criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

Conquest Mode...the fix to top all fixes

Prev1
Conquest Mode in Battlefront 2 would instantly pull this game's reputation out of the cellar. To say adding conquest is the logical move at this point couldn't be more obvious. This is what anyone who ever played Battlefront before DICE or a Battlefield game expected to see from the start of the first game.

It could even work perfectly fine with the current point system for spawning vehicles. You would just pick the point your team controls to spawn a vehicle at.

I'm 100% convinced that a full up conquest mode at launch would even have minimized the loot box controversy. Why? Conquest mode for almost 20 years has provided unmatched moments in gaming whether it's in the original Battlefront games from Pandemic, the Battlefield series from DICE, or other games like Planetside 2. It's open world style warfare where literally anything can happen, and it usually does on a regular basis.

I've seen communities play conquest mode through no mics, gross weapon balance issues, server connectivity issues, and everything in between. The mode is that good, and it's time to make sure it's in Battlefront 2.

Replies

  • Ehh i could care less about conquest mode. I just want balance and bug fixes, my missing credits since launch and new content.
  • If they make it; hopefully, they add it to Arcade as well.

    Definitely they need to do this too. The old PS2/Xbox games had offline conquest mode as I recall.

    Yeah, they did.
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
  • Piscettios
    5374 posts Member
    My big fear is if they do add Conquest, we’ll end up with Operation Metro/Locker type maps and gameplay. :s
    Knights of Gareth
    XBL- JsOnMyFett 13
  • ArchAngeL_777
    1595 posts Member
    edited March 2018
    Piscettios wrote: »
    My big fear is if they do add Conquest, we’ll end up with Operation Metro/Locker type maps and gameplay. :s

    lol yeah. I remember Metro was the beta map for BF3. I was like "no thanks". But then the preorder bonus was the Karkand DLC pack that had the classic BF2 maps, so I caved and didn't regret that lol.

    I think Locker is good, but as a change of pace. The current maps as they are seem to have a lot of locked areas that, if they opened up and placed Conquest points, would make good Conquest maps.

    Thinking of the maps:

    - Kashyyk would be outstanding for conquest with points on the platforms and inside the cruiser.
    - Kamino would be a "Locker" type map, but would be excellent like it was in the 2004 Battlefront.
    - Naboo would be an excellent conquest map with points both inside and outside the palace
    - Yavin 4 with the temple and ruins would make a good conquest map as it was in the 2004 Battlefront.
    - Takodana would be very similar to Yavin 4
    - Jakku would make a great conquest map similar to Kamino with all the ways in and around the Star Destroyer
    - Death Star might not make a good one. If anything, this could be your Operation Metro type slog fest lol
    - Endor I'm not too sure about either. It's not a very open map. Could be a Metro in the making.
    - Starkiller Base would be a good conquest map with points both outside and inside the base
    - Mos Eisley would be a good one just like it was in the 2004 Battlefront
    - Hoth would make a good conquest map with points both inside and outside the base.
    - Crayt I'm not so sure about. It might work, but the outside of the base is so open

    I think that's it right? Overall I think that makes for a very excellent list of conquest maps.
  • Piscettios wrote: »
    My big fear is if they do add Conquest, we’ll end up with Operation Metro/Locker type maps and gameplay. :s

    That'll suck major ****. I was never a fan if those close combat conquest where you'd see nade spams
  • ArchAngeL_777
    1595 posts Member
    edited March 2018
    AsariSith wrote: »
    Piscettios wrote: »
    My big fear is if they do add Conquest, we’ll end up with Operation Metro/Locker type maps and gameplay. :s

    That'll suck major ****. I was never a fan if those close combat conquest where you'd see nade spams

    Yeah the are basically just maps with 3 alleyway choke points with no way to flank around them. Death Star might be the only map in this game I can see that being an issue in. I think maps like Kamino and Jakku have so many ins and outs that choke points in an open conquest mode aren't really possible.
  • Honestly, the update wouldn't even have to drop for the hype meter to spike. DICE would just have to announce "Conquest mode is now coming to all Battlefront 2 ground maps." They'd probably see an instant spike in game sales on that alone, not to mention front page news on every game site likely including StarWars.com.
  • Compo
    59 posts Member
    Completely agree!
    I actually enjoy locker, i think its a great change of pace from other maps.
    Sometimes i just want to shoot some people in the face. reload. then shoot some more in the nutz >:)

    Conquest BADLY needed!
  • AsariSith wrote: »
    Piscettios wrote: »
    My big fear is if they do add Conquest, we’ll end up with Operation Metro/Locker type maps and gameplay. :s

    That'll suck major ****. I was never a fan if those close combat conquest where you'd see nade spams

    Yeah the are basically just maps with 3 alleyway choke points with no way to flank around them. Death Star might be the only map in this game I can see that being an issue in. I think maps like Kamino and Jakku have so many ins and outs that choke points in an open conquest mode aren't really possible.

    That's a huge bummer on my end. I love the death star map itself but it's obvious it's going to be the only map that'll get skipped on a map vote.
  • AsariSith wrote: »
    AsariSith wrote: »
    Piscettios wrote: »
    My big fear is if they do add Conquest, we’ll end up with Operation Metro/Locker type maps and gameplay. :s

    That'll suck major ****. I was never a fan if those close combat conquest where you'd see nade spams

    Yeah the are basically just maps with 3 alleyway choke points with no way to flank around them. Death Star might be the only map in this game I can see that being an issue in. I think maps like Kamino and Jakku have so many ins and outs that choke points in an open conquest mode aren't really possible.

    That's a huge bummer on my end. I love the death star map itself but it's obvious it's going to be the only map that'll get skipped on a map vote.

    We will see. I'm just going off memory. I might be underestimating it, or if they open it up, it could end up as good as Kamino or Jakku.

    At least I hope we will see anyway lol
  • McMast13
    342 posts Member
    Conquest is top of my priority list for this game. I’d love to see it!
  • And for the record, it doesn't of course mean doing away with the other game modes. New maps would be made large enough for Conquest since it's the biggest mode. Then they'd use cutouts of those maps tailored for Galactic Assault, Strike, Blast, and Heroes v Villains.

    This is exactly how Battlefield typically does their maps. They have a large map for 64 player conquest, then they use cutouts of that map for Rush mode and other modes like Domination or TDM.
  • This is the thread you are looking for: https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/83160/we-want-conquest-mode-everyone-who-wants-this-answer-make-this-thread-big#latest (No idea why it's not pinned in general discussion).
    Also Dennis @FireWall has already confirmed Conquest or a Conquest like mode.
    For General Ahsoka Tano!
    h3d5nuo8y0jq.png

  • This is the thread you are looking for: https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/83160/we-want-conquest-mode-everyone-who-wants-this-answer-make-this-thread-big#latest (No idea why it's not pinned in general discussion).
    Also Dennis @FireWall has already confirmed Conquest or a Conquest like mode.

    "Conquest like" isn't going to cut it. That sounds like what they did with Bad Company. That worked back on PS3 and 360 because Bad Company was DICE's first attempt at bringing Battlefield to consoles. Now that we have had full 64 player conquest in BF4 and BF1 expectations will be higher, especially since Pandemic did a full conquest mode on PS2 and Xbox almost 15 years ago.
  • When Dice annouce that they were doing the new battlefront I was so hype !
    I was imagining a battlefield port in the star wars universe...... 32vs32 with at-at at-st and flying in x-wing and then jump of with a jet pack instead of a parachute.... and then they release battlefront with ground token and no conquest with nothing funny to do .... no speeder with c4 stick on it, no squad and no multi seat vehicle,.....
    and then battlefront 2 release with more content , more map, better shooting ,.... but again without the fun factor of battlefield , where you can play competitive, but you can also do stupids thing with friends just for fun

    so yes a conquest is needed , but the games need another producer because Dice will never do competition on their battlefield games,... they are stupid because the hype for star wars is high right now, that is could be the best game for decades
  • acc751
    861 posts Member
    if something isn't broken, don't fix it

    i dont understand why the devs try to "innovate" with these "innovative" systems such as gambling mtx, starfighter assault, and ground assault.

    just rehash the same thing over and over again like nintendo is doing with mario

    (if you were wondering, there is no sarcasm intended in this post, this is 100% serious)
    Many of the arguments we have about this game would not exist if this was a single player focused game like it should have been since day 1.
  • Octavarius
    1107 posts Member
    Piscettios wrote: »
    My big fear is if they do add Conquest, we’ll end up with Operation Metro/Locker type maps and gameplay. :s

    lol yeah. I remember Metro was the beta map for BF3. I was like "no thanks". But then the preorder bonus was the Karkand DLC pack that had the classic BF2 maps, so I caved and didn't regret that lol.

    I think Locker is good, but as a change of pace. The current maps as they are seem to have a lot of locked areas that, if they opened up and placed Conquest points, would make good Conquest maps.

    Thinking of the maps:

    - Kashyyk would be outstanding for conquest with points on the platforms and inside the cruiser.
    - Kamino would be a "Locker" type map, but would be excellent like it was in the 2004 Battlefront.
    - Naboo would be an excellent conquest map with points both inside and outside the palace
    - Yavin 4 with the temple and ruins would make a good conquest map as it was in the 2004 Battlefront.
    - Takodana would be very similar to Yavin 4
    - Jakku would make a great conquest map similar to Kamino with all the ways in and around the Star Destroyer
    - Death Star might not make a good one. If anything, this could be your Operation Metro type slog fest lol
    - Endor I'm not too sure about either. It's not a very open map. Could be a Metro in the making.
    - Starkiller Base would be a good conquest map with points both outside and inside the base
    - Mos Eisley would be a good one just like it was in the 2004 Battlefront
    - Hoth would make a good conquest map with points both inside and outside the base.
    - Crayt I'm not so sure about. It might work, but the outside of the base is so open

    I think that's it right? Overall I think that makes for a very excellent list of conquest maps.

    Yeah metro was enjoyable on BF3 but it was sniperville v grenade spam fest on BF4. At least locker gave you flanking options. I certainly would not want to see a SW version of metro here. You are spot on though Death Star could easily turn into that. Its bad enough finding people to ptfo already.
  • acc751
    861 posts Member
    i used to play bf4 but that was on rare occasions where i couldn't play my pc

    i could buy bf4 again on my pc but i dont want to give ea any money, i'd rather buy it on steam but ofc i cant
    Many of the arguments we have about this game would not exist if this was a single player focused game like it should have been since day 1.
  • t3hBar0n
    5000 posts Member
    Fix what is already broken rather than adding more complexity on a shaky foundation.
  • acc751
    861 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    Fix what is already broken rather than adding more complexity on a shaky foundation.

    or replace what is broken with what is not
    Many of the arguments we have about this game would not exist if this was a single player focused game like it should have been since day 1.
  • tankertoad
    5751 posts Member
    "We're looking into it" "Soon"
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • tankertoad wrote: »
    "We're looking into it" "Soon"

    lol
  • hsf_
    1614 posts Member
    Piscettios wrote: »
    My big fear is if they do add Conquest, we’ll end up with Operation Metro/Locker type maps and gameplay. :s

    lol yeah. I remember Metro was the beta map for BF3. I was like "no thanks". But then the preorder bonus was the Karkand DLC pack that had the classic BF2 maps, so I caved and didn't regret that lol.

    I think Locker is good, but as a change of pace. The current maps as they are seem to have a lot of locked areas that, if they opened up and placed Conquest points, would make good Conquest maps.

    Thinking of the maps:

    - Kashyyk would be outstanding for conquest with points on the platforms and inside the cruiser.
    - Kamino would be a "Locker" type map, but would be excellent like it was in the 2004 Battlefront.
    - Naboo would be an excellent conquest map with points both inside and outside the palace
    - Yavin 4 with the temple and ruins would make a good conquest map as it was in the 2004 Battlefront.
    - Takodana would be very similar to Yavin 4
    - Jakku would make a great conquest map similar to Kamino with all the ways in and around the Star Destroyer
    - Death Star might not make a good one. If anything, this could be your Operation Metro type slog fest lol
    - Endor I'm not too sure about either. It's not a very open map. Could be a Metro in the making.
    - Starkiller Base would be a good conquest map with points both outside and inside the base
    - Mos Eisley would be a good one just like it was in the 2004 Battlefront
    - Hoth would make a good conquest map with points both inside and outside the base.
    - Crayt I'm not so sure about. It might work, but the outside of the base is so open

    I think that's it right? Overall I think that makes for a very excellent list of conquest maps.

    Maps like Crait could have destroyed walkers laying around to reduce the openness of the outside.
  • Hmmm...conquest mode in SWBF2? I dunno....some players don't even PTO in Galactic Assault. Why add more insult to injury with adding more objective based game modes? It's not going to say "Welcome to SWBF2 Conquest - PTO Players Only Game Mode". They already have GA, SA and Strike for objective based game play. I for one have a high PTO mindset and it's very upsetting how some players can just totally ignore objective based gameplay and just farm kills...that's why there's Blast and HvV, it's just for killing. But, we can't dictate how players play their game.
    "Once more, the Sith will rule the galaxy! And... we shall have peace". — Darth Sidious

    Origin ID: -UE-Contagion

    Platform: PC

    hcphed0czknu.png
  • tankertoad
    5751 posts Member
    Hmmm...conquest mode in SWBF2? I dunno....some players don't even PTO in Galactic Assault. Why add more insult to injury with adding more objective based game modes? It's not going to say "Welcome to SWBF2 Conquest - PTO Players Only Game Mode". They already have GA, SA and Strike for objective based game play. I for one have a high PTO mindset and it's very upsetting how some players can just totally ignore objective based gameplay and just farm kills...that's why there's Blast and HvV, it's just for killing. But, we can't dictate how players play their game.

    Thats a terrible argument not to have a fantastic game mode.
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • Compo
    59 posts Member
    When Dice annouce that they were doing the new battlefront I was so hype !
    I was imagining a battlefield port in the star wars universe...... 32vs32 with at-at at-st and flying in x-wing and then jump of with a jet pack instead of a parachute.... and then they release battlefront with ground token and no conquest with nothing funny to do .... no speeder with c4 stick on it, no squad and no multi seat vehicle,.....
    and then battlefront 2 release with more content , more map, better shooting ,.... but again without the fun factor of battlefield , where you can play competitive, but you can also do stupids thing with friends just for fun

    so yes a conquest is needed , but the games need another producer because Dice will never do competition on their battlefield games,... they are **** because the hype for star wars is high right now, that is could be the best game for decades

    That is literally the same as i dreamed it would be! B)

    When i played the first one, i wasnt happy...it was like, what.is.this?? Played the 11hr trial, and left it there.

    Then this one comes out, and although much better, still i feel theyre way off the mark from what could be a truly fantastic game!
  • Hmmm...conquest mode in SWBF2? I dunno....some players don't even PTO in Galactic Assault. Why add more insult to injury with adding more objective based game modes? It's not going to say "Welcome to SWBF2 Conquest - PTO Players Only Game Mode". They already have GA, SA and Strike for objective based game play. I for one have a high PTO mindset and it's very upsetting how some players can just totally ignore objective based gameplay and just farm kills...that's why there's Blast and HvV, it's just for killing. But, we can't dictate how players play their game.

    ..... this is exactly why a conquest mode is needed,... on 32 vs 32 match on battlefield you can have an entire squad that does **** and you can still manage to win....I cannot tell you how many hours i manage to do only stupid things with my friends on BF4 ...... like camping the enemy spawn with land mines or c4 raming tank with buggy or trying to do the longest sniping shot ever done .... all those thing in online battle 32vs32 and i manage to win more often than loosing !!
  • ArchAngeL_777
    1595 posts Member
    edited March 2018
    Hmmm...conquest mode in SWBF2? I dunno....some players don't even PTO in Galactic Assault. Why add more insult to injury with adding more objective based game modes? It's not going to say "Welcome to SWBF2 Conquest - PTO Players Only Game Mode". They already have GA, SA and Strike for objective based game play. I for one have a high PTO mindset and it's very upsetting how some players can just totally ignore objective based gameplay and just farm kills...that's why there's Blast and HvV, it's just for killing. But, we can't dictate how players play their game.

    In conquest mode, the ticket count favors the team that holds the most points. So if their team isn't taking points for them, then they will get farmed instead lol

    Fear of how the community might play is not a good reason at all to leave out Conquest mode. These things have been happening in Battlefield for 15 years. People playing Battlefront aren't completely clueless. lol Most will figure it out and play right.
  • Are we there yet? lol
  • We need conquest mode and PROPER classes.

    Implement conquest and balance everything around it.
  • DrX2345
    2888 posts Member
    What were Metro and Locker? It means nothing to me lol

    Anyway, I'm pretty hyped for Conquest, especially if they make some new maps as well as most of the GA maps. I want some maps like from the old game which is a battle between two capital ships, where you can go to the hangar, get in a ship, and fly across the gap to the enemy ship, get out, capture one of their points and start it as a spawn, then your team can advance... It would be so cool.
    OOM19 wrote: »

    Imagine it

    A horde of Bipedal Millennium Falcons with cheeseburgers for legs
    If there seems to be random words or phrases in my post that don't make sense, blame Autocorrect.
    #COOMCAIBDJF
  • DrX2345 wrote: »
    What were Metro and Locker? It means nothing to me lol
    .

    Bad linear maps with choke points (IMO) for Battlefield.
    I guess Locker wasn’t that awful, Metro was though, do not want. Lol
    Knights of Gareth
    XBL- JsOnMyFett 13
  • Piscettios wrote: »
    DrX2345 wrote: »
    What were Metro and Locker? It means nothing to me lol
    .

    Bad linear maps with choke points (IMO) for Battlefield.
    I guess Locker wasn’t that awful, Metro was though, do not want. Lol

    Agreed.

    Metro = Operation Metro
    Locker = Operation Locker

    Both are maps in Battlefield 4. Operation Metro is actually a Battlefield 3 map brought over to Battlefield 4 in the 2nd DLC pack. No vehicles on either map as they were mostly indoors.

    Operation Metro was mostly inside a train station. 3 flags with B and C inside the train station. It was the typical 3 route map...left, center, and right with no flanking routes. Imo the most unimaginative Battlefield map I've ever seen. Both teams would meet at Flag B, and usually not move from there lol

    Operation Locker is inside a long mountain fortress. Unlike Operation Metro, there was a way to flank by going outside the fortress along one side of it with several places to re-enter the base. There were also a lot more ins and out within the base that allowed the action to crisscross instead of bogging down into choke points like on Operation Metro.
  • If they ever added conquest, I'd never touch boring linear repetitive GA again lol

    WE NEED CONQUEST.
  • Adding in Conquest would revitalize the community's faith in the game.
    ⦗ XBOX GT: EIusive DJ⦘~ "The Knights of Gareth are eternal..." ✔
    \⧹If you happen to have ANY ideas for any hero you desire to have in Battlefront 2, Let me know in a DM!⧸/
    How to make Every Hero Viable in Battlefront 2

    aakkhwbkosde.gif

  • If they ever added conquest, I'd never touch boring linear repetitive GA again lol

    WE NEED CONQUEST.

    Yeah I won't either. Just like I dropped Rush mode in Battlefield when they added Conquest to consoles, especially 64 player conquest.
  • After finally getting to see the whole Endor map, I had to revive this thread. Conquest is a must. Open up the maps, and set us loose on them! lol. 15 years ago, players could handle Galactic Conquest in Battlefront, including kids who played. There's kids playing Planetside 2 all the time, how am I to believe they can't handle Conquest?

    Anyway, after seeing Endor, I've updated my map analysis because Endor would be a great Conquest map:

    - Kashyyk would be outstanding for conquest with points on the platforms and inside the cruiser.
    - Kamino would be a "Locker" type map, but would be excellent like it was in the 2004 Battlefront.
    - Naboo would be an excellent conquest map with points both inside and outside the palace
    - Yavin 4 with the temple and ruins would make a good conquest map as it was in the 2004 Battlefront.
    - Takodana would be very similar to Yavin 4
    - Jakku would make a great conquest map similar to Kamino with all the ways in and around the Star Destroyer
    - Death Star might not make a good one. If anything, this could be your Operation Metro type slog fest lol
    - Endor would be an excellent Conquest map with the AT-AT base at the front and the Imperial fort at the rear of the map.
    - Starkiller Base would be a good conquest map with points both outside and inside the base
    - Mos Eisley would be a good one just like it was in the 2004 Battlefront
    - Hoth would make a good conquest map with points both inside and outside the base.
    - Crayt I'm not so sure about. It might work, but the outside of the base is so open
  • i love CQ but not on every map
  • I'm not sure why the decision was made to leave Conquest out. Like I said, there's kids on Planetside 2, and they aren't confused as to what to do. Planetside 2 is Conquest at a much bigger level.
  • marroos
    121 posts Member
    We will play Conquest sooner in new Battlefield game than in this.
  • marroos wrote: »
    We will play Conquest sooner in new Battlefield game than in this.

    I'm on the fence about that game. I didn't get Battlefield 1 which was the first major Battlefield release from DICE that I have never bought since I started the series way back with Battlefield 2. If it's a WW2 skin on Battlefield 1, I'll pass and just stick with Planetside 2 and Battlefield 4. BF4 still has plenty of servers running.
  • The biggest issue with Galactic Assault is too often you don't get to see parts of the map. It's so linear and there's parts that are too easy to defend. Like I said, I literally just saw the end of the Endor map for the first time this week.
  • Conquest...the one fix to rule them all!
  • If they make it; hopefully, they add it to Arcade as well.

    conquest in Arcade would be wonderful full of capture command posts an objectives. ;)
  • A_C0NFU53D_SH03
    581 posts Member
    edited March 2018
    Conquest mode would be amazing. My dreams would be fulfilled. Actually they'd have to add Leia's slave outfit for that to happen.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!