Conquest - Feedback

[alpine solstice]

Put your feedback on the Conquest mode.

Please keep it on topic, and civil, we want serious feedback

• No gifs
• No 'skill issue'
• No video's - (Testing video's in the Polygon are fine)

[sweet sluice]

As a universal problem to all modes, backcapping and spawncamping is not only the meta, but has no incentive to defend against. There should be XP earnings for defending points, with significantly more XP the closer the point is to your team's main spawn location

[leaden saffron]

Conquest is being picked so much that I only found out that rush is a game mode just now, thanks to this survey. 50hrs in game btw

[unborn kiln]

As pointed out in other threads too.

Other than that, this is a good mode.

What BattleBit needs is more game mode variety that doesn't involve standing in a circle to capture something.

There are 3 domination-based modes in BattleBit, each with varying degrees of vehicles.

More variety is needed. CTF and Rush are a good start.

[grim spear]

Remove conquest as an option from 32v32, the maps are too big, and there are too many vehicles to support proper gameplay/infantry play. The maps end up being very empty as too many players are in vehicles, it feels like 20v20 on maps that are sized big enough for 64v64.

[safe tiger]

Make the maps smaller, maps like azagor, valley, isle can feel so boring to walk around in if there is no spawn options

[inner oxide]

Make it so you cant camp in spawn with a tank i.e. timer in spawn/cant shoot while in spawn

[tame marten]

add more incentive to defend, back capping ruins this mode for me

[slow kite]

Ultimately, capturing objectives feels totally uselss. If I am to drop a full heli on the far side objective they may cap and eventually get killed and not revived. This looses us tickets more than having held the objective actually would of!
My main greviance is how seeminly pointless it is to hold an objective. In terms of ticket depleation it is not enough. Having a cohesive frontline with people reviving is better for your team in terms of tickets than actually holding an objective.

I want to see the objectives have more value in this game, beyond being a thing that makes vehicle assets spawn.

[dawn vine]

i definitely think back capping has become a growing issue. its just far more rewarding to cap objectives closest to the opposite team's base by placing a rally point nearby and inevitably loosing the objective before capturing it again.

• rally points should either have a range limit from your base or limited uses in general. maybe even a one-time use for the entire game.
• out-of-bounds for should cover more ground around objectives nearest to the enemy's base than your own.

defending objectives is also hardly rewarding. there is little to no reason to stay on objectives after they've been captured. there just needs to be more reward for defending objectives in general equal to that of attacking them.

[crystal lichen]

Classic conquest is completely unplayable because of the cards that are chosen.
-Take the same sandy sanset - too big map, tanks that sit on the mountains.
-Frugis - either you sit in the house or die because of the person sitting in the window.
-Tensa Town - bushes that you can't climb over, lots of houses, a person can sit in each window, too big map.
-Basra - the very concept of the map is bad, a lowland, which is bombarded from all sides by tanks, btrs, snipers. It is simply impossible to play there normally not on a sniper/tank.
The mode itself is not bad, but the maps that are played shit. ( sorry for my English )

[limpid steppe]

I think rally points are more powerful than they should be simply because of how the games unfold, its usually a deathmatch right in the center of the map and it leaves free reign for any SL to put a beacon behind enemy lines that will never be seen by anyone as long as you leave it far enough to where it can't be heard by armor taking the main road

Obviously nobody wants to sit on the point closest to their HQ because theres no action, and when there is, its probably just 2-3 guys. Those 2-3 become an entire squad when they spawn on each other, which also makes the spawn beacon more powerful.

Usually holding the point closest to the spawn would mean getting rolled by armor but, any medic hiding in a bush can erase an abrams instantly, so their effectiveness is reduced there. You can effectively cut off all their vehicle assets with a support player and a medic player and maybe some decently placed HESCO barriers.

[alpine solstice]

@verbal flicker Removed your message as it's not on topic

[alpine solstice]

@ebon aurora Removed your message as it's not on topic, wait for the C4 thread, if we add one

[delicate schooner]

Conquest right now is basically glorified team deathmatch. It's mostly a walking simulator on certain maps (Multuislands for example). You could argue to get a vehicle, but u've just gotten a flag somewhere and mostly there won't be vehicles around. Teammates generally won't pick you up and storm off with the first vehicle they find so it's basically a race. The most efficient way of winning conquest right now, is just to use the respawn button and take a death every time you grab a flag. Which is I guess better than just walking around no man's land for 10 minutes in a 30 minute match.

[sweet sluice]

there's some teamwork and objective play going on in conquest... imo the real "30 minute team deathmatch" mode is capture the flag atm. conquest at least will commonly have wins based on score, i.e. running the enemy out of tickets, but ctf frequently, if not constantly, runs down the timer completely with score-based wins being very rare

[neat fog]

put more transport vehicles on the larger maps so conquest doesn't turn into a walking simulator. Quad bikes at capture points and random spots would be a really nice QoL change

[quick oar]

There are plenty of vehicles, just nobody uses them since they’re usually far from the front lines and you can spawn closer

Also, a good proportion of players just blow up whatever vehicles they see because it’s free xp, which I think is really dumb

[grim spear]

i can't tell the difference between enemy and friendly vehicles and I hate cars so I blow them all up

[quick oar]

I’ve had many times when people blow up vehicles I’m literally about to use. Someone blew up a friendly little bird for no reason earlier today while I was about to get in it

[dawn vine]

just putting this idea out there as a solution to back capping and defense incentive: a bonus toward your XP for capturing objectives nearby your own captured objectives including your base. additionally, reward XP to teammates nearby owned objectives (not including bases) whenever a neighboring objective is captured (not as much XP, but enough to incentivize staying and defending it). then more players would be spread out between two or more objectives and have incentive to keep one nearby objective if they want a bonus for capturing the other.

[cold coral]

The mode is good, but map dependent. The worst conquest maps (Basra, Waki, Salhan) take away the sandboxy freedom this mode has and railroads you into joining the immovable frontline meatgrinder at the middle obj or coinflipping on flanks. The best conquest maps have different options in how you play the game. On most maps there's stuff for the armor players, the short & long range snipers, the run & gunners, the taxi drivers, the flankers, the point defenders, everything. Your actions feel like they have weight.

It sucks because Waki, Basra, and Salhan are the most popular maps for the wrong reason. They play like single point domination with bad spawns. If the play area was shifted around they would be much better.

[slow kite]

Wasting tickets is worse than not having flags my dude.

[scenic hearth]

would be cool if there was a magic vehicle repair / ressuply box at captured objectives, so vehicles dont have to drive all the way to spawn

[misty mauve]

at least on the first capture points

[atomic hazel]

Mode is okay but the vehicle experience is mediocre + the vehicles barely have impact lots of the time. A lot of this comes from how restrictive the vehicles are (only resupply point is at the end of the map + repair speed is far too slow + it's extremely easy to mass infantry support against vehicles, though I'd also argue this is a reasonable risk) and that some of the popular maps seem to often be more terrain attached onto a Dom map. See sandy, Basra. Vehicle waste is also a growing issue. Sometimes I feel like entire teams are committed to refusing to use their vehicles when there's mountains of LAVs sitting behind in spawn. Players just aren't committed to using the vehicles, partially because they're not very versatile and partially because the popular maps like Basra and sandy create extremely concentrated pockets of infantry in the hotspots on the maps.

Back capping is an issue in general but in conquest it is absolutely devastating. Vehicles can still have an impact but not when spawn is being camped by a couple of guys with RPGs. This wasn't so common earlier but some players are realising that with committed rally point support and coordination they can easily disrupt the entire enemy team. It's also hard for the team affected to approach them without peeling off mass amounts of support from the objs, since spawns in team spawn are often heavily exposed places from which campers can easily see and prepare defences/just retreat to a position closer to other objs. Barbed wire is a good addition to set up defensive points, but in future maybe a tutorial or media encouraging people to make full use of the defensive structures in the game?

Only fully concrete suggestion ATM is to cut XP for blowing up friendly vehicles. I'm unsure if it'll have a measurable effect on the playerbase but I'd hope it at least dissuades some players from blowing up LAVs and Tanks that are being repaired by their drivers

[scenic hearth]

Vehicles are quite powerful with infantry support. They have a lot of long ranged firepower but die instantly if you charge into a group of enemy infantry

Imo they could use some quality of life buffs (direct and indirect):

• allow repair tool to repair to full hp
• give engi instant vehicle entry and exit
• vehicle sensitivity options
• APC coaxial machine gun

Id also throw in allowing the driver to operate the machine gun on hmmvees, just as a single player can drive and shoot tank / apc main gun

[atomic hazel]

Oh absolutely for all of those!!

[scenic hearth]

Other than that, i think vehcles' health and firepower are fine

o and stablizer on tank machine gun

[atomic hazel]

Yeah the firepower and health is good (though I will confess the tandem makes me tempted to call for a nerf, that thing can end all vehicles with or without support)

Think the main annoyance for me as a vehicle player is that espec with the maps players have very little reason to push alongside vehicles and vice-versa, 80% of my games have half the vehicles and players extremely isolated from one another

LAVs camping near spawn or M2 Humvees holding strategically worthless positions because it's safer

[scenic hearth]

when i play vehicles i stay far away from enemy infantry or go to where my team mates are

if you're by yourself its easy to have someoen sneak up and kill you with C4

[atomic hazel]

Same, but even when you're in a fight with friendlies you take hits and there's often nobody around you with a repair tool

[scenic hearth]

ya my problem with vehicles is you basically have to be way too careful, like going back to base after every major engagement

[atomic hazel]

Had games with near zero engineers period (though the current patch should Def help in that regard)

[scenic hearth]

if repair tool were buffed as i stated, then this problem would go away

[atomic hazel]

Oh yeah repair tool buff would be so great

Espec for helis

[scenic hearth]

id throw in giving APC a secodnary machine gunner spot just like how tank has that

like i remember in battlefield bad company 2 / battlefield 4 just chilling in the secodnary gunner as engi

if the tank gets hit i just hop out behind and start repairing

then pop back in

[atomic hazel]

Vehicle customisation would be nice too though I don't expect that for a while

Currently even in best case scenario vehicle combat is very undynamic

[scenic hearth]

ya, id want to carry 28 AP rounds, instead of 14 AP/14 HE on tanks

[atomic hazel]

Or swap out the main gun for flak rounds to strike at helis and light infantry

[ebon prawn]

Please just remove vehicles from the game. It's clear devs don't play them, don't care about them and all they do is just nerf everything. Just remove them and stop spending resources on it.

[atomic hazel]

Having to write this feels weird: Please add resupply points to both vehicle spawns on maps where vehicles on teams can spawn at two different locations. District and Wineparadise both forcing players to waste a lot of time returning to another vehicle spawn, especially when objs lack resupply/repair points, is kinda obnoxious

[nova hornet]

ALL MAPS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO PLAY ON CONQUEST

no reason why maps should be locked behind game mdoes

it makes no sense

and in battlefield when you play conquest you know ur playing all the maps on all the biggest layers possible. it should be the same here

conquest should not just be stupidly large map with 20k vehicles and introducing the cqc maps would help spice up the playlist a lot

[undone dragon]

Because not all maps are big enough nor designed for it?

Besides most maps have cqc areas like the ship in basra or the city in sandysunset/salhan so i dont see your point especially aince smgs are still shredding 50/100m+

[nova hornet]

you do know that all maps are designed for conquest. they are just not designed to have tanks and helicopters on it as they were fairly recent additions to the game. and its not just about having 1 cqc area. its about having variety and being able to experience a bunch of new experiences. thats why maps like operation metro or operation were loved so much is bf because it was a very nice change of pace compared to most of the very large maps meant for amphibious gameplay. and in battlefield the gamemode conquest allows you to play every map on their biggest layer. where as in bbr if you want to play conquest ur only able to play 1 cqc map (salhan ) the rest of the cqc maps are locked behind game modes

[native obsidian]

block Tanks from driving up the high area in wine map both sides have a places on the edge of the save zone which makes them unkillble

[sweet sluice]

maps are extremely urbanized leading to either early vehicle destructions leaving team without proper armored support or camping from spawn.

maps maybe designed primarily for conquest but apparantly devs never play conquest that much to understand how it works

[buoyant oar]

Once you use vehicles on both sides of some maps, you can absolutely tell the devs are not aware of how even a handful of trees in the wrong position can completely throw off the balance against the vehicles for one of the sides.

That said, for the most part, being surrounded by just a handful of good infantry players who help out clearing obstacles and securing nearby ambush points can make a huuuuge difference.

The problem is that with the current cocaine SMG meta, it's hard to find good infantry players that want to stick around for long.

Incidentally, I saw someone on ready bring up the point that the small capture areas in Conquest, only serve to reinforce the dominance of short range weapons.

I wonder how things would play out if instead of sticking to the capture point trope, there would just be an invisible line drawn across the players of each team. Then, any point behind the line where that team's players outnumber the other by say, 10, is counted as a "secured area". Then ticket rates are scaled to the overall area of the map that each team is holding respectively.

[sweet sluice]

true

[grim spear]

bro you can't blame every single problem in the game on the "smg meta"(which is a meme more than anything now)

If players don't want to stick near your tank now, they won't stick near your tank in any other meta, either.

[sharp fable]

Would be nice if there were more xp incentives for playing the objective. For example slowly giving the player xp when they are capturing/defending/contesting a point (different xp for each), so even if you die/fail you still get rewarded some for trying.

[verbal atlas]

xp for capping that adds up to the amount of xp we currently get would be amazing

[quasi quail]

some maps are too big, take example sandysunset

that map its too big the size of it could fit 256v256, like imagine u have namak and sandysunset in the same pool of 127v127, devs are delusional on this one

tensa is the perfect size of a map for 127v127

constant combat, not having to walk 500km from a point to another, u get my point, redesign Sandysunset asap!

[shadow sandal]

wineparadise is especially egregious

6 flags in 64v64 is fucking insane. it needs to be 4 flags; 2 on the middle and 1 on each team's side

as for 127v127, the bridge flag needs to go. it's really just not fun, since there's always snipers camping north of it, on a cliff where there's literally no cover if you choose to flank them. i think the 127v127 layout should just be the current 64v64 layout

[quasi quail]

Oil Dunes should be also in the 127v127, that map is the best map in this game

[quick oar]

or perhaps they want to give people the option to decide what sort of map size they want?

there is supposed to be variety.

[quick oar]

subjective.

[quasi quail]

subjective but still, as I said above, constant combat, not having to walk 500km from a point to another, just things to keep u in the game, trust me when I play sandysunset im thinking about leaving 80% of the game ( Conquest )

[quick oar]

Yet it’s fairly popular. Many people obviously like that size of map.

[shadow sandal]

conquest sandy sunset is popular because the middle of the map is great. and you don't really ever have to leave it

having to spend actual real life minutes walking from point to point on the other hand is not great, like, at all

[quasi quail]

this map is AWFUL, theres no reason to HAVE THIS MUCH Space

my 4th time today playing this map and its my last this shit is getting on my nerves

[quasi quail]

do you even see where are all the players? the size of the map ITS USELESS

on EUROPE right now there are currently 16 CONQUEST servers, one is Basra the other one is Salhan, the rest 14 are District ( this map is very good, only 2 servers with district ) and the rest 12 are Sandysunset and Wakistan (which these 2 maps Sandy Sunset and Wakistan are the most dogshit maps i've ever played in a videogame, so much space where there is aboslute nothing, these maps are a Running simulator just for you to get sniped after 5 minutes of running to a point)

there is currently no frontline servers in not a single region, and the Domination servers are all invaded by Conquest Bots

So until devs launch a new update with a larger variety of gamemodes/maps, i will not play this game anymore since its a complete mess.

[quick oar]

I have played on it many times. I know how the map feels and am forming my opinion from experience.

[quasi quail]

im playing this game for more than 2 months, i think i got more games on sandysunset than other people got matches played in total in battlebit, i know what im saying

[quick oar]

like 90% of the community can make that exact claim

not exactly impressive lol

[quasi quail]

its not meant to be impressive buddy, you're missing my point, and you just said something that i can say the same thing about you

[quasi quail]

like 90% of the community can make that exact claim

not exactly impressive lol

[faint sun]

Alright guys

As the superior in the conversation

[quick oar]

onjion! the goat!

[faint sun]

IM TALKING

anyway

[quick oar]

(sorry)

[quasi quail]

wow both of you playing the same game for the same minutes? maybe? friends lOL

you got backup?

[quick oar]

HES ONTO US

[quasi quail]

[faint sun]

I think that larger maps are cool, because they allow for more strategy!

No I would never be friends with this dweeb

Hop on totally accurate battlegrounds, Countach.

[quasi quail]

bro i get your point

but those maps

ARE TOO BIG

Do you even see the left out space?

[quasi quail]

.

[faint sun]

Maybe you need to value strategy more than running into the enemy

[quick oar]

it is true that I never touch at least 50% of the map

[quasi quail]

yeah, my complaint was that the maps are too big and it feels like im playing Running SImulator

You want me to run more?

[quick oar]

but it doesn't bother me as I never have to go to those bits anyway

[quasi quail]

Nice point

[faint sun]

It's meant to allow the fights to spread over a larger distance, and not be a mosh pit in one place

Truth spoken.

[quasi quail]

Invalid

Nobody uses that space, everybody is mosh piting in the middle

So there's no point for this maps to be this big and useless

whackistan its the same

Whats this all about? the map creator being high?

as fuck?

[quick oar]

if it isn't an area you have to go through it doesn't matter
it would be no different if it was inacessible

[lapis bison]

remove space = take out a freedom from player.
That space can be used for Rally Point building.

[sweet sluice]

no please just dont make conquest maps super tighted

we don't need 10 Chechnya maps to realize conquest is bad in small maps

[atomic hazel]

Besides the conq maps’ main problem isn’t even ‘there is too much space’ (in lots of places it’s the opposite tbh)

But i do agree that lots of the maps have really underutilized space, which is bloody puzzling especially when in 127 v 127 we should be striving to split up the blob with more places to be

Unfortunately that doesn’t currently work, since the blobs are the best way to play and they eventually coalesce into one big blob (remove squad spawning), but it’s absolutely something that should be looked into imo

More objs = more varied places to engage = more things to do and more things to hold. As the game’s balanced, hopefully it means we see smaller but no less exciting pockets of fighting spread out in the map as opposed to the one big pocket and all the ones around them

We shouldn’t be doing the shipment logic of map design

[bright imp]

I have a possible solution for too much space that would favorably change the way the game plays. I notice that after a point is captured, almost the entire team moves on to the next point without a thought for defense. This can lead to excessive running, but people don't want to risk waiting around indefinitely for enemies to attack their point.

**Each point should be upgradeable to increase the rate of ticket bleed. **There could be 5 levels of upgrade, which needs to be destroyed with a bomb, similar to rush mode. This would offer as much as an incentive to attack as defend. I've wanted to see this feature for a long time and would like to drum up some support. It's simple and could really set BBR apart from its competitors in the way it plays. I think it would also slow people down a little bit, encouraging some teamwork and strategy and planning. I think it would fit in well with the hybrid style of mil sim with frenetic action.

There could also be mini objectives that are required to upgrade the point, like capturing a computer station that is located near their main spawn. Information can be retrieved from the computer and used to upgrade the point to the highest bleed level

Ultimately I'd really like to see more of an incentive for players to defend a flag, without risking waiting for excessive periods of time. If there are 5 flags on a map, people don't want to defend point A or E, but if the point were upgraded you would be assured the enemy would attack, and you would feel productive defending and waiting.

[lapis bison]

I like your idea, once we solve a walking simulator problem and give more options to spawn, we may think about something on top of conquest, because it may improve and hurt experiences of players that used to it since playtest times.
So dramatic changes to gameplay currenty is risky.

[quick oar]

So. What is the incentive for the players to prioritise upgrading a point over just killing?

Ticket bleed is all well and good but players are quite selfish

You aren’t really punished for loosing or rewarded for winning

(evidenced by how most people bleed out very quickly now, they don’t want to sacrifice a little time to benefit the team)

[bright imp]

The upgrade could be passive, at least for the first couple levels. After you reach level three some active tasks could be added to get to level 5, and the increased ticket bleed will be a big draw to enemy players

Right now there's really only only attacking, and the only defenders are snipers. There are players that want to play more defensive, ambush or intercept roles

[bright imp]

The only purpose of capturing a point is to create ticket bleed. If capturing a point is a successful incentive, then protecting a more valuable one should be too.

[quick oar]

Capturing a point gives you XP and leads you towards where you know the enemy is, which is the main incentive

In that regard I’m wondering if this idea would change anything, will people care what level something is if they know there’ll be action there anyway?

[bright imp]

I just had a similar thought. The real incentive is that they expect to find the enemy there. If a point was level 3, or especially 4, it should cause enough ticket bleed to draw the entire team there. Take the non-urban points in SandySunset for example. If they were causing a 1 per second ticket bleed the both teams would be drawn to that point. Players of both teams would begin to leave the city to focus on outer points. This would definitely shift the focus of play, especially if the consequences of the highest level upgrade are severe. It could create tensions points that rise and fall throughout the game.

Tension points in classic conquest occur infrequently and haphazardly. By bringing extra attention to a particular point, players will know to go there seeking action. If it takes many minutes to complete a special objective to reach an achievement that threatens victory, that leaves a lot time for tension to build around a single point.

Take Basra as another example. I really enjoy playing around the ship, but once one team achieves local victory the action is pushed into the hills and bunkers, which is less fun for me. In this game mode players could choose which point to focus on to keep the tension. If 1 team successfully holds a central point, the action stays there. But, if a central point is too heavily contested to maintain an upgrade then tension may shift to point closer to home spawn.

[atomic hazel]

but they already do, frankly; the problem isn't that players don't do that. In fact it's often the exact opposite in my experience - players group into large blobs, take/contest a central point, and when it's been captured one way or the other the blob splits into sizeable chunks and just turns backwards to go contest a tiny backcap

using Basra as an example: In the first three minutes players will almost always be rapidly contesting C. But by the fifth-six minute you will already have the first backcappers and if the C fight is over you will watch a mass of blue dots turning around to go swarm points that were assaulted from behind

the problem is twofold imo:

1. infantry lives are cheap, and squad spawning is the most convenient way to engage in any fight, while few vehicles are ever utilized and fewer rally points come up consistently. This combined causes infantry to rapidly group into gigantic blobs. This causes infantry to play not to hold but to constantly retake points, since there is no real incentive to defend as opposed to retake - not least certain things like there not being defense exp provisions atm. Not for a lack of trying, but the problem is it's the path of least resistance - there's only so much defending you can do when most people are out to attack, and equally large blobs are coming down on your ass
2. despite this, since blobs make things the easiest, huge chunks of the map will be deserted and therefore controlled by small groups of players - maybe two-three squads from each team - quietly contesting vantage points, objs and setting up things like tandem spawncamping in the background

this isn't at all visible with current metrics! because if you looked at a heatmap it'd just appear as if the game is pretty dynamic (which it is, thank god); if you look at the scoreboard the score count and the kills are near-totally divorced from the situation on the ground. Because huge chunks of the most influential players - that being the people playing outside of these blobs, controlling nearly the whole rest of the map - are playing in otherwise featureless, low-intensity battles that don't easily raise kill counts and score

[atomic hazel]

to be clear: this is a really god-damn cool idea. It's one that I could see introducing a lot of dynamism to the game and even a kind of balancing point. But it won't be as effective as it could be if we're stuck with this status quo of cheap and powerful infantry that have no incentive to defend as opposed to retake

[bright imp]

I see these blobs too, and what I see this new mode doing is helping point the two blobs toward each other and keep them near each other. Right now 1 blob pretty quickly kills the other, and the blob has to reform several hundred meters away(running sim). Or worse yet on a circular map like dustydew you sometimes have 2 blobs circle each other with infrequent contact(marathon sim). Because of a fundamental lack of scouting or chain of command there's no system to help the blobs meet other than capture points of roughly equal value.

A blob will stay and defend a position as long as it has action or believes it will have action soon. Level 3 would be the signal for both teams to focus on that area. Until the point has been destroyed, the action won't move away from there. If the poisition that the blob is fighting over is more valuable, that fixes problem 2 because then the strongest blob actually wins the match, placing less importance on smaller peripheral battles.

Basra as an example, if the ship is level three, players from the ship have a greater incentive to stay near the ship instead of moving into the hills. Even if some proceed into the hills, some would be inclined to turn back and break up the density of the blob, instead of totally abandoning the point. They would know to expect more people to flank the opposite side of the ship, because the ship position has increased value.

If only a third or a quarter of the team choose to stay and defend, that would be great. Because as it is less that ten percent take fairly static positions, most of those snipers.

[chilly arch]

Maps could benefit from having "layers" like Squad and Post Scriptum, where the objectives are moved around other points of interest on the map

[buoyant oar]

Give capture points a physically capturable flag to stop the stupid "prone in a bush at the very edge of the circle" tactic. Flag location is periodically updated for nearby defenders and it cannot be taken out of the circle. Attackers must hold the flag for a set duration to flip the point, amount of players no longer matters.

[atomic hazel]

Either that or redesign point shapes to be more specific, and have them marked out clearly on floors

It’s incredibly hard to tell without staring at the minimap

[buoyant oar]

The problem with shapes is that it still lets rats just skirt around the edges blocking spawns and forcing defenders to sweep the area which can be a huge pain in the ass in places with multiple areas to hide in like Sandysunset city and A/F, Wakistan A/E, Wineparadise B/E

[atomic hazel]

While we’re at it actually: the point sizes seem really arbitrary

[atomic hazel]

I ain’t denying that, u rite

[buoyant oar]

With a flag system, I think captures in central areas would still happen as usual, one side overwhelming the other and rapidly taking over. But for the more isolated points like those at the side of each spawn, I think it would make defending be much less of a hide-and-seek pain in the ass.

[mighty musk]

I think there should be a greater personal reward for defending points, as currently a lot of people immediately go to another enemy point after capture.

Maybe a small XP reward for continuously being in the circle, like once every 20-30 seconds or so. Faster if it's currently contested.

[buoyant oar]

With a flag system you would instantly get a reward for recovering the point's flag. 😌

[mighty musk]

It doesn't give you anything if you stay there and prevent the point from being captured though

[buoyant oar]

I think that's a general problem for all zone-defense based games, haven't really seen a satisfactory solution to it. At the moment with squad spawning capture points are really just an excuse for an objective, but if spawning was more restricted, then defending points would be its own reward by letting you be closer to the battle.

That said, with a flag-based system, at the very least defense would be a lot less frustrating because enemies would be going to one central location and the flag would reveal where they are within the capture zone so at least you don't have to be going through every single room in the area to find where they're hiding.

[atomic hazel]

Exp for remaining in its vicinity + boost to all exp gained from kills in vicinity maybe

[buoyant oar]

Another advantage of a flag-based system is that you can enlarge the "influence" area of the point without this automatically meaning it will be easier to attack

So fighting in the immediate surroundings would also be considered as defense

[quick oar]

I support that

Right now xp for defending is limited to a super small area for little reason in many places

[buoyant oar]

Althoughhh something even more general than binary in/out of the area could be a decaying multiplier the farther away you're from the circle

[slow kite]

I'm finding that games are just flying by now way too fast. Is this due to the lack of medic revives from people spacing out instead of waiting to be revived?

[civic charm]

prolly, people learned that medics won't rez them and even if they do, they don't bother to heal
not to mention getting all your stuff back, armor gets repaired and you spawn on a more advantages position
game design done goofed aswell as the community all going combat medic but not medic...

[atomic hazel]

it's also an attrition thing

since it was already difficult to play supp and other non-medic roles/non-optimal to do so it quickly whittled down those players to a certain group of the playerbase

and when they leave, that's far more impactful than otherwise

it's kinda mitigated because the classes generally mean nothing atm except for support but it is still a thing, since the other roles are the things that slow the pace compared to current medic

[buoyant oar]

The current scoring system sucks because winning just makes the game finish faster and most of the time you can tell by the score gap midgame what the outcome is going to be anyway.

Instead of permantently taking tickets away, points should only be awarded to the team controlling the most points and getting kills. Games could finish when a 1k gap is achieved to end stomps but otherwise just let whoever got more points win at the end of the timer (but probably adjust timers to something a bit less than 30min).