+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 110
Like Tree37Likes

Thread: Conquest Issues

  1. #1
    Telaran
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    84

    Default Conquest Issues

    Hey everyone. I wanted to create a thread on some issues with conquest. Iíve been reading through many posts recently, and there seems to be a large division between those who enjoy the current playstyle of conquest and others who prefer that it be scrapped or dramatically redesigned. Iím not here to choose a side and explain to you why it is better. Instead, I wish to list several mechanics within conquest that can be improved dramatically so that both ideologies can hopefully be pleased. Anyways, feel free to comment on anything I discuss within this list. I think it will be easier for the developers to draw out of a list of segregated opinions for conquest if they were clearly written out, and then come to a common viewpoint.

    Crafting System


    I believe the crafting system is a large aspect of conquest that is regularly dismissed or ignored entirely. I donít even see conquest premades put any real emphasis on this system. Throughout the lapse of a conquest round, I will only see a few stacks of the healing received buff on me. I am not sure as to why the crafted buffs arenít being utilized enough. I have a few different assumptions. Maybe someone else can enlighten me on this topic. My first theory was that a significant part of the CQ population may not even have the requirements to purchase the recipe because they havenít leveled up their crafting professions. This is something that I can relate to because I do not have any of the crafting professions leveled up, therefore making myself unable to craft specific buffs for my faction when I want to. Another theory was that the amount of empowered sourcestones required to craft half a percent of a single buff is too high (they vary from 150 to 200 sourcestones). You would have to visit multiple extractors, gather the sourcestones, and run all the way back to the base just to craft .5% of a single buff. My third assumption was that there wasnít enough reward for choosing to be ďthe crafterĒ in any conquest match. Any player would be better off following the rest of the group and get better rewards. I donít want to delve in much longer on this theory because it relates to other factors that I will discuss shortly.

    I think Trion missed a great opportunity here. The crafting system is diverse. You can choose how you want to buff your allies. You can monitor the game and craft different buffs, depending on any given situation. I think it also opens the door to more players joining conquest because the crafting system is something that both pvp and pve players can do. Iím sure there are some dedicated crafters out there who would delve into conquest more if the crafting system was better implemented.

    Extractors Vs. Siege/Castle Concept

    I donít want to elaborate on this too much because the issue is intertwined with other large issues within conquest. I just wanted to explain the benefits/obstacles between the two concepts. A lot of people argue that siege/castle warfare is always better, but there are some drawbacks to it. The notion of adding extractors that are out in the open changes the pace of the game a lot. It entails more persistent large scale pvp in a period of time because anyone can run to the area and attack the enemies directly. There is nothing guarding the factions from pvp beyond the turrets that have been created next to the extractor. The pvp, in this scenario, is more easily accessible, but there is often little or no thought involved with winning the outcome of the battle. Instead, it places a higher emphases on ďzergingĒ, or running around as a larger cluster of players to ensure that your group wipes any opposition that you may come face to face with. The siege/castle concept, conversely, applies more strategy, but may result in less persistent pvp. Hear me out on this. Letís say that a massive zerg showed up in front of the gates of a heavily guarded area and you didnít have the tools with you to bring down the gate. You only had numbers. They would be unable to achieve anything. Sooner or later, the zerg would wipe and they would be at a loss of words as to how they wiped. There are two things that the zerg can do once they respawn. They can divide accordingly and gather the resources needed to take down the gate logically. This is actually a daunting task because it requires many casual players to strategize and communicate effectively. It takes a lot of effort to tell a zerg to split apart to and work on different objectives, and then come together to achieve a common goal. The other option is that they reassemble as a zerg and wipe again at the front of the gate (or attack another opposing party that seems more vulnerable or easy to reach).

    In the end, extractors out in the open world makes pvp more accessible but less strategic. Siege/castle warfare has more thought involved, but may actually pave the way for better community type activity. An example of this is the WvWvW system in GW2, where each server had 500+ player vent/mumble/teamspeak servers and had to coordinate different objectives with separated channels.

    Small Scale Vs. Large Scale Objectives

    One of the largest problems with conquest is the lack of any meaningful small scale objectives. The nature of conquest is simple: you either kill so many players to start the timer or control enough extractors. I would argue that these goals are neither discerned as small scale or large scale objectives. They are universal objectives that can be achieved through either method. However, the community has absorbed a playstyle that views the two as large scale objectives. My reasoning for this is somewhat unorthodox, but I believe there is some logic to it. The current metagame places a heavy emphasis on running as one main group (zerging is the proper word to describe this behavior) and wiping other large packs as they slowly try to control the majority of the map. They are fulfilling both objectives (lowering the kill count and slowly, but surely, capturing extractors).

    Now letís look at a scenario where a small group of players joined a conquest round and tried to be effective. What would be their goal? Are they supposed to kill stragglers to lower the effective player count on groups from enemy factions? Is it their goal to make things easier for the larger pack to be successful? (This is actually ineffective because even though you are ganking players that arenít with the rest of their raid, they can easily take the port within their base to teleport right back with the rest of their group. I would know this because I witness this time and time again when I go around killing people solo or in small groups).

    The point that Iím trying to make is that I believe there should be unique objectives that pertain specifically to smaller groups in conquest. Having only two main objectives in conquest doesnít mesh well enough with having small and large groups of players. It doesnít make much sense for a small group of players to work towards the same objective that the larger group is working towards.

    Reward Vs. Time and Effort


    This topic deals more with the issues that smaller groups face in conquest. The rewards that they receive is nothing compared to those who run with the zerg. The amount of time that it takes for them to take down an extractor is so high that they are often wiped by an enemy zerg before they can even take the turrets down. Additionally, the amount of prestige, favor, and xp is the same for killing players in a small group as it is for a larger raid group. Eventually, a vicious cycle begins to develop where most players want to be rewarded as much as possible, thereby causing them to run with the zerg, and making the ďzerg mentalityĒ that much more potent.

    I donít know why Trion hasnít fixed this issue yet. Conquest used to resemble world pvp because players were all around the map, and pvp was sort of sporadic. Nowadays, you will see 100+ players FROM A SINGLE FACTION going from one extractor to another. Am I the only one that thinks it is completely ridiculous? Iím probably rambling here, but Iím quite sure that 80v80+ player battles never resembled anything like persistent world pvp, and Trion specifically stated in their conquest promotional video that this was what they were trying to emulate.

    LOL? If you think spamming torrents at invisible characters in front of you (the game engine can only display around 40 players at any time) is actual pvp, then im not sure what to tell you. I donít think I am actually experiencing any sort of world pvp when Iím sitting there spamming aoe with less than 10 frames per second. It does feel satisfying, though, to see a ton of PA xp and favor showing up on my screen. Iím rambling at this point, but you can see my frustrations from this issue. I believe that if rewards were handled more appropriately (i.e. giving more xp, favor and prestige to smaller groups), then we wouldnít be dealing with this mess. The issue has gotten so out of control that the zerg mentality has been shaped into almost everyoneís minds. I donít even know if you can revert this tragedy at this point.

    Commanders and Guild/Server Representation


    One thing that I would love to see is making guild and server representation more noticeable. In Guild Wars 2, servers played vs each other, and guilds could claim castles with their emblem displayed. I donít think it would be possible to achieve these things, however, because we lack the population that they have when it comes to pvp gameplay. I still want to mention that if it were somehow possible to make servers actively compete for rewards, or make guilds have some sort of meaning in conquest, then it might make things more interesting.

    Another interesting thing to add is the commander system from GW2. A few select individuals in the game can be selected to represent each faction (I assume this can be done by majority/popular vote). They would have an icon hovering over their name, and everyone would be able to see them on the map, including the enemies. The implementation of such a system can be risky. It would depend on the playerbase to use if effectively. If each assigned commander ran together to one area, it would heavily promote a large zerg. However, if you had commanders going in separate directions and working on differing objectives (hint to Trion about needing more unique objectives ), then you can still maintain decently large raid groups AND have options available to normal players who join the conquest game.

    Maps

    Conquest needs a new map badly. I think a much larger map is needed due to the increased run speed. Running from one objective to another should take a decent amount of time. The decision on where the player goes will be weighed more heavily because they will actually have to choose one action over another. Currently, you can wipe one extractor and move to another in a matter of 10-15 seconds! This means that you could wipe the extractor you initially attacked, cap it, and get to another extractor that the enemies were at within a very short duration of time. A larger map will result in more thoughtful and decisive judgments.

    Other Random Stuff

    -Turrets are too easy to build near extractors. One planar charge effectively produces a turret with 411k that attacks enemies. This hinders solo/small groups because it makes it that much more difficult to take out the turret and extractor all together. Zerg groups would just destroy the turrets in seconds and the damage that they would produce to them would be unnoticeable. It needs to be much easier for smaller groups to take out extractors, otherwise it promotes the vicious cycle that leads to the ďzerg mentalityĒ even further.

    -We need PvE players to play conquest. If we didnít, I think conquest would be a ghost town. Instead of using the current BiS trinket as an incentive for them to do conquest, there should be other alternatives. I honestly feel sorry for those who wish to have the upgraded conquest trinket, but hate conquest. Perhaps there is a better way to make PvE players join conquest- one that is less frustrating than their current scenario?


    This whole write-up is a mess and a lot of things are said in an unorganized manner. I just wanted to put some thoughts/ideas out there and hear some opinions on the matter. There is MUCH more to be said, but Iím too lazy to write up more topics. Feel free to comment or criticize any of my topics. Peace.

    Lastofpride@Seastone (You can find me ganking people near the tower at TT outside NFís base or at the buildings near DE while abusing memory capture)

  2. #2
    Rift Chaser parangea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    351

    Default

    great post. read every word of it and fully agree.
    R.I.P: Paraygon lvl-60 & Parangea lvl-60 <The Lords of War@bloodiron>
    It saddens me to see what Rift pvp has become. The laughing stock of the gaming world.

  3. #3
    Telaran
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by veeru View Post
    Additionally, the amount of prestige, favor, and xp is the same for killing players in a small group as it is for a larger raid group.
    Nailed it.

    Rewards for successful 100v100 are equal to the rewards for a successful 5v100 and TWENTY (20) times greater than a successful 5v5. Adding more players only adds to the imbalance.

  4. #4
    Ascendant Kronos v's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wwwwww View Post
    Nailed it.

    Rewards for successful 100v100 are equal to the rewards for a successful 5v100 and TWENTY (20) times greater than a successful 5v5. Adding more players only adds to the imbalance.
    a successfull 5v100?

    i disagree.

    in the time it takes a 5 man team to down 100 players, the 100 man zerg will kill 1000

    the rewards for 100vs100 is naturaly 20 times greater than 5v5. there are twenty times the number of players involved. likewise the cost of failure is 20 times less. if a 100man zerg is wiped that is a significant portion of the team removed from the field and sent back to the starting area. if the 5 man team is wiped, that has a negligable impact on the effective of the faction as a whole.

    if you want to solo or small group spawn camp/gank in CQ thats fine. i used to do a lot of that kinda thing myself. and probably will do more of it in the future.
    but it is going to have zero impact on the result of the game.
    dont expect it to be rewarded the same as the zerg playstyle that actualy accomplishes goals and wins the game.

    if you want small team pvp, queue black garden.
    if you want to stroke your epeen by farming under geared baddie PvEers, you dont need CQ. roll on seastone and go camp stillmoor/shimmersand/other lowbie zones. it'll be just as much a true test of your skills as a pro pvper as ganking in CQ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocho View Post
    Or to put it more simply, it doesn't matter if you're topping the charts if you're killing the wrong people.

  5. #5
    General of Telara Aerelith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    977

    Default

    The OP nailed it. CQ favors the zerg, and that is its #1 flaw.

    CQ has objectives that are not worth doing. Mini-bosses that are ignored - needs to be a valid reason to split your zerg. A crafting system that is ignored - needs to be a valid reason to split your zerg.

    5 groups of 20 man teams should be a better way to roll in CQ than as a single 100 man zerg in CQ for CQ to be something truly enjoyable.

    I hope that this is read and I would like to hear a well thought out rebuttal from those that think CQ is amazing as it is.

  6. #6
    Prophet of Telara Morguloth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    Shrink the max number of peeps allowed will avoid the "roadkill" effect the game currently has and help a LOT with performance issues in the fights.

    Oh....and random queues....then it will be fair, balanced and run better

  7. #7
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Who cares? CQ is all about the zerg and I don't see that changing nor do I see it being possible to change unless Trion decides to instance it and make it smaller. And in order for small teams to make a difference, the extractor's would need their HP decreased dramatically.

    Some people enjoy zerg PvP and that's their prerogative. If that's their thing, then so be it. However, I (along with most PvP'ers who like competition) prefer small scale battles where skill matters. CQ has no skill other than that of the leader making proper calls.

    Now, we can argue that Rift has a low skill cap, and that's fair. But at least with small scale battles, that low skill cap evinces itself and exposes people who think they're good because they roll PUG's in CQ.

  8. #8
    Prophet of Telara Morguloth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AceinHole View Post
    Who cares? CQ is all about the zerg and I don't see that changing nor do I see it being possible to change unless Trion decides to instance it and make it smaller. And in order for small teams to make a difference, the extractor's would need their HP decreased dramatically.

    Some people enjoy zerg PvP and that's their prerogative. If that's their thing, then so be it. However, I (along with most PvP'ers who like competition) prefer small scale battles where skill matters. CQ has no skill other than that of the leader making proper calls.

    Now, we can argue that Rift has a low skill cap, and that's fair. But at least with small scale battles, that low skill cap evinces itself and exposes people who think they're good because they roll PUG's in CQ.
    Agreed, CQ battles are way too big, swarms of peeps clashing into each other isn't good PvP.

    WFs are still fun BECAUSE of the fact that individual effort shines, due to the scale of the fights, but with CQ it's zerg chaos.

    Let's face it, CQ isn't about strategy it's about how strong your zerg is, I'm sick too death of ppl trying to argue otherwise saying it's all about leadership...lol....bull...if the zerg is strong enough it'll simply ROLL over anything in it's path, with or without a "lead".

    The ppl that claim to be "leaders" are just kidding themselves.

  9. #9
    Ascendant Eughe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,418

    Default

    @crafting. If crafting could be done on the go i know i would craft more. Although to be fair, i havent tried crafting since the first CQ so i do not know if this was changed or not.

  10. #10
    Telaran
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kronos v View Post
    a successfull 5v100? i disagree.
    Rewarding players in proportion to level of challenge met is a fundamental of gaming that is completely overlooked in rift pvp. You can disagree, but completely dismissing the idea by vomiting out a bunch of absolutes is a bit over the top.

    I'm not going to argue the "impact" of a 5 man group being wiped against a 100 man group getting wiped, that isn't the topic here. If zergs are rewarded for "fun" play, regardless of win or lose, then why shouldn't small mans be?

  11. #11
    Champion of Telara Exxyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,213

    Default

    Why are you complaining about CQ again?

    Lasto, I never see you in CQ, so i am pretty sure you have limited knowledge of actual CQ battles, that are pretty epic

    Even last night, i wanted to get in ABL side, ended up in Dom,

    Dachro was leading, and we competed pretty well

    They end up winning, due to superior tactics

    But Dachro did pretty good, I'm sure he dont have that much experience, but he did fine

    Btw conquest = A Mass 3 way Pvp Zone

    You should realize that micro Pvp matters way more than you think,

    You can play in 5 man, And pick on stragglers, Kill the Turret builders, Use Guerilla Tactics, Hide, Anticipate where small groups would be going

    You could even focus on crafting and buff your faction

    Try it one time, to Run around every extractor and only pick stones, then Craft Offensive stuff, and only offensive stuff

    Sorry Veeru, But i dont even see you in CQ, why are you complaining?
    How many CQ's have you played in the last 2 weeks?

    Also, you reallly seem to praise GW2 mass pvp system, Then why dont you play it? There must be a lot of flaws, That to the opposed, Rift Do well Right?

    <3, Exxy
    Last edited by Exxyy; 04-06-2013 at 01:42 PM.

  12. #12
    Ascendant wickede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,568

    Default

    first exxy says slash never ques without wreck, and now says veeru never does CQ. does this guy even play this game?

  13. #13
    Prophet of Telara
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,079

    Default

    The only serious issue with conquest is the fact that i have to do it to get the readiness buff

  14. #14
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Apparently fighting against 40 visible and 80 invisible players is 'real' pvp.

    I do not like zerging, but there is no other option if you wish to have an impact on the end result of the game. The only way that I could love conquest would be for me to have some kind of objective that I could complete with a few other players. I don't mean things like killing weaker turrets and extractors or crafting, I mean objectives that involve pvp and have a degree of importance.

    Currently, individual skill has no importance in CQ.

  15. #15
    Ascendant Landstalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,247

    Default Maybe we should think of it this way

    If you prefer small scale PvP, then que warfronts.

    If you prefer large scale PvP, then que CQ.
    Landslide - Greybriar. ( Vendetta )
    (\_xxLand_/)
    RIP RatedX. >.<!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts