Conquer Club

On maps where the basic strategy is to stack and strike first (for the most part) is it possible to be a 'specialist' on them? I'm sure it may be the case in 1v1s where an experienced player may easily overcome a novice, but what about team games where each side contains a player who knows the basic strategy. Does it just boil down to luck when the stack strikes?

Is there anyone on CC who springs to mind when you think of a quality team conquest player? Someone who feels at home on any of the AoR maps and others of that ilk. I'd be interested to know if it's possible to have an outstanding record playing team games on such maps, or whether it ends up (over time) being a 50-50 kind of record due to the nature of the gameplay and the 'hit or miss' dice.

Das schloss, if you have a good team - you can easily win well over 50% even on 8 man doubles. Maps that allow for blocking technique's and other means of prevention, you can win yourself from blocking the others capturing the objective...

TheCrown on Das Schloss comes to mind immediately.

What if we specify the subject to Conqest Maps with only 1 starting position, like the AoR maps. I think CoF's theory might come closer in these games, but I'm by far not experienced enough to even make an educated guess. Anyone?

Innyafacce or Namilian

take Feudal War as an example. You stack one of the team players, but you need to gather as many clues as you can before you attack to make sure you are attacking the right castle.. AoR, I play 2 only.. not good at 1 and 3.. you can also figure out where your opponent is through the log. it's obvious enough, but if he got the resource pair first your chance will be decreased. you can still win if you got yours before it's too late, especially if the opponent is not good enough to read the game log and find ya. I dunno if monsters is considered a conquest map or not. it's the kind of games in which you have to be aggressive instead of stacking. and whoever gets the powerstone first will have 90% chance to win the game. it is decided too early then takes ages to end. but on that map, mistakes are barely affordable.

Many women I know are great at sitting and waiting to build someone's hopes up then when they think they are doing good - BAM! The women squash their dreams and kick nuts.

I've always tried to make conquest maps that reduce as much as possible the viability of the stacking + waiting strategy... I don't know how well I've succeeded but at least Antarctica seems to reward aggressive play more than most conquests, although I'm not sure because I kinda suck at it...

natty dread wrote:I've always tried to make conquest maps that reduce as much as possible the viability of the stacking + waiting strategy... I don't know how well I've succeeded but at least Antarctica seems to reward aggressive play more than most conquests, although I'm not sure because I kinda suck at it...

I played Antarctica. according to my experience (which is pretty limited tbh), it rewards the team who waits and stacks longer because you need a good stack to reach the center and start taking bases for elimination.. aggressive players should lose because they leave nothing at their own bases, which makes it easier to get eliminated.

All the Ages maps... Daydream... period...-el Jesus negro

First of all, sunny games on conquest maps suck.

When you're playing team games on conquest maps, I do not think it's just luck. Especially when not all of the starting positions are filled. When not all the starting positions are filled, you need to be able to figure out where people are and what they're doing. That's where the skill lies.
Examples:

Feudal War Doubles
New World Triples
Feudal Epic Triples
Clandemonium Triples and Quads

And as far as that goes, I feel like happyfeet and I are pretty good at King's Court Doubles. We have an over 70% win rate. And my kill ratio on the map is 75%.

Pirlo wrote:

natty dread wrote:I've always tried to make conquest maps that reduce as much as possible the viability of the stacking + waiting strategy... I don't know how well I've succeeded but at least Antarctica seems to reward aggressive play more than most conquests, although I'm not sure because I kinda suck at it...

I played Antarctica. according to my experience (which is pretty limited tbh), it rewards the team who waits and stacks longer because you need a good stack to reach the center and start taking bases for elimination.. aggressive players should lose because they leave nothing at their own bases, which makes it easier to get eliminated.

Definitely disagree with Pirlo on that one. Advantage goes to the person/team who is aggressive and gets the higher deployment.

happy2seeyou wrote:Many women I know are great at sitting and waiting to build someone's hopes up then when they think they are doing good - BAM! The women squash their dreams and kick nuts.

chapcrap wrote:

Pirlo wrote:

natty dread wrote:I've always tried to make conquest maps that reduce as much as possible the viability of the stacking + waiting strategy... I don't know how well I've succeeded but at least Antarctica seems to reward aggressive play more than most conquests, although I'm not sure because I kinda suck at it...

I played Antarctica. according to my experience (which is pretty limited tbh), it rewards the team who waits and stacks longer because you need a good stack to reach the center and start taking bases for elimination.. aggressive players should lose because they leave nothing at their own bases, which makes it easier to get eliminated.

Definitely disagree with Pirlo on that one. Advantage goes to the person/team who is aggressive and gets the higher deployment.

Can't argue, my experience is not wide enough!