Is anybody still using the conquest beta?

[dtboyle66]

Asking to see if anybody is interested in starting a conquest game.

[Menixm]

it's pretty buggy and not like "minor annoying bugs", like "you get softlocked" bugs.

Though, it is pretty fun. I heard a lot of the testers/the dev saying deathblobs were an issue that make the skirmish gameplay bad, but I really don't understand this. If you are able to move on the strategic layer in order to assemble a deathblob... great! You *should* win. It does emulate that pretty well.

Performance with lots of ships does degrade heavily, though, so perhaps that's what they were talking about.

[BeondTheGrave]

No you were correct the first time re: deathblobs. The problem experienced in testing was that most testers would amass fleets of BBs which would then stomp anything they came up against *except* another BB blob. The core of the problem was that fleet variety died out when even one player decided to go for a blob. There were, and probably still are, parts of the discord that discussed potential changes to fix this. But for whatever reason, and that reason has been debated to death here, on Reddit, and on the discord, the dev felt that imposing structural limitations on blobbing undermined the kind of mode he was working on (and was perhaps too much work, required too much reconcepting of the whole mode?) so it was canned. The underlying subtext, to me, is that conquest was not really designed to be a PVE mode but rather a scenario generator for longer form PVP games. BB-blob-as-win-state makes sense in a PVE campaign, but sucks ♥♥♥♥ if youre in a PVP game and have to play out the losing side of a half dozen BB stomps before you get the endgame screen. My guess is that the hangup was in contemplating ways for players to come back from near defeat without also abandoning fleet variety for the death blob that wasn't just 'GG WP.'

[Tuna]

Yeah conquest worked if you roleplayed it and either intentionally kneecapped both teams compositions, or just accepted the power-fantasy. As an actual strategic mode, there was no strategy, the optimal playstyle existed and just by foreheading at the enemy you won.

Most games got decided within 2-3 rounds, and then took 12 rounds of losing harder before the actual screen showed up (if you didn't just surrender). There was no realistic way to come back from a single bad fight.

Devs and testers couldn't figure out a way to fix it that wasn't arbitrarily putting weird limits on you. Around the time we started proposing "having too many points in a fleet starts debuffing your rate of fire (somehow)" was pretty much when we realized the nail got put in the coffin a while ago.

Thats why the recycled version thats planned will be singleplayer but actually this time, because then you dont have to worry about PvP optimizing the actual hell out of the game, and you can impose more limits easily.

[MK]

The only fleet building/war campaign game known to me that managed to create an interesting long campaign that allows you to recover from losses and not to not result in fleet blobbing and steamrolls is Rule the Waves 3.

In a PVP environment? Keeping it exciting, while staying competive even after winning battles or gaining an advantage. There is almost nothing out there. Most multiplayer campaign strategy games are decided decisively with the first big moves.

You want to reward the player that scores early victories and employs good early strategy, without severly punishing the losing player and allowing him a comeback. Assuming that you have similar capable players (more competent player are even more likely to score early and to dominate) first victories/bad choices will likely decide the outcome of most of these games.

There is not a single PVP campaign game coming to my mind that ever achieved an exception of this likely outcome, despite some fun/exotic campaign modes like multiplayer "diplomacy for all, one winner takes it all" modes where weaker players might betray/ally in order to beat a dominating player.

When it comes to PVP campaign/conquest if not somebody comes up with some new genius ideas we are mostly limited to bite into the sour apple or put an emphasis on the tactical battles without rewarding players too much for victories in an operational/strategic sense. In other words do not give them tactical advantages like bigger fleets, better tech etc. in tactical battles as this will only lead to a snowball effect.
Rather offer a series of fair tactical battles with no/little aquired advantages (i.e. basically like eSport best out of x matches mode). The player who accumulates wins early simply has the advantage that he has more to lose, thus more tactical freedom, and less (or sometimes more) pressure wile the losing player will see his morale challenged but might show more motivation to pull of some raffinesse.

[dtboyle66]

Just want to say, i tried out RTW3. And I absolutely love it, thanks!