Jump to content


Proposal for a more "hard core" mode based on V2.0 mecanics


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

dreambill #1 Posted 27 June 2018 - 06:06 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1104 battles
  • 436
  • [GR-12] GR-12
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

Ok this is what it could be a mode closer to V1.9 based on current mechanics.

First: No neutral faction

Teams start with possession of equal number and type of bases.

On all maps an airfield as a standard and only spawing point (with repair capability?) for each team. (on edge of map)

On all maps a Factory for each team. Its purpose will be to manufacture (X) respawn places every (X) minutes. IF destroyed no more additional respawns

Teams start with none or very limited respawns (Max 10?)

Missile bases and command centers are eligible for additional bases depending on map with standard rules (lunch missile attack and call bombers)

No Regeneration of destroyed bases, Instead increased Hit point pool for central building (Not destructible  from a single pass from a single bomber or GA) Increased hit pool for AA also to give more time to be present in the game.(Alternatively AA regenerate like V2.0 as long central building is alive, and after destruction of central building, continue to operate until destroyed)

No plane defense (bots) for bases, or at least if present never regenerate after destruction. (I prefer the complete absence of "silly" defense bots)

Game ends when all enemy planes are downed or team airfield destroyed. (for airfield may be a continuous slow health restoration when hit, so be needed a combined simultaneous multi bomber and GA attack to destroy it)

The above are proposals and conditions that are (I think) compatible with conquests mechanics. They can be implemented all or some of them and provide a game suitable for ALL types of planes

It eliminates the hunt for sector domination of conquest, shifting towards aerial domination as in V1.9 but with active participation to victory for Bombers and GAs (Elimination of Factory(respawns), destruction of Airfield)

They are generic thoughts and need fine tuning for sure. Thoughts and additions are welcome.

If you feel that a mode like this would be interesting please like the post so maybe eekee forward it to devs

 


Edited by dreambill, 28 June 2018 - 03:56 PM.


Horcan #2 Posted 27 June 2018 - 08:36 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1955 battles
  • 364
  • [_VI_] _VI_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Its pointless and rather complicated, possibly exploitable due to very low population and stupid matchmaker that in curent for allow flight vs no flight, or two humans of superior tier on same team , while the other have none, or one team having GAA and the other heavy or fighter humans. Having two modes running at the same time will definetly kill the game. If you have most games max 2v2, what do you think it will happen if half queue for deathmatch and half for conquest?

Franco_Scala #3 Posted 27 June 2018 - 08:39 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

Bugs and crashes aside, I did enjoy conquest for what it was and racked up a fair few games whilst I still had it installed.

 

That being said, I wouldn't mind a more straight forward mode so long as it isn't just a toxic one-life game mode with no objective beyond 'kill enemy for some reason, have biggest phallus by exploiting dodgy mechanics repeatedly' like WoT.

 

A straight forward mode with limited respawn, no air defence bots and basic structures (airfield, factory, ground force base) would be a very nice compromise, and given how simple it would be to design by devs, and for players to adapt to...I'm baffled that they opted for the needlessly complex conquest gameplay.  Bombers and GAA attack enemy ground positions and spawned convoys to take out enemy resources. Fighters intercept and dogfight. Spawned convoys can capture or destroy enemy base positions if not intercepted by enemy GAA and Multi-roles etc and vice versa.

 

 


Edited by Franco_Scala, 27 June 2018 - 08:43 PM.


Franco_Scala #4 Posted 27 June 2018 - 08:40 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015
I'd honestly just prefer them to fix the crashes first though.

eekeeboo #5 Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:30 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

To stay on topic: 

 

I would like something like Invasion game-mode. Have a team take it in turns attacking and then defending. - Simplest method to have a mode without many changes. 

 

I have a few more ideas, but I would like to see what others come up with :honoring:



Spuggy #6 Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:34 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1451 battles
  • 156
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Seriously....... a 5 v 5 clan battle.

 

No respawn. Simple death match.

 

It doesn't need anything else to start with. Just a simple game mode for clans to test out and see if it is fun. I'm very sure we can get 5 v 5 clan battles going. Especially if you only allow Light Fighters, Multi roles and Heavy Fighters.

 

 

If this basic concept works then we could look at a 7 v 7 battle with a single capture point and allow 2 GAA and 1 Bomber per team. The remainder would be Lights / Multis and Heavies. Their job is simple escort then.


Edited by Spuggy, 28 June 2018 - 08:38 AM.


zen_monk_ #7 Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:39 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2420 battles
  • 517
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Honestly 5 v 5 is a high number. Make it max number of planes, but a clan can enter a match even with 1.

eekeeboo #8 Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:39 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSpuggy, on 28 June 2018 - 08:34 AM, said:

 

 

I don't know if you saw it in the previous thread. The challenge comes from how to you justify the inclusion or exclusion of classes. How do you cater for GAA and heavy bombers? Or how would you justify their exclusions for players who are solely GAA and bomber players. 

Spuggy #9 Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:56 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1451 battles
  • 156
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 28 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

 

I don't know if you saw it in the previous thread. The challenge comes from how to you justify the inclusion or exclusion of classes. How do you cater for GAA and heavy bombers? Or how would you justify their exclusions for players who are solely GAA and bomber players. 

 

Fairly Easily. You just do it. Call it an experimental game mode.

 

You could also create some PvE modes. Possibly even GAA / Bomber only PvE modes. This would be a game mode with dynamic targets that spawn on the map from forward air controllers asking for CAS (close air support). This would be a No Respawn mode but there would be an airbase for repairs.

 

Bomber only PvE mode where you need to fly in formation towards a target and carpet bomb the sh!t out of it. Working together in your group to keep formation and overlapping fields of fire whilst coming under attack by defending bots. It would be a challenging but fairly realistic mode. Giving players the terrifying bomber crew experience of being a big fat target and having to use your turrets extensively. No respawn and No bomb reload. You get one chance to destroy the target.

 

Another easy PvE mode is the Escort mission which would not include GAA or Bombers but would be a mission for escorting a Ground Attack mission which would be a large number of bots flying towards a target to make a strike. The map would be very long and narrow and the player team would defend against waves of bots.

 

You can then flip that mission around and have it an "Intercept" mission. Heavies and high altitude fighters would go for the bombers. Multi's and low altitude fighters would go after the GAA's. But this group of bots would have an escort of their own escort bots to deal with so it wouldn't be easy.

 

If these modes work in a PvE environment turn them into PvP game modes.


Edited by Spuggy, 28 June 2018 - 09:03 AM.


Horcan #10 Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:06 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1955 battles
  • 364
  • [_VI_] _VI_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSpuggy, on 28 June 2018 - 09:34 AM, said:

Seriously....... a 5 v 5 clan battle.

 

No respawn. Simple death match.

 

It doesn't need anything else to start with. Just a simple game mode for clans to test out and see if it is fun. I'm very sure we can get 5 v 5 clan battles going. Especially if you only allow Light Fighters, Multi roles and Heavy Fighters.

 

 

If this basic concept works then we could look at a 7 v 7 battle with a single capture point and allow 2 GAA and 1 Bomber per team. The remainder would be Lights / Multis and Heavies. Their job is simple escort then.

 

Clans? Where?

eekeeboo #11 Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:07 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSpuggy, on 28 June 2018 - 08:56 AM, said:

 

 

Problem with that is justifying the resources required to create such a game mode, especially if there's only a few wanting that particular game mode. This is why i suggest careful consideration and suggestions. Having multiple game modes and supporting each takes a significant level of resources that could be more efficiently spent elsewhere. 

 

PvE mode is being looked at, but for "hard-core-mode" and "PvE" usually don't mix well together. 



zen_monk_ #12 Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:14 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2420 battles
  • 517
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

For starters, it should be very simple. PvP, no bots, no white planes, no respawns. Each side owns one factory each, owned form the start. Factory doesn't generate any points, nothing, only exist to be capped/defended.

 

Teams are formed either of Clans or Clans+volunteers, max 5 vs 5. Can be 1 vs 5 if 1 so wishes.

 

The team who caps enemy base or kill all enemy planes (whichever comes first) wins.

 

All it takes to develop this is a team building interface, where those who started a match can drag in their planes / candidates, and click "ready" when finished. No tier/class restrictions whatsoever.

 

 


Edited by zen_monk_, 28 June 2018 - 10:13 AM.


eekeeboo #13 Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:28 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
But please, don't take anything I say as discouragement from discussion and attempts to come up with a good idea. I am merely trying to help provide considerations to some thoughts. 

NatteFrost #14 Posted 28 June 2018 - 01:44 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Beta Tester
  • 393 battles
  • 25
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

all you need is to make adjustments to what is allready here.

 

current pvp can be a hybrid pvp/pve mode for us casuals as it allready has alot of elements that are part of pve gameplay. keep it exactly as it is whit a little less fokus on fighters so that attackers and bombers can acualy be a part of the winning conditions.

cap the players to max 5 and fill in the rest of the 15 plane team whit bots.

 

then you make a pure pvp mode as thouse players want it to be and use more or less the same template to make a clan game mode. (im woundent toutch that mode so im not going to say how it should be made)

 

then your dev team dont need to make a pointless pve game mode whit less rewards then what pvp has.


Edited by NatteFrost, 28 June 2018 - 01:46 PM.


FlyingDutchman69 #15 Posted 28 June 2018 - 02:58 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Conquest Member
  • 1824 battles
  • 44
  • [FRL] FRL
  • Member since:
    12-26-2016

no respawns  only dogfighting

 



dreambill #16 Posted 28 June 2018 - 03:47 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1104 battles
  • 436
  • [GR-12] GR-12
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View PostHorcan, on 27 June 2018 - 08:36 PM, said:

Its pointless and rather complicated, possibly exploitable due to very low population and stupid matchmaker that in curent for allow flight vs no flight, or two humans of superior tier on same team , while the other have none, or one team having GAA and the other heavy or fighter humans. Having two modes running at the same time will definetly kill the game. If you have most games max 2v2, what do you think it will happen if half queue for deathmatch and half for conquest?

 

So Only if Conquest will be successful (with 10-20X players at least) will be able to have another mode? (maybe then its not needed since conquest will be success)

If Conquest stays in this pathetic state we cannot try anything else and stay in our misery?

This put us in a -No alternative mode ever- situation.


Edited by dreambill, 28 June 2018 - 03:47 PM.


Horcan #17 Posted 29 June 2018 - 12:16 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1955 battles
  • 364
  • [_VI_] _VI_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postdreambill, on 28 June 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

 

So Only if Conquest will be successful (with 10-20X players at least) will be able to have another mode? (maybe then its not needed since conquest will be success)

If Conquest stays in this pathetic state we cannot try anything else and stay in our misery?

This put us in a -No alternative mode ever- situation.

 

I say that we cant have parallel game modes, not with this population. If they are to test anything else, its going to be like attrition and invasion, forcing everyone to play that certain mode for a few days and see the feedback. As for fantasy that i read around here, hybrid mode of pve/pvp ( ffs, isnt it pve already, with more bots than humans ) and clan wars ( what clan can put a 10 people squad at 21.00 prime time? ) , big lol.

klbergmen #18 Posted 29 June 2018 - 09:21 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2565 battles
  • 69
  • [JV44] JV44
  • Member since:
    08-13-2014

I don't think limited respawn numbers for the whole team are a good idea.

When the bots go into the middle and get killed every time this can quickly eat up your respawns.

That's why I prefer very much the current system with unlimited respawns and a penalty when YOU get killed too often. In this way your respawn only depends on your performane (and posession of airfields) and no bot or noob can take away your respawns.



NatteFrost #19 Posted 30 June 2018 - 10:09 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Beta Tester
  • 393 battles
  • 25
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostHorcan, on 29 June 2018 - 12:16 AM, said:

 

I say that we cant have parallel game modes, not with this population. If they are to test anything else, its going to be like attrition and invasion, forcing everyone to play that certain mode for a few days and see the feedback. As for fantasy that i read around here, hybrid mode of pve/pvp ( ffs, isnt it pve already, with more bots than humans ) and clan wars ( what clan can put a 10 people squad at 21.00 prime time? ) , big lol.

 

current pvp is only mainly bots cuz the low amount of humans. and dident you read above, a pure pve mode is beeing looked at, something that this game dont need whit minor tweaks.

and what reason is there to grind to tier 10 if it dont have any spesific game mode?

might aswell just stay at 4-6 and never go above 6.


Edited by NatteFrost, 30 June 2018 - 10:09 AM.


deaxter_hero #20 Posted 03 July 2018 - 12:56 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2524 battles
  • 108
  • [-DFA-] -DFA-
  • Member since:
    09-17-2013
​I was thinking about the psychological aspect that made 1.9 experience so immersive and appealing to some (and to some only unfortunately). I understood part of it when I read an excellent book written by Pierre Clostermann (The Big Show), the French fighter ace. I wholeheartedly recommend it to every planes enthusiast. He had his nerves totally wrecked by the end of the war and yet he cried when he had to leave the near-death horrible stress of very demanding active duty. In 1.9 it was the constant attention you had to pay not to be shot down. Because then it was game over. This sort of near-death stress experience was much more intense than in 2.x where you can respawn. Mistakes were much more hardly punished then. 1.9 was about building the tension in tactical maneuvering and then catharsis once you shot down enemy or was shot down yourself. In 2.0 there is stress involved too, especially in higher tiers with jets. But it is the stress of having to do a lot of things in a short amount of time. More like when you have to do lots of slightly dull administrative tasks in the office. Not a stress streaming from the fact that you must not do a mistake and that every tenth of second of your attention makes a difference. The stakes were simply higher. I do not know whether I make myself clear here but respawns and easy-to-shoot-down defence aircarft took some of the immersive characteristic away imho. I am not offering solutions here I just tried to analyze the fundamental psychological principle as I have been playing both 1.x and 2.x and offer this to further discussion.

 Something for 1.9 stats nerds ;) ---- Alone: 86%    Squad: 14%  ---- Fighter (37%) Heavy Fighter (31%) Multi-role Fighter (20%) Attack Aircraft (13%)





4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users