Business idea: Conquest without ticket bleed
...until one team controls all of the flags, which should trigger either a massive ticket bleed or a short timer to the round's end. This would obviously make everything better. If it's not obvious t...
Forum Discussion
Im assuming your talking about battlefield 4? firstly, what your suggesting is essentially COD domination. however, I think that would work on a small scale conquest when there's only 3 or 4 points to capture, because even on standard conquest on the large scale, the matches usually only take about 45 min to an hour to complete, which gives people with different playstyles(recon, engineer, etc) ample time to rack up kills and XP or complete challenges. plus you have to consider, depending on the map, battlefield 4 matches are infamous for ending up with one side getting pushed back into they're spawn and camped/farmed, and shortening the games like you say would give the camped side no chance to get out again. so it would have to be an entirely separate game mode, with specific maps on the small scale. to summarize so while your suggestion isnt a bad one, it would end up being a copy paste from COD, as well as pretty restricted from what battlefield is and is known for.
Thanks for the reply. I believe either I don't understand modes in CoD, or you misunderstood my words somewhat, and I believe I skipped over defining some concepts. By ticket bleed I mean when the team holding less flags has their scoring altered systematically in the worsening direction relative to the other team. So in other words not the balance of kills, but the other thing decinding the score. As far as I know, and I just re-checked, in CoD domination the scoring is decided only by ticket bleed and it does engage smoothly, as in not all flags need to be captured for it to start ticking.
So what I propose is almost the polar opposite, to decide the scoring mostly by the balance of kills. Flags would provide spawn points, unlike in domination modes, and battle aids such as vehicles. You are right that it would either need to be a separate mode or be tested out in a environment like CTE, conquest is too established to fiddle with it otherwise. I didn't specifically mean BF4, that is actually one game that I didn't play for a while. Generally though I find the conquest experience not to differ too much between games, the rules are almost the same and between various Battlefields on most maps I feel like I have had enough of the mode. The spawn traps occuring quite frequently is actually good, if chances for those were too slim the mode would play out as an extremely large Team Deathmatch -- which seems to be how many players approach Conquest anyways, which makes the mode frustrating for parts of the team caring about the outcome. Trying to get out of a spawn trap while the score is ticking against you, knowing that you have next to no chances to even that score out later on is another frustration that I am trying to iron out with this concept. Somehow I find losing a round of Rush acceptable, whereas losing a round of Conquest either closely or bigly I find far harder to accept. Conversely winning a round of Rush is extatic, whereas winning a round of Conquest is a bit "meh". I got into Battlefield through the excellent Bad Company 2 and think very highly of the Rush experience that had been offered there. I think that bringing such knife's edge dynamics as I described to the Conquest mode would make it play a bit more like Rush or Operations/Breakthrough and help with the frustrating parts. The playerbase would need to relearn playing Conquest somewhat though.
I do not however believe that this experience would be restricted to working well on small maps or be like CoD, rather I see it as being as Battlefield as Battlefield has ever been Battlefield.
Featured Places
