[SUGGESTION] Change EU server 2 to Battle Mode

[Yellonet]

Quite honestly Fight and Destroy isn't as interesting or fun as Battle.
IMO F&D needs it's own kinds of maps in the first place, the balance between teams actually gets worse in F&D because some factions are just lousy defenders or attackers, and the placement of the objectives are often very much in favor of the defenders. F&D should really be a completely different mode, not just Battle with objectives tacked on.
Furthermore, in Battle mode there's more variety in maps, as there's the random maps and also we can play on Ruined Fort properly.
Yes I know that we're here to test things, but we've tested F&D quite a lot now, and it hasn't changed much, and suggestions about the mode haven't affected it at all it seems.
I say bring Battle back!

 

[okiN]

Yes, please! I already tried to do this once, but unfortunately server admins can't make permanent changes to game mode. There really isn't any way to further improve FnD through playtesting, so let's set the server on something everyone wants to play!

 

[Plazek]

Battle!

 

[Archonsod]

I want Conquest

Or CTF

 

[Yellonet]

I want Conquest

Or CTF

Yep, away with deathmatch then

 

[Arch3r]

Battle! Poll!

 

[Elmokki]

I still find siege the most entertaining game mode. As one thing I do like respawning relatively fast instead of having to wait for ages if I get unluckily headshotted by crossbow or something, but the main reason would probably be that as siege has it's own relatively well designed maps, it just usually works very well.

Problem with battle is that as spawns don't swap and maps are what they are one team always tends to sit there and defend. Battle should be a mode where both teams attack to fight a big single permanent death battle. As a simple fix making spawns switch after each round would change the mode to be less repetative, but I'd really like to see a attack-defence mode kind of like siege, but one that is shorter and more hectic and works in map like ruined fort. Quite like how battle tends to be played now, really.

Fight & destroy aims to be the attack/defence game mode I talked about, but sadly it kind of fails with it as map design just doesn't work too well for it in general making it a glorified battle. Also, the defence/attack role needs to switch between rounds. I'd like to try F&D in ruined fort with objectives in the ruined fort itself and +20% players on the attacking side or something.

Deathmatch and team deathmatch are pretty much fine. I'd like to see s team deathmatch option to have fixed spawns though, making it more like a continuous battle than what it is.

I've played CTF like once. It sucked as the maps are crap for it. Especially since you can just pick the flag, mount the horse and win unless your horse gets enough arrows on it in time. Would probably work well in a map with some sort of a small fortress, or more like a tower or a palisade walled building or whatever. So that there are some proper defendable positions and that you can't just run in with a horse that easily.

Conquest. Eh. I think I've played that one like once too. I think it had varying spawns like team deathmatch. It'd work better with fixed  or semi-fixed spawns making it more of a continuous battle to push forward further to the enemy territory.

Did I forget some mode? If I did, it's because no-one plays that mode.

I think the biggest problem atm is maps. The current maps work very well for siege or (team) deathmatch and maybe conquest (which is team deathmatch with objectives anyway), but they don't work well for the most played gamemodes, battle and f&d.

 

[socks]

I wonder what battle on village would be like if both factions spawned outside the walls :O

 

[Daeran]

I want Battle too, plus a conquest server.

 

[Archonsod]

I've played CTF like once. It sucked as the maps are crap for it. Especially since you can just pick the flag, mount the horse and win unless your horse gets enough arrows on it in time.

Most of the maps are fine, the idea is that the team should be defending the flag as well as attacking. You can get all kinds of hilarious happenings like grabbing the flag and then nicking one of their horses for the getaway too though. Plus some of the maps work excellently; field by the river with it's natural chokepoints in the river crossings or Ruins with the wall before the little hamlet were great.

Conquest. Eh. I think I've played that one like once too. I think it had varying spawns like team deathmatch. It'd work better with fixed  or semi-fixed spawns making it more of a continuous battle to push forward further to the enemy territory.

IIRC you spawn to the closest owned flag, or back at your team spawn if there isn't one. What I thought would be interesting to try now that we can command bots is to have every player leading a team of say 4 AI bots to increase the numbers.

As far as maps go I recall them saying the maps we were playing on are not those which will be in the final game, but who knows.

 

[Yellonet]

I've played CTF like once. It sucked as the maps are crap for it. Especially since you can just pick the flag, mount the horse and win unless your horse gets enough arrows on it in time.

Most of the maps are fine, the idea is that the team should be defending the flag as well as attacking. You can get all kinds of hilarious happenings like grabbing the flag and then nicking one of their horses for the getaway too though. Plus some of the maps work excellently; field by the river with it's natural chokepoints in the river crossings or Ruins with the wall before the little hamlet were great.

Conquest. Eh. I think I've played that one like once too. I think it had varying spawns like team deathmatch. It'd work better with fixed  or semi-fixed spawns making it more of a continuous battle to push forward further to the enemy territory.

IIRC you spawn to the closest owned flag, or back at your team spawn if there isn't one. What I thought would be interesting to try now that we can command bots is to have every player leading a team of say 4 AI bots to increase the numbers.

As far as maps go I recall them saying the maps we were playing on are not those which will be in the final game, but who knows.

TBH, both these modes and also siege (made a suggestion about changing siege a while back) is a bit stupid because you're fighting over flags.
I think I'll make a another suggestion... hmmm

 

[Yellonet]

I want Battle too, plus a conquest server.

Yep, actually all different modes should be available in each region, but I guess that would be too good to be true. Especially with the low number of testers we have playing.

 

[Elmokki]

It does keep me wondering, did they only take that few people to test or is the interest that low?

I mean, it doesn't feel like it's a that low chance to get to beta seeing how three friends of mine have gotten to beta even though they don't play much.

 

[kingofnoobia]

I want Conquest

Or CTF

I want conquest too. No need to delete a deathmatch server for that, yellonet. Isn't there already a battle server (thanks to benedict )? Anyway, there are some duplicate modes. I think there is an official team deathmatch server and a battlegrounds_eu team deathmatch server, so one of these could be changed to CTF/Conquest, and FnD could be changed to Conquest/CTF.

Also, something which I think should REALLY change is the autoblocking on EU Team Deathmatch and US Deathmatch. It is ridiculous, there is no need for it.

 

[Cataphract]

I want Team Deathmatch, theres always the possibility of teamwork even if deathmatch. But what i want is not what i think the game should have since i care about the other players. 1 Game mode for each continent, EU China US Australia.

Problem is, peeps would join only the one with the most players, i dont know a solution for that.

 

[glustrod]

yes!

 

[Yellonet]

Could we get a few more votes? I thought there would be more EU players here.

 

[Ursca]

A battle server and a conquest server - Yes please.