Conquest

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet but the above is inaccurate. If you download the gametype and look at the settings, both the damage and damage resistance are set to 110%. Also, on hill is unchanged so, all weapons basically do normal damage.

GodlyPerfection actually has a conquest based gametype in his file share with everyone using Armor Lock. Maybe in time and with some more testing this could be brought into the main Conquest gametype. It will change the feel slightly but, change is not always bad.

 

Unchanged simply means that it takes the base traits as what it'll be, not revert back to default.

Armorquest is designed for beginning players. It has been thoroughly tested as such.

 

I'm aware of what unchanged means. I was simply stating that so no body would say to check the traits in the territory as they may differ and actually have 90% damage. It does not so, the damage and damage resistance are both equal there for all weapons do default damage. I have made it a point to test this before posting just to be sure.

I was unaware of this for Armorquest so thank you for pointing that out. I was not stating that it would need testing but that if Armor Abilities tested well for Conquest and did not break the game, I see no reason why they would not have a potential to be added into the main Conquest variant at a later date.

 

I've informed the creator of conquest about this damage issue, and he'll follow it up.

Out of the abilities five break gameplay. i.e they don't contribute to the 'brute force' essence of the map. Armor Lock is good for beginners, but the feel of conquest is so much more fun without it. It is better without AL.

 

Hey just wondering, does the custom powerup do anything anymore?

 

Nice to see conquest make a comeback in Reach! I was a big fan back in Halo 3! How long did it take to get this game-type down to perfection? Any suggestions for rookies looking to make an addicting sub-genre in halo?

 

Thanks for adding eden to the list ♥

Do you have any information when the v2 is going to be released?

 

Why can't conquest have grenade launchers, concussion rifles, and grenades in it?

It seriously needs some more weapon variety, because the way this is it only has spray and pray type weapons that get pretty boring pretty fast to a lot of players like myself. I mean in my opinion, the plasma rifle, plasma repeater, spiker, and assault rifle are all essentially the same weapon because they're so much alike. It would be nice to have a weapon or two that feels different in conquest.

I also don't see why shotguns, swords, and hammers wouldn't be allowed in conquest since they're short range weapons.

I guess the reasoning behind the hammer is that it does splash damage, or can effect more than one player at once, I'm unsure about splash damage. I guess I can understand the theory behind that, but I'm not sure if it would matter that much since it can only do damage just in front of it...

The sword I'm guessing is not allowed due to having a lot of "ammo," so it could get a lot of kills faster than other weapons. And that too would apply to the gravity hammer. Again I see the theory here, but since the sword like the hammer can only do damage just in front of it, I'm not sure how much of a problem it would be.

I guess that was tested though...

But the shotgun I don't get at all, because you can control the ammo and clips.

It has no splash damage, and could be limited to spawning once per a round, with only 1 clip. Why no shotgun?

I think its very disappointing that the people that influence Conquest have chosen to be weapon ****'s, and limit the weapon selection for Conquest to the spray and pray weapons, plus a magnum, dmr, and needle rifle.


Edit:

Also, if you made a large Conquest map, are vehicles allowed in Conquest? Because I think a longer, outdoor Conquest map using tanks would be pretty awesome. There could be anti-tank cannons at each team's spawn hive or transition, and each team could have anti-tank weapons at their hives or transitions to fight a tank in the middle. That would keep the map balanced with either situation where a team was camping the middle with a tank, or trying to spawn kill the other team by charging on with their tank. If there were anti-tank cannons, and anti-tank weapons, then even while one team was tankless the map would remain balanced. Although tanks could be on instant respawn too.

I doubt many people have seriously considered vehicles in Conquest though, sadly.

 

You can have the shotgun because the other team wants to stay away from you f you have it.
The concussion rifle has the same issue as the gravity hammer, I believe and so do grenade launchers and grenades.
Most conquest games don't have vehicles because they break the linear idea behind the whole gametype.
and this:

Ripped straight from the OP

 

However, the is a version two that is under construction and will likely arrive early January (i know, long wait, but the author of conquest is having a holiday break) and that version allows grenades and the custom powerup, which activates armor lock on which ever person who has the CP.

 

I guess the other team wanting to stay away makes some sense. I get the reasoning behind why the shotgun, grenade launcher, and concussion rifle were left out, but I don't think they would hurt gameplay so much that they should be banned from forgers making Conquest maps. Its not that big of a deal I guess though.

Vehicles could be worked into a linear map in a Conquest fashion, at least the slower moving ones. I don't think Warthogs, Ghosts, Mongeese, Falcons, and so on would work correctly for what Conquest tries to achieve. I do think tanks would work correctly though, if the map was designed correctly, and weapons were chosen carefully to help balance the tanks out.

I guess vehicles would have to be done in a spin-off of Conquest because it would feel pretty different simply because a vehicle was there. I think eventually I might make a map and a vehicle conquest spin-off gametype.

I'm not trying to say Conquest is going to be awful because of what was chosen for the gametype options or anything like that though. Once I found out about Conquest back in Halo 3, I wanted to start playing it and make a map or two for it, but I found out about it just a few months before Reach, so I haven't even got to play Conquest yet lol.

 

Conquest does not necessarily limit to you by its conventions. Feel free to create a map outside of these recommendations, however, unless the feel of the map matches to the standard play, it won't really be considered by anyone a Conquest map, merely a spin off.

 

Are there any new Conquest maps yet?

I would like to see them if anyone has posted newer Conquest maps because I'm going to be a Conquest map soon, but I haven't even played Conquest before so I want to look at different maps to be sure I don't screw anything up lol.

 

Yeah, I made one a little while ago, I just haven't gotten around to posting it...

But those in the 'archive' mentioned are all decent maps, so play and look at those for inspiration and guidance.

 

Not as fun as the original conquest.

Yea the first few minutes might not have mattered but at least the team that was down had the opportunity to push hard at the end for a come back. In this version after the halfway point in the round there is no point to push.

Hell half the fun was going for that last push and capturing 4 or all of the territories for the end.

What I was told back when conquest first came around in halo 3 was that it was meant to be a constant push, it was not meant to be a grab the middle and hold.

As far as the map guidelines I got the impression from 'Godly' that if it didn't play much the same as his map it wasn't any good. There was no creative freedom and judging by the LONG list of 'guidelines' and the fact that you have to apply to get your map accepted, nothing has changed.

So long story short, in my opinion conquest is dead. It cannot be duplicated in reach and all the attempts to improve the gametype to make it fit the new options available has only made it worse.

 

That is true, at least in parts, Waylander. The application process is dead, it does not really exist, and in regards to the guidelines, I agree that they are a little built up. No doubt from the length of time Conquest had developed in during H3.

While conquest has certainly lost a great deal of its appeal, I would not go so far to say dead, more so dormant. It's good for the occasional game, just not intensive parties.

 

I can slightly agree with that. The possibility for something better than what we had in H3 is definitely there, but I don't think this is it. About all I can this one being good for is keeping conquest in peoples minds so that one day someone will figure it out. I know I've been trying.

But to be honest even just the occasional game of this just makes me frustrated and angry. Could be my love of the original grudging me against the new, could be I just suck at it (never said I was good lol) Either way I just don't enjoy playing it as it is now.

 

Yeah, there are issues that need to be addressed to make it better. Do you have any suggestions? If you want, I can pass them on to Godly.

I can't remember, but I believe that both gametypes are roughly the same (except the points system). What is it that you like about H3 version than the Reach version?

 

It's the points. Like I said, if all a team has to do is hold three territories for over half the time, the other team has no reason to push because the first team will be far enough ahead that they can't catch up.

And I've already mentioned it to him.