Highly disappointed this year...
-
More frequent (or rotating) Showdowns instead of constant Conquest maps
You realize that there are probably more people who feel the exact opposite of the quoted point.
I'd have no problem with more Showdowns but not at the cost of conquests. No reason they can't do both.
-
Yeah agreed on both points but he likes showdowns. How hard can it be to program some more showdowns or repeatable stuff for everyone
And the reason people hate showdowns is because the sliders are all out of whack in them. Cirque de Soleil fielders with 100 arms, just weird stuff that makes the mode seem horrible
Hit a pitcher in the head with a perfect/perfect and it’ll bounce right to a fielder and you just got triple played
Plus their “pitcher confidence” is way way overpowered it’ll turn your ball into lead
They need to do some tuning
-
@MikeSadlerMusic1_PSN game play really
Is solid !?
🫣
Everything else I agree with. They should have ADDED a 3 or 5 inning game mode, not taken one away.
Also, the events aren’t the same when you don’t really need wins to get the player reward. LAME !!!
-
If they ever sacrifice conquests for showdown, I’m out.
-
Oh God, no never would that be a solution.
More conquests more showdowns. More of everything is needed
-
Conquest is the worse offline, it's so freakin boring, or like the OP said busy work.
Do you know what would make conquest better? Having the AI actually try to win the map. You know, the part that's like the board game Risk. The AI never tries to win. They never try to zerg one of your strongholds and cut it off from reinforcements.It's just brain dead busy work between baseball games.
-
Yep, and it’s artificial length. Wasting your time simulating each location it’s not even fun it’s just dumb. At least in Miniseasons you can go from game to game immediately
If the AI doesn’t even play Risk with you, then what is the point of 100 spaces that need to be conquered
-
Conquest is the worse offline, it's so freakin boring, or like the OP said busy work.
Do you know what would make conquest better? Having the AI actually try to win the map. You know, the part that's like the board game Risk. The AI never tries to win. They never try to zerg one of your strongholds and cut it off from reinforcements.It's just brain dead busy work between baseball games.
This is a cool idea and would make it way more fun. Unfortunately I think we'd see tons of complaints from everyone if they ever tried this.
-
To be fair ,the CPU was way overpowering when it went for territories,really messed up a lot of runs.
Though since they changed it conquest has been very boring -
It’s not even “conquest” it’s “hey I’m sitting here conquer me”
There’s not even a point to it other than spaces that may have a pack prize
The point should be to play baseball, not hit end turn and simulate for 100 spaces. It’s just a tremendous waste of time
-
@PAinPA_PSN typical SDS overcorrection
-
I liked when the CPU actually went out and conquered other strongholds but often they would conquer a few and you would be playing the same team over and over again to finish a map, especially when they still had the whole USA map. There has to be something in between the CPU doing nothing and the CPU conquering half the map.
Showdowns are annoying sometimes but i would never want more showdowns at the expense of conquest. There should be more conquest maps, more showdowns, more diamond quest, and more events.
-
More of everything, as I said. Anyway hopefully everyone let them know through their survey
-
@JenkinMeyer_PSN it’s gotta be a social experiment to see how long people will bark without getting a treat. Then you give them a big belly rub say good boy and they forget all about it.
-
Awe man just lost my old boy, but you’re right
