Alternative Evolution of Invasion mode

Suggestions
1

Improving/Evolving Invasion mode

TLDR: Adding attrition victory in addition to Pulse Rush, increasing value of all squad types, Potential to slow down a battle Introducing the ability to pre fortify, and the use of mechanics that there often isn’t time to use, like shovels.

Let me start by saying, I have loved invasion mode for a long time. Good job. As it stands, invasion mode is all about pulse rushing and momentum. As an experience than can be very rewarding but can also very punishing/boring. As more and more powerful gear comes into play, it becomes very messy and spammy and amplifies the need, and the time window to pulse rush. Confrontation is a good evolution that I appreciate. Now this might be an unpopular opinion, but Id like to express it anyway.

In the interest of evolving/improving this, I suggest that mechanics that foster pulsing, rushing, and spamming are adjusted by tuning “Attrition”. The underlying causes are Unlimited defender spawns(creates the need, and the ability to pulse rush), and rally point proximity. This evolution will focus mainly on Tickets and making Attrition a two-way street.

Biggest Issues

  • unlimited defender tickets; is the cause of the need and ability to pulse rush. In turn heavily influences the need for full autos, flamers and weapons effective at overwhelming waves in quick bursts.
  • unknown capture modifiers, ticket costs, and reinforcement increases. Need to become uniform and known
  • Certain mechanics, classes, play types get left out.

Ticket Change

Defenders, instead of having unlimited tickets, Will be issued with 300(example) Tickets for each individual objective. Once those 300 tickets have been used up, anyone Spawning will be put back to the next objective in line which gives them a chance to prepare the position (fortify). This will be a grey zone spawn, and they will not be able to re-join the fight over the previous objective until it has fallen, and the battle moves on. So, while they will suffer not having unlimited reinforcements, they will bolster the defense they can mount through fortification. (also any tickets not used on previous point will be added to the next point, simulating forces pulling back). This is in the most basic form, Number of tickets per point can be dynamic, based on how many the attackers have left, etc.

*NOTE as the defenders now have tickets, It may be viable to allow defenders to know the next point to defend and prepare in advance at will.

image
image1033×619 114 KB

Battle Dynamics

How does this change the dynamics. While pulse rushing can still be effective for both sides, since it is limited by resources, it will allow other options. While defenders can keep on counter attacking to delay and push the attackers back, they won’t be able to sustain it, but if they manage to delay the point from being taken for the whole allocated number of tickets, they will buy time to fortify the next objective.

Attackers simultaneously can still pulse rush a point and take it before the defenders run out of tickets, but it also means they have the option to methodically clear them or bleed them of their tickets also if they are outmatched. So, while rushing will still be a core strategy, Attrition becomes equally viable.

In turn this increases the value/contribution of engineers, vehicles, aircraft and long-range troops, and allow other styles of play to contribute via attrition. Rifles for example are effective weapons for attrition, but not suited to Burst rushing/clearing. Every plane strike contributes to attrition, making them more influential, and increasing the need to counter them. Same goes for tanks. Engineers will be hugely valuable.

Extra Benefits

  • Fun and interesting mechanics that dark flow have added will finally have a place and time to use, Building, digging etc etc
  • No longer need to stealth tweak capture times, ticket costs and reinforcement increases. Can all be uniform and the players know what they have to work with.

Extra Suggestions from comments

  • Deaths on objective do not cost tickets
  • Rally points cost tickets to spawn on, starter base does not
  • defender ticket pool starts small and ramps up to become a final stand action.

I also propose rally points minimum distance to point be increased to 80 meters (although this may not be necessary, two way attrition may be enough).

This is the concept in basic form. All variables are of course tweakable.

22 Likes
2

While I like some of your points, I see a few glaring flaws such as:

  • There will always be “Leyroy Jenkins” kind of teammates. We all know the type. The ones that run into the meatgrinder and blow through an easy 15+ squads per game. With your new setup, defensive teams would get punished even harder for teammate stupidity and lack of any sense.

  • The players that actually KNOW how to fortify are few and far in between (I myself am one of them). While your goal may be to reduce spam type tactics, you would quickly rather see an increase in them, as players without the tactical sense that is needed for good fortification, will be causing major issues.
    Either they will be spamming fortifications down in every corner, which neither offense nor defense wants to deal with, OR they will be trolls, breaking down fortifications regardless of if they are helpful and well placed or not.

  • I know a lot of people dislike the infinite spawns of defense, but unless there were a better system (which I see you are trying to achieve) is in place that not only lets the GOOD engineers set up in advance, but also lets the defenders fall back into position AND know where emplaced weapon nests are, defense needs the those tickets to even have a chance to fight.

  • Lastly, if the necessary changes went into place that allowed fortification and limited defender tickets, you would need something more to incentivize players to actually play in an intelligent way AKA teamwork. Winning and Losing doesn’t bother a lot of people. Rather they are ONLY interested in the scores at the end of the game.
    (A good example are those that complain that killing planes, which can deal devastating blows, gives “too many points”.)
    What I propose on the incentivized teamwork side is a significantly increased (Like double) points given for teamwork based actions.
    This includes things like revives, healing, supplying ammo, usage of emplaced weapons, teammates using your rally point, etc.

3 Likes
3

Yes, but this is no different to the attackers suffering the same type of team mate. It becomes equal. Currently it only hurts the attackers having these guys (of which there are many)

Yes some really good players will really do a number on fortification, while poor ones will be annoying, but you cant fix players, only steer them. However it will still be limited by attrition (fortifiations might hold, until defenders have no men left to use them). It also adds fortification removal as an element. Satchels could be added for removal, engineers with mine detector perk etc etc

I’m hoping protected pre fortification will make up for the loss of unlimited tickers. My idea is just the basis, you could add additional cooldown periods between points if you really wanted, including a minute warmup phase at start of the game.

There are many ways to approach changes, this is just one that I have been thinking about. I like your teamwork approach, but I think that could be added aswell as an attrition mechanic change.

thanks for the feedback, And yes there will always be flaws, but Just trying to improve the currently glaring flaws.

4

The thing is though, is that there currently is a limited “resource” for each team.

  • Attackers get tickets
  • Defenders get objectives

If either team runs out of their specific resource, they lose.

Attackers get more tickets when they push in and take objectives. Following that logic, how would defenders get more tickets if they were limited?

If defender tickets were limited, like you are suggesting, what is to stop the attackers from just shelling the objective into oblivion? Just killing all the defenders, and all their available reinforcements, then just walking in and taking almost no attrition themselves?

My point is that by limiting the defenders tickets, you are giving an INSANE advantage to attackers that not even being able to fortify for 30 minutes could solve.

Lastly on this part, unlike in Confrontation, the defenders cannot recapture zones. In fact, they can’t even reverse the capture meter. Once part of it has been taken, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

I could agree on this part, but there are again some major issues that would need to be fixed first:

  • Removing standard troops ability to break down fortifications by hand. The ONLY ones that should have that capability are engineers. Otherwise, it should require satchels (TNT mines) and the addition of bangalore torpedos and similar for infantry to get in.

  • As far as “mine detector” type of stuff, I’m not opposed to ONLY IF it is limited to engineers, and a backpack to increase mine capacity were introduced.
    Keep in mind that AP and AT mines are really only useful for defense, so the number of squads carrying them would likely be pretty limited.
    In addition, a mine pouch would allow for more TNT to be carried by attackers. Giving some degree of balance between the option of grenade pouches or mine pouches.

2 Likes
5

Ok, I hear you. there are different thought processes on who has the advantage, for me I focus on both sides have equal number of players (at least meant to), equal ability to spawn close, equal weaponry. So if you are throwing wave after wave at each other at 1 for 1 trade (equal for augments sake) defenders will always win on the first point due to unlimited tickets. I wouldn’t mind even if they had 2 or 3 times the tickets, anything better than unlimited

But in the interest of accepting the other way of looking at it, how do defenders replenish. 300 was just a place holder, you could have the accumulation of tickets over the 5 points be greater or = to the maximum attackers could gain (or how ever many is reasonable). Its a variable. It could be a dynamic, its could be frontloaded/Backloaded (more tickets on first cap, or last). The balance being the defenders will always have their maximum tickets over the battle. If attackers don’t cap, the banked ticket balance will overwhelmingly favor the defenders. Not at first, but by the 3rd capture point the defenders may naturally overtake and keep increasing. This of course depends on how well the attackers are doing (how fast they cap). But at some point, the defenders will have more available, just not infinite.

Another idea is defender tickets could infinitely replenish periodically (small increments, simulating reinforcements) the longer the game goes. Not too larger amounts as it would still be = to unlimited and defeat the idea of two way attrition.

you could also slow down the cap rate just so one break through isn’t final, OR just like in battlefield, you cant attack the next area, until current areas are free of enemy units, regardless of whether the cap is taken. This of course will be until area is free of enemy units or a minute passes. Whichever comes first.

In both of these scenarios, while the attacker could sit back and barrage the defenders, there becomes a point where if they take to long, attrition will take over (keeping in mind defenders can barrage right back, and because they can pre fortify, there will be alot more mg and gun emplacements)

Got any other ideas? How would you solve it

And yes, I envisioned all fortification, minesweeping, removal would only be engineers only. But that was a separate additional topic. If I had it my way rallies and ammo would be engineer squad only too. Truly the support squad. I think this could be another fantastic element of gameplay to expand on, but for it to happen, the ebb and flow of the game would have to accommodate it. Which is what I am proposing here. While the Core gameplay is about Pulse rushing, and no time to fortify, it wont be of much use.

6

more brainless assult and conquest mode, instead of any improvement.

8

…ok…not sure what you were reading…but not even remotely close to either of those modes. I must be misunderstanding your meaning.

9

I mean they will keep adding those trash mode instead of improving invasion mode.

1 Like
10

The problem here is that so few people think its “their job” to build rallies let alone ammo as it currently is, and that’s even when they have engineers on their squads. If you restricted that ability to ONLY the engineer squad, there would be almost none whatsoever. This is because a lot of these players only ever want to rush at the objective. They bring assaulters, flamethrowers, and MG squads. VERY RARELY do I ever see engineer squads on the field.
I think the engineer squads themselves should get stronger versions of the defensive fortifications that all engineers can build, pushing them to support their teams in those ways. Defense is clearly through fortification of the objective, while Offense is by setting up push points. More durable sandbags for example could allow more effective front line pushes.

Actually yes, I do. Change how attackers go about their attacks currently. Instead of simply allowing them to just keep rushing in, force pulse attacks. To do this, if there are players that are dying repeatedly by overextending, make a greyzone that holds them back until there are a couple other squads ready to go at the same time. Upon letting them go, a smoke barrage is fired at the mid-ground. (I don’t often see radio operators use this, so the AI using it would be necessary. This stops them from getting singled out and killed off rapidly by MG emplacements, and allowing them to push with more team cohesion.

I think giving defense an unlimited number of lives is pertinent to forcing offense to actually push the objective rather than hanging back and shelling.

That is only the case if the offense is unable to get on the objective at all. Once progress has been made on the objective, there is NOTHING the defense can do to reclaim that. Meaning it is up to the attackers to push through enough times or in a large enough force to claim progress on that objective.
That mechanic is an advantage, and a massive one at that.
That mechanic alone is equivalent in my eyes to the infinite spawns for defense.

Now couple that with the innate role that offense doesn’t have to protect anything, rather are solely responsible for pushing out defenders, is the advantage that attackers have that should warrant defenders an opportunity to beef up defenses, prior to an attack.
Especially when you consider that to set up those fortifications, the defenders will have less people on the front-line, making an attack at a prior objective easier in terms of numbers. Which is exactly what you were talking about.

If so, the attackers should win in that front line scenario, as they have the advantage. Meanwhile, the defenders are setting up the next objective to have the odds in their favor, even when met by full team numbers.

1 Like
11

This was a side thought irelevant to my proposal. But Yup, I agree with you 100%. And id rather them walk the entire 150 meters to objective and run out if ammo if all they want to do is rush and spam flamers, assaulter etc.

As for the who has the advantage discussion , lets just leave it at agree to disagree. Id say we are at an impass with that particular point.

Shift focus to alternatives that both can agree on. Like engineers being made more relevant, and pre fortification.

Whatever our opinion on invasion, it can clearly be improved.

I dont mind some of your suggestion, but at the end of the day, it would still be a pulsing wave attack. holding the attackers back in between waves just relieves the pressure on the defenders and allows them to reset the defence, much like attackers not having rallys to keep the pressure up.

1 Like
12

I would say a default point of: 100 the first two point, 200 for point 3 and 4, and 400 for point 5 for the last stand (the tweak can be done after gater some data from matches)

1 Like
13

But again, I bring up this question:
What is to stop the attackers from shelling and flaming the point just to kill off defenders without actually having to contest the objective?

14

Who stop defender do the same? Defender are even more scummy on this because they can simply bomb the point with WP granade and mine the whole zone, defender need only spam AOE attack in 20m

15

The defenders would be given enough tickets (i have no idea what that number needs to be) that although an attacker could just shell them off without actively contesting the objective, it would be unefficient to do so. You would make it harder for yourself

If you bleed a defender out this way, the defender will have lots of time to fortify the next point (gun emplacements, mines, wire, hedgehogs) which will cost the attackers ticketts heavily. Its in the attackers best interest to move quickly. Or they will bleed themselves out being too passive, and it would drag on over 5 points.

Remebering there is nothing stopping the defenders shelling the attackers back equally, and with extra time to fortify, i fully expect the defenders will shell the attackers much harder as they will have the advantage of prepared positions.

16

Yes i had considered backloading/frontloading points. I like the way you put it “final stand”. Sounds good.

1 Like
17

Here is a suggestion to throw into the mix:
If defenders had tickets as well as attackers, HOWEVER, tickets are not lost for defenders that die within the capture zones. This way, defenders that overextend are the only ones that count against them. It encourages playing the objective even if the enemy is just shelling the objective, as it wouldn’t help the attacker with the exception of making it easier to push in and attack.

This helps to prevent the issue that I was concerned with and also works toward balancing advantage by eliminating the endless rusher aspect from defense.

If this were coupled with increased points for actions within the objective point, defenders would likely be more focused on actually defending the objective properly.

1 Like
18

That’s more like it. Would help address the endless counter attack at least. Would it be two way? Attackers dying in objective don’t lose tickets either? (in the interest of mutually rewarding the players PTFO). Keeping in mind the objective area is often quite small.

Heres another alternative…when defenders run out of tickets and spawn on the next point, they CAN rejoin the battle without it costing tickets. The caveat being they have to run all the way from the next point to join the battle. Gives them the choice to fortify OR try and delay longer (this wont help if attacker is on the point, but if they are shelling from range it will)

OR tickets are used up on rally spawn, but not start spawn. Another option

That also helps address your concern

19

I’d rather it only be defenders that don’t lose tickets on objective. However, for attackers it could be that LESS tickets are consumed when dying on the point, in comparison to dying outside of it.

This is all following the assumption that the game mechanics are changed to actually allow defenders a chance to set up.

That way it encourages defense to play defensively and offense to play offensively. Instead of everyone just rush spamming in either direction.

There is also the idea of a “secondary objective” that can help defense to recoup reinforcements at each objective. Essentially a secondary location near to the first that while it is active, the defenders slowly regen tickets. However, if it is destroyed by offense, its a small boost to their tickets.
It’s not required for taking over the main objective, but offers additional resources for both sides.

20

Yes we are working on the assumption of my proposal for the sake of this discussion. So my general idea plus your defenders not losing tickets for deaths inside objective.

Secondary objectives could be interesting. I rather like that in warthunder air rb you have multiple win conditions, shoot down all players, or bomb out strategic points and airfield.

I had wondered about having targets that offer some benefit to the defender (such as regen tickets) but can be bombed by planes to remove benefit. They sort of did this in normandy with shooting down baloons but it could use refinment.

21

this is mostly pointless discussion. we are not even playing current invasion mode the way it was meant to be played.

  • if you checked my last playerbase analysis we have at least 40% of bots in match in peak time and probably that ratio is even worse off peak times.
  • second thing is that balance is made by campaign basis based on stats from previous x weeks/months and that makes pretty shitty experience per match basis.
  • we dont know how BR will influence overall balance in new system