If we used all of Torias and added two to three more objectives that map would certainly be big enough to play out a Conquest type map from BF4 or BF1. There's a ton of unused terrain in the middle of the map and about 1/4 of the entire map back by attacker and defender DZs is totally out of play. Lots of room to add new objectives.
I don't have 100 hours+ in game yet, so take my opinion on that level but... I like the fact everything in EC right now asks for teamplay. I stopped playing BF specifically because I got tired of conquest and everything just being a zerg rush to kill as much as you could, constantly getting shot in the back when I spawn or getting spawn camped because people run hotlaps around spawn points and pick people off. EC maps right now have different metrics for victory, it's not just your K/(invisible) D ratio. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just saying it's what every other game does. And my guess would be a mode like that would pretty much decimate the Assault/Defend map population and make those modes ghost towns, as it tends to in every game I've played that offers different modes. The teamplay requirements in EC are what make it unique to me, what gives matches an edge (if you actually care about winning and aren't there to just screen cap your kill count.) I get for people that were here from the beginning are probably sick of A/D maps and just want to cut the bullshit and club some seals. For me though, if when I'd started playing EC it was just conquest? I probably wouldn't have put in the hours I already have. So based on what I've seen so far....I'm not really eager to support a mode where people can live out their heavy weapons domination fantasy even further. You see people doing it now and you can more or less ignore them because you know they're not playing the objectives. A mode where I spend all my time trying to kill people camping on top of a wall and mowing people down as they spawn sounds like ass. I do like the idea of Tyranids being added to maps though. That sounds hella fun and like it could really shake up games.
I guess you've never played BF4 or BF1 Conquest because what you're describing is NOTHING like Conquest game mode. Sounds to me like you're describing TDM. Conquest is mostly about capture and control of objectives and working with your squad. Sure kills and deaths plays a role, but then again so do REVIVES, heals and medics for BOTH FACTIONS. Also throwing away lives and playing like a moron doing suicide banzai runs hurts your team because each death is a ticket lost. In Conquest if you turtle too much you lose. If you zerg too much you lose. You have to control a majority of the objectives, feel out how your opponents are playing and adapt while also communicating with the rest of your team, or at least see what your team is doing(or not doing) and your squad has to change tactics accordingly to ensure you're holding a majority of the objectives the entire match. Conquest game mode in Battlefield games isn't like anything you're describing, not by a million miles.
I know what it's like. Been playing BF for years. It's this except you can't lose early because people want to farm kills instead of play the objectives, and both sides get tickers. I see way more team fights at points in EC than in your garden variety BF game. People actually stay with points who aren't just sniping in EC, it's kind of refreshing.
1. No sniper class in EC. Game Mechanics really dont facilitate sniper game play. 2. Players ignore objectives in EC all the time and/or ignore game mechanics and just farm kills. 3. EC is very easy to zerg as attackers and/or shut down attackers as defenders with the match being decided in the opening 3 minutes of play. 4. I'm sick as hell of having to attack and defend on zerg conducive maps. Conquest 2.0(make it better than BF) would be a refreshing change of pace.
#1. I'll remember that the next time I get killed by a Stalker Bolter or Deff Kannon or Las Cannon at B from A. #2. Sure, happens in every game. At least EC though eventually gets most people fighting in the same spot, regardless of why. #3 Seen it, yeah. #4. I get that, which is why I mentioned it in my post. I don't think it's a bad idea per se, but I am worried about what it would do to the mode(s) I do enjoy. Like I said, I've played plenty of FPS where these kinds of modes are completely undercut by Conquest. Happened in BF plenty so they just quit making other modes except TDM. I like EC the most (other than it being 40k) because the maps really remind me of Enemy Territory, which I loved playing. It shook out about the same way there: attackers would lose in around 5 mins at the first objective if they didn't have their shit together. Or Red Orchestra, which also focused heavily on actual team play to get things done.
#1. Two of the Three you listed are "anti vehicle" weapons... go figure. Hopefully that horse crap gets sorted out sooner than later. Stalker's nothing like sniping in BF games, not even close. Stalker "tracking" moving targets with the mouse while using the scope is nearly impossible. The artificial delay between trigger pulls for the Stalker makes the weapon unusable for me. I loved DMRs in BF but can't stand trying to use the Stalker it's so awkward and counter intuitive. Red Orchestra was kick ass I"d love to see Squad Leaders in EC have the ability to call in Arty and/or Close Air Support a few times a match.
Battlefield 2 did the same thing, you could call vehicle drops, supply drops (ammunition and health regen), UAV support or an artillery strike - with 64 players in the map and no performance drops.
