5 replies to this topic

[fred]

hi me and a couple of the other members thought it would be better if the server was conquest instead of rush. please vote so we can see if other people like it or not. (sorry i didnt word that the best brain dead after plan test today =]) on a side note im not 100 percent sure but i think conquest has more maps

[Tomato]

I like Rush a lot because it has very defined positions. One side is attacking, one side is defending. There isn't much deviating either side can do. If the defending side trys getting too offense the attacking side can slip through to their bas unharmed. If the attacking side gets too defensive they'll never win because they wont be going for the point.

In Conquest people don't get the idea as working as a team, or even as a squad, and you see a lot more disorganization. Overall it seems like a more easily broken gametype when people don't play it right.

[Caboose]

I dont know what rush is but I'll vote for conquest

[JoeDirt]

Tomato, on 09 March 2010 - 06:13 PM, said:

I like Rush a lot because it has very defined positions. One side is attacking, one side is defending. There isn't much deviating either side can do. If the defending side trys getting too offense the attacking side can slip through to their bas unharmed. If the attacking side gets too defensive they'll never win because they wont be going for the point.

In Conquest people don't get the idea as working as a team, or even as a squad, and you see a lot more disorganization. Overall it seems like a more easily broken gametype when people don't play it right.

+1

[Malokyte]

I would argue that because of how well defined the attacking or defending proccess is in Rush, that it easily gets one-sided.

Teams that don't know what to do, or the majority doesn't know what to do, or do well, will get overwhelmed by a team that's even a sliver more competent. This can lead to frustration, and a reduced server population. I've seen a general spike in populations with servers that host Conquest, as the gamemode does not force you to attack the same points over and over again, and instead lets you choose from multiple different targets and paths to reach it. Also, the points are far enough apart in Conquest that defenders cannot defend two points at once without spreading out, allowing more room for attackers to get a foothold, and forcing defenders to up their game instead of just overwhelm by better fortification. This leads to a greater amount of captures, which gives the illusion, or reality, of accomplishment, which is what players want when they play a game.

In addition, because of the rigid defensible points in Rush, the defender has the advantage of destroying all advancing cover, effectivly nulifying all hopes of the attacker even getting near a com-point. It also promotes the defenders to let one point get taken to better defend the remaining point.

Conquest does not reward said tactic, as it would put your team at a disadvantage to defend only 1 point and let the other team take the remaining 2. If anything, it rewards more spontaneous gameplay, which leads to more variation in play styles, more movement around the map, and a much more hectic battle. Both defense and offense is needed to win a Conquest match, which allows players who like to defend to play the way they like, while allowing the more aggressive players to play offensivly, without having to switch teams or wait for the next round, which is a major downfall with Rush.

Rush can end without even seeing the entire map, Conquest puts the whole map into play and rewards you for going around it.

I will say that if one team is competent enough, they can bottleneck the other team into the spawn in Conquest, but that's the same for Rush as well. Both modes suffer from that downfall. However, I believe Conquest can offer more replayability than Rush, and allow a wider variety of tactics to be used, which intices a wider variety of players to join.

[fred]

Malokyte, on 10 March 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

I would argue that because of how well defined the attacking or defending proccess is in Rush, that it easily gets one-sided.

Teams that don't know what to do, or the majority doesn't know what to do, or do well, will get overwhelmed by a team that's even a sliver more competent. This can lead to frustration, and a reduced server population. I've seen a general spike in populations with servers that host Conquest, as the gamemode does not force you to attack the same points over and over again, and instead lets you choose from multiple different targets and paths to reach it. Also, the points are far enough apart in Conquest that defenders cannot defend two points at once without spreading out, allowing more room for attackers to get a foothold, and forcing defenders to up their game instead of just overwhelm by better fortification. This leads to a greater amount of captures, which gives the illusion, or reality, of accomplishment, which is what players want when they play a game.

In addition, because of the rigid defensible points in Rush, the defender has the advantage of destroying all advancing cover, effectivly nulifying all hopes of the attacker even getting near a com-point. It also promotes the defenders to let one point get taken to better defend the remaining point.

Conquest does not reward said tactic, as it would put your team at a disadvantage to defend only 1 point and let the other team take the remaining 2. If anything, it rewards more spontaneous gameplay, which leads to more variation in play styles, more movement around the map, and a much more hectic battle. Both defense and offense is needed to win a Conquest match, which allows players who like to defend to play the way they like, while allowing the more aggressive players to play offensivly, without having to switch teams or wait for the next round, which is a major downfall with Rush.

Rush can end without even seeing the entire map, Conquest puts the whole map into play and rewards you for going around it.

I will say that if one team is competent enough, they can bottleneck the other team into the spawn in Conquest, but that's the same for Rush as well. Both modes suffer from that downfall. However, I believe Conquest can offer more replayability than Rush, and allow a wider variety of tactics to be used, which intices a wider variety of players to join.

+1 only other thing i need to add is on conquest the vehicles spawn less fast so vehicle hors cant just camp in tanks and powerlevel as much
also i lol at malo for writing an essay on it

Edited by fred, 10 March 2010 - 12:11 PM.