The test has been completed. Here is the data. 100% Damage on Faction: Link to the Carnage Report 75% Damage on Faction: Link to the Carnage Report The following table shows total kills, kills by team, the kill breakdown by weapon, melee, and grenade (W/M/G), the number of double kills and their percentage of the total kills, the % of kills that were melees, and the % of kills that were assisted. Kills Assists W/M/G Double Kills Blue926758/20/14 100% Red985866/22/9 Total 190125124/42/23 16 double kills for 8% 22% melees, [br] 66% assists Kills Assists W/M/G Double Kills Blue999461/30/8 75% Red737339/26/7 Total 172167100/56/15 7 double kills for 4% 37% melees, [br] 97% assists Here are the conclusions that I draw from this data. The most striking realization was the fact that 97% of kills were assisted in the 75% damage game. That can mean two things. Either players relied more on teamwork than the other game, or more likely, when they fought someone and died, a teammate showed up and finished off the enemy. As predicted, the total number of kills was higher in the game with 100% damage. Also as predicted, the total number of melees was higher in the game with 75% damage. Looking at the tool of destruction, 7/10 people had the AR as their ToD in the 100% damage game. And 6/9 people had the melee as their ToD in the 75% damage game. This evidence clearly supports the fact that in small maps like Conquest, players will end up punching each other much more often when they have reduced weapon damage. Headshots made up 11% of the kills in the 100% damage game, and 10% of the kills in the 75% damage game. But if we ignore Cosmic Rick's headshots (3 in 100%, 11 in 75%), the headshot percentage changes to 10% in the 100% damage game, but only 4% in the 75% damage game. Those numbers tell me that people used the BR and the sniper rifles much less often when they played the 75% damage game. It also tells me that Cosmic Rick loved the BR in the 75% damage game. (Why, Rick? You really messed up my stats in that game!) So basically 75% damage means that players melee much more often and rely on skill-based weapons such as BRs and snipers less often. Because of the nature of the maps, any team with fewer players is at a severe disadvantage. And if skill-based weapons are less effective, it takes away any chance that the smaller team has to win based on skill. Final Thoughts: I guess it comes down to personal preference. The Conquest game with 75% damage means that it's easier for less skilled players, and the fights often come down to melees. Also, the reduced damage can confuse players who are familiar with the default game mechanics of Halo, but aren't familiar with Conquest's settings. The Conquest V2 game with 100% damage means that there are more opportunities for skilled players to make an impact on the game. Also, there is a wider variety of weapons used. To me, the preference is obvious, but I can see how some players might get attached to the 75% damage version. Please post opinions your opinions. And if you have opinions on the custom powerup settings, please post those. _________________________________________________ And here is the original post As many of you know, Conquest is a popular gametype here on Forge Hub. For those of you who don't know what Conquest is: The intended game is an intense rush toward the center where long, heated battles take place as both teams attempt to push into the opposing team's turf. Here are the problems I have with the gametype: #1: Reduced Weapon Damege (75%) It takes longer to kill an enemy, so players often resort to melees to finish of weakened enemies. It gets boring quickly, especially with the melee update that causes both players to die on simultaneous punches. And since Conquest maps tend to be small for the number of players in the game, the encounter areas are already crowded. It becomes a boxing match because players know that punching will kill faster than shooting, and they are already practically within punching range because of the size of the map. I think Bungie has already done an excellent job balancing weapon/grenade damage, weapon range, melee damage, and player health. I think that modifying the damage ultimately unbalances the game dynamics. It changes the play style of players, and makes the game less enjoyable. Not to mention, that most of us have already honed our skills to the point that we know how many bullets a guy needs to take before he'll die. When you start messing with that, you confuse and frustrate players. When I hit someone with a brute shot grenade and them melee them, they should die. #2: Custom PowerUp Traits In the Conquest gametype, the custom powerup is set to give the player 150% speed for 10 seconds. Unless I'm mistaken, those are the default traits applied to the custom powerup. In a game like Conquest, 150% speed doesn't really help at all. The custom powerup should instead be set to have traits that might come in handy for a Conquest game. Map makers don't need to put custom powerups into their maps, but at least there would be some cool traits applied to the powerup if they chose to add it. I think it should instead be normal speed, but 150% damage and 75% gravity for 10 seconds. If a map maker chose to incorporate the custom powerup into a Conquest map, he could place it so players can get an extra damage boost or so they could jump higher and access areas that are unreachable by the regular players. That could add a cool dynamic to a Conquest map. Leaving the custom powerup traits at default was a huge oversight. My Suggestion: I'd like to work with some players who know and enjoy Conquest to determine whether or not normal damage is better than the current 75% damage. It's true that less damage makes the fights last longer, but Conquest maps are already pretty intense. Besides, it's frustrating for new players when they don't realize why people aren't dying when they should. If this is ever going to catch on to a larger population, the weapon and health settings should be left at default. If enough people like the normal damage version, we should replace Conquest with a similar gametype, possibly calling it "Contention." I would host the gametype on my file share for a short period of time so people can replace Conquest if they choose to. But I prefer to leave gametypes off of my file share, and save the slots for maps, so it won't be on there forever. Please post comments, suggestions, or your offers to help test the Contention gametype.
sounds logical, and reasonable. I've played a few Conquest games before and actually didn't even notice the 75% damage. However, i completely agree that with the auto-update, and its affects on the melee system, Conquest does need a make-over. I also like the idea of the power up giving you that extra little leaping power, which can change the game and makes it more worth while for players to seek than it is now. Count me in Furious, I cant play tonight, but I'm usually free each evening (minus Mondays).
I will be free basically whenever if you want to test this out. Although my schedule is getting more limited since I have to go back to school Spring Break is over. But onto the suggested changes. I love Conquest the way it is. But I see where you are coming from on these. The custom power ups are not used on any conquest maps I have played. But it seems that, if the custom power up where to change to your suggestion it would be placed symmetrically, which in most conquest maps cases would be in the middle of the map. This would cause for one person to charge into the middle before his team (because they are capturing the first few territories) eliminating teamwork. A charge to the middle is already caused because of the middle territory. I don't se any further reason why you would need to get people to come to the middle. If anything put the custom power up out of the way. Although this would cause a problem since this also discourages teamwork. While your teammates are fighting over territories you would be off getting the power up.
Me too. I love Conquest, but there's some irritating traits in it. And as Ghost puts it, once Spring Break is over, I have to go back to that hellish institution known as school.
Yes but once you have the powerup, you could lay the smack down. There would be a trade-off. You'd spend some time to go get it, but you'd gain some extra damage. And it wouldn't have to be placed in the center. Imagine one powerup on each side where it allows the player to jump up to a high perch and grab a sniper rifle. Each team would get the powerup, so each team has to decide who goes up for the sniper. And then once they get up there, they have to kill the enemy player who grabbed the other powerup. It might add a cool twist to the game if your team is down a player because he is up sniping, but he is getting a lot of kills so your team might have an easier chance at capturing the center. Or what about a custom powerup located in the dead center of the map but set to spawn at 3 minutes? With the round time set at 3 minutes, the powerup only comes into play at the very end of the round and only if there is sudden death. That might be interesting, but it might suck. Anyway, the point is that there are a ton of things you could do if you had the custom powerup option available. Some of the ideas would be good and some bad. But at least we'd have the option. And you're right, Conquest might be better as it is now, with the 75% damage. But I want to get a few test games done, just so I know.
I like the idea of being able to jump up to a sniper perch, but knowing most players they will jump up there get the sniper and jump back down. Also about your custom power up spawning during sudden death at the middle of the map. My experience is that the team trying to capture the power up trait have easier access to the middle, because either they are trying to capture the territory, thus them being able to get the power up and making it easier for them to captrue the territory. Or they have pushed their way into enemy territory making it again easier for the attacking team to get the power up.
Well, the placement of the powerup is the responsibility of the map author. They don't even need to use one. I just wanted to illustrate the fact that we could do some cool things with it, if the game variant had different traits. You're talking about a map thing, and I'm talking about a game variant thing. But either way, I'm going to bed. I hope theres some cool stuff to read here and over in Van Nevis in the morning.
About the custom power up. I like the idea of adding damage rate, but I don't like the idea of lowering gravity for the purpose of allowing access to high goods. I just think that the fewer things you have to explain to your party before the match, the better. I think a key evaluation of a map (and gametype) is how intuitive it is. Think about it this way.. you're saying grab the custom, grab the sniper, it can only be done once until the objects respawn, tactical consideration added. Well, when you grab just the sniper, it's gone anyway. All you do is add an extra hoop to jump through to get it.
Well when the damage is lowered, if you get taken by surprise, you have a chance to fight back, rather than auto-death like in most cases. Plus after playing the helm's deep map with friends with full damage, it was very difficult to capture a point if everyone was concentrating on it, resulting in mass death and in most cases complete wipes of everyone on the point in less than 10 seconds. Just something to consider.
I agree that changes need to be made, but like Pred, I really think we need to keep the accessibility of the gametype. Anyway, here's an idea I had. Keep the upped damage for the custom powerup, but instead of lowered gravity, make it like my old "golden boy" powerup. Throw in a little shield leech, just a little, and maybe a forced color of gold so you can know which guy is the rambo you have to stay away from. With upped damage and just a little bit of shield leech, the guy can really lay the smack down on the other team, but only if he keeps his guns blazin. I don't think this would be too powerful either, because in order to keep his shields full, he's gonna have to stand in the open firing at the other team. Add to that his bright, shiny-ness and he's a pretty big target for the other team and even with shield leech shouldn't be too hard to take down. This really keeps the feel of the gametype I think and adds a fun new aspect to it. I almost never jump while playing conquest; conquest is for running and gunning, and pushing through to the other team's side. What do you guys think? Good idea?
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm starting to really consider those things as I build new maps. So maybe the "jumping to get the sniper" thing would be a bad thing, but people usually equate the custom powerup with some type of benefit, so it could still be placed for the added weapon damage and you probably wouldn't need to explain it. And again, the traits are just there for if a particular map builder wanted to try to incorporate it into the game. I agree. But full damage might also promote teamwork. If you know that you are not going to live for the 10 seconds that you need to capture the territory, you're less likely to run off by yourself. You'll know to stick with your team. So maybe full damage would make the game more tactical. Some people like the "run forward, shoot, die, repeat" aspect of Conquest. So maybe it'll come down to personal preference. Ha ha, Neverless, I already made it forced color gold. And you are referring to shield vamparism not shield leech. Shield leech is when your shields drain slowly over time. Shield vamparism is when you can recharge your shields by taking away the shields of an enemy. But I'm worried that extra damage and stealing the shields of enemies could be too powerful. But it would certainly be too powerful in a game of 75% damage. But I'd like to do some testing. Perhaps Tuesday night we could do a game on Faction or Vertquest with 100% damage, and then one with 100% damage and a custom powerup.
Hmm... I like the ideas... but I think it'll be difficult to decide on which traits to apply to the custom powerup. What works best is usually contextual based on the map it's in. I do think a little shield vampirism would make for an interesting game dynamic, though. And I plan on publishing Vertkwest sometime today. I won't be around tuesday night until late, but feel free to try it out for some variation from Faction.
Oops! Yeah, I meant shield vampirism. I'd really like to test that idea out though. I don't remember the different values you can set the powerup traits for, but if everyone had 100% damage, and the custom powerup only gave you +10-15% added damage and you had a minimal 10% shield vampirism, then I don't think it would be too bad. Definately something that would need some tests though to perfect.
I think Conquest should be updated for sure. The CPU would be a great asset, and another part of the map to battle for. I was going to suggest having it start later in the game, but you already beat me to it. I'm not sure if upping the default player damage will make that much of a difference other than add to the body count. Smaller maps mean the melee is used more often, there's no other way around it. Maybe the possibility of reducing player speed would be just as in order. It might make the 'shoot, run up, melee, continue' aspect lessen a little. It would definitely make the CPU more coveted, for sure. But I understand your desire to want to keep the default settings to make things more intuitive. And the idea of lighter gravity for the CPU is an interesting one, too. Imagine a map that has a normally unreachable, faster access tunnel to the enemy base. A player could jump up there, grab a lone portable lift, and use it to help some of his teammates up to this area to add a whole flanking strategy to the mix. I think that would be awesome and allow for some more varied map designs. I'm all for doing some testing of the ideas you have this Tuesday. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the Conquest map I made on Standoff is available too. If indeed we are able to permanently update Conquest, I vote to keep the name the same. It's a great name and since it's already sort of established it would be easier to do what the MLG people do and just add a V2 if necessary.
I respectfully disagree. Consider a game with 10% damage. Weapons take forever to kill people, so you spend the vast majority of the encounter running around, jumping, and punching each other. Or if you do use a weapon, you'll have to reload 3 times before the guy dies. Assassinations and stickies are incredibly powerful because they are instant kills. Any time you are outnumbered 2 to 1 you will almost certainly die because someone will be able to assassinate you. Now consider a game with 300% damage. Melees would almost never happen, because players would be dead from AR fire very quickly. The player with the faster reflexes or better aim will win the vast majority of encounters. Stickies would also be worthless, because it would take longer to throw the grenade and for it to explode than for you to just shoot your enemy to death. If you are outnumbered 2 to 1, you have a much better chance of survival because you might be able to evade one attacker just long enough to eliminate his teammate. Of course these are extreme examples, but the illustrate the change in gameplay and player strategies when you start messing with the damage/health settings. In my opinion, Bungie already did a ton of work to balance weapons, grenades, and melees. And if you changed speed to help balance out the damage or map size, you're still messing with the settings that players are quite familiar with. I didn't think of that. Conquest V2 would be better because players of the other version would instantly know what the game is about.
You bring up a valid point, sir. I'll be interested to see how the upped damage percentage changes things. In case you weren't aware, MLG upped their player damage to 110%. Might be worth trying as well. At any rate, you should be able to make a very strong case for having the gametype updated.
Well presented. I wasnt a fan of conquest, and the damage was the reason why. Revolved around beatdowns too much, and with enclosed levels, made it very difficult to get kills with the sniper.. High damage resistance meant that the best weapon to use was the starting one, the AR, which defeated the point of weapon placement.
I've noticed that too, but I forgot about it. ARs are actually better than a BR in short range, unless the BR guy can get a melee/headshot combo. Conquest maps seem to be always short range. And with reduced damage, the melee/headshot combo doesn't score a kill right away, at least I don't think so.
I have never liked conquest. it always comes down to the middle territory, and its basically the same battle the entire time. very very boring.
Alright, my take on the little tests we did: The only thing I noticed was that it only took 1 brute shot and then a punch to kill somebody instead of 2 brute shots and a punch. Not a huge difference, though I thought it played a bit better with normal damage (more familiar). The (vampirism?) custom powerup is a good addition, and I think that alone makes an upgrade worthwhile. It has to spawn pretty often to really make a difference, though. Also, the games reaffirmed my love for Faction... and shooting the other dark through the holes in Vertkwest. Hmm... what else? Oh, I have a still-glitched version of Vertkwest ready to add a custom powerup to if need be. Let me know when the new setting are established.