at the beginning of the game the action would be focused at only two points on the map and the area in between them.  This would make for more of a feeling of battle and less of a random skirmish.  You would have to decide whether to go for an all out attack or whether to focus on holding the command point you did control.  Should one side lose their first command point their enemy would automatically spawn there.  Now they would attempt to capture your hq command point and finish the round.  The HQ command point would ideally be much easier to defend to prevent an enemy from just rushing through both your command points for an easy win.  At any given time either team would have the ability to attack one command point and would have to defend their own command point.  I just feel this would be more fun and tactical than the random horses running around that the current conquest is.
EDIT:
I thought of a new rule.  The only problem I could see with this mode would be if both teams turtled.  The fix would be that if your command post is under attack your team can't respawn at it.  Might be necessary to have a minimum number of attackers at your spawn to cut off reinforcements.  So if you refused to attack; the other team would continually cut off your reinforcements.  And if they hit you with a big co-ordinated assault then they could prevent you from getting reinforcements for long enough to capture the cp.  This would force you to attack them more often to slow down their reinforcements.  This would give the defense of a cp a bit of urgency as you either fight off that attack or lose the the cp.  This rule would add the element of a headquarters mode.

(CREDIT TO PLAZEK FOR TWO CASTLE IDEA)
The other good thing about this mode is it would work perfectly with a fun map with two small keeps or motte and baileys.  These would be your HQ command points.  The other two command points would be landmarks or ruins on opposite sides of a large field.  Well what do you guys think?

[crazycracka]

I agree completely. They need to change the flow of battle on conquest. By adjusting your spawn point according to cap points controlled and locking/unlocking some cap points so it's more linear.

[Septus]

I think a more objective driven game mode would more fun. Changing conquest into this would be alright but you could also make a new mode for it. Would be cool to have a map that ranges from plains, to wall, to city streets, to another wall, to inside a keep. One thing to think about is to make the flags require more than one person nearby to take it, to encourage teamwork.

[Khalid ibn Walid]

I am afraid I do not agree.  Well, I wouldn't mind a new mode along the lines you suggest, but I find this mode, in its current structure and as fast-paced and chaotic as it is, as quite charming in itself and worth keeping as is.  For those who enjoy death-match-style fighting, this provides a variation from the usual DM.

What you are suggesting is a more thoughtful and deliberate mode, and that can (by all means) be pursued.  But there is no reason not to have both.

[crazycracka]

Would be cool to have a map that ranges from plains, to wall, to city streets, to another wall, to inside a keep.

Yep that would be sweet to have battles like that. Especially fighting through the street with an objective to get to the keeps walls & not to mention inside the keep

Your spawn just keeps moving back as the attackers close in. You would probably want to make it so the capture points need a majority of your team there to cap it, to encourage larger group fights rather than the small skirmishes. Some sort of indication on your HUD that you're in a cap zone would be nice too, I haven't played  conquest lately, but I don't recall seeing anything showing me I was capping the flag in "master of the field" other than the flag going up.

[Plazek]

I wonder how you came up with that brilliant map idea


Anyway I agree something like this would be nice. Like Project Reality AAS mode.  One of the really brilliant things that mod did though was make it so although you would have the same base on those maps each time, the objectives you fight over are randomly chosen from a wide selection. Maybe there will be a bridge, a village, a forest, large hill, church etc. and the 2 non-base objectives would be picked at random from that pool. Made for variety even when playing just 1 map.

[Berserker Pride]

You could even have six command points for this mode.  But the linearity of it is the key to forcing the action.  There would still be ways to flank of course but your goal would still be to take a single command point.  Here is another idea for a cool map.  Sort of a camp vs city battle.

Base-Forest-Siegeworks-Walls-Streets-Keep.

You could substitute forest for mountain trail or whatever you want.  It would be cool to actually go into the keep to fight for a battle like this.
And yes this kind of a mode wouldn't have to replace conquest but I feel that another mode that is more similar to battle than dm is needed.

EDIT: Credit to Plazek for the two castle idea haha.
And good idea for random landmarks to be command points as well.  This could be fun.  In ruins I imagine that the ruined tower in the middle would randomly become a command point for that match.  Could you imagine the slaughter in there as everyone tried to cap/defend it.  On the farm side that pile of rocks and tree could be a command point.  Or that hill to the right of the farm near the boundary.  And of course there are plenty of ruined buildings that could randomly become command points as well. The possiblities are endless.

[Moss]

I think just cutting the amount of flags down to four would be fine to make conquest more enjoyable to play. To be honest though I think the thing holding conquest back is simply that the maps weren't really designed with it in mind. Map designs with more linear or defensible positions would make the game work just as well as tweaking the current mode to fit the maps.

Picture for example a mountain pass map:

|------------------Cliffs------------------|

Fort ------- Ruins ------- River ------- Ruins ------- Fort

|------------------Cliffs------------------|

Not all maps need to be square, a good map design could make a fun linear game mode without the need to remove the option to also have more open chaotic maps.

[Berserker Pride]

I don't know about that.  Even a more linear map will still have sneaky cavalry.  And 4 flags capturable at any given time equals 4 smaller battles as opposed to two big battles.  More linear maps would help but I feel a two flag at a time mode would just make for an intense back and forth battle.  Remember people take the path of least resistance.  If they know a cp is well defended they would simply go around and hit the one that is less well defended.  I would rather a mode where that isn't an option and everyone doesn't get spread out.

  I thought of a new rule to help the mode not become deadlocked as both sides turtle.  What would prevent a lack of offense would be a rule that you can't respawn at your current command post if it was under attack.  With this rule a team that defended too much would constantly find itself lacking numbers as they were continually denied reinforcements.  This would force that team to go on the offensive more often to deny the enemy reinforcements.  It would kind of add a headquarters mode element to the battle.  You would either have to fight off that assault or lose the cp.  This would encourage bigger more organized attacks on an enemy cp as you would know that if you could gain an advantage on the defenders you would eventually win thanks to the fact that reinforcements would come.

And again there is no need to remove conquest you could simply make a new mode or rename conquest to something more appropriate.  It just doesn't feel that the conquering part of conquest actually gains your side an immediate advantage.  Sure you eventually win, but it never feels important during the match.

[Moss]

I actually really like the sound of that.

Hopefully they'll have time to add more game modes and features before the beta is over, the current ones are fun, but some less common game types like this could really add some originality to it.

[Archonsod]

How about restricting the ability to cap flags to a specific class, and having them equipped with lighter weapons/armour so the team is encouraged to protect them.

[Septus]

How about restricting the ability to cap flags to a specific class, and having them equipped with lighter weapons/armour so the team is encouraged to protect them.

that could potentially be interesting but in a game like this with mostly one hit kills, it would probably just be a bitch, it is less protecting and more about hoping.  Would be fun to test it out though.

[Scientia Excelsa]

I've never played Conquest.  Because its servers are always empty.  Which I feel is one of the most compelling arguments for your side.  It needs a certain je ne sais quoi.

[crazycracka]

I think requiring a majority of your team to be in the capzone would be better than having a certain VIP to protect while they cap. Just as long as the actual cap zone is large enough, so it's not a bunch of people trying to squeeze in around a flag

[Septus]

I think requiring a majority of your team to be in the capzone would be better than having a certain VIP to protect while they cap. Just as long as the actual cap zone is large enough, so it's not a bunch of people trying to squeeze in around a flag

probably not a majority but definitely more than 1. Maybe 1/5 or 2/5, it is a fact that most people are jackasses and will not cooperate with a team, so requiring a huge amount of people to be there would be very annoying.