If you can stop a Balr… err… a tiger, you can stop a measly nazgul! Just welcome it with a nice, bright and warm molotov carpet, and laugh!
For Minas Ti… err… For the cap!
1 Like
makes them respawn faster and actually defend.
I’m estimated my win / lose % as attack / defense (no way to know for sure) : I’m defending maybe 75% of battles, losing 75% of those. I don’t understand why but I’m really really much more on defending team, no matter what campaign or side
1 Like
One attack to kill them all, one attack to push them, one attack to win them all and into defeat bind them
1 Like
skill issue
I’ve said it countless times before, and I will keep saying it:
Defenders need to be given the locations of ALL objectives within the map ahead of time. Even if it does encourage “building a fortress”.
- Your job as DEFENSE is to hold enemies off the objective, not just attempt to fight them INSIDE of it. If you are constantly fighting inside of the objective, you have already failed as a defender.
- In addition, the greyzone needs to CREEP forward, not open up and close all at once. This allows time for BOTH teams to regroup.
- Fortifications need to be capable of holding back enemy attackers. Again, not just INSIDE the objective, but actually able to hold the enemy off the objective by setting up in front of it too. They are far too easy to destroy right now from a multitude of sources, let alone infantry being able to break them down without any special tools.
3 Likes
It’s because its trying to refill games that people are quitting out of. Majority of players that I have talked to say they quit out as soon as they see they are on defense, because its extremely unlikely that they will win, and its not fun gameplay getting stomped by attackers.
Simply look at the scoreboard when you jump into a game. Look at how many names there are of people that quit on defense in compared to offense.
3 Likes
Surely, that’s why game is encouraging to do it with bonus points reward.
You are disillusioned about how defending in this game works.
watch this and defending becomes easy Enlisted Strategy: Complete Defense Primer - MUST WATCH - YouTube
I’d prefer hard numbers, not estimates.
Its a hard but realistic estimate
I’m not sure what you mean. An estimate cannot be a hard number. They’re mutually exclusive terms.
Considering I’ve ASKED for the actual numbers so we can see what the actual facts are, and I’ve been repeatedly shut down by other players saying “you don’t need that information”, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that we have a valid point, and players that are focused on keeping their OP ways untouched are the ones fighting us when we are trying to get those numbers.
You ask for hard facts, help us get them. Otherwise, we can only share what it has been in OUR experience.
3 Likes
What OP ways are you referring to? I’m genuinely asking since it’s not clear. I have a few ideas in mind but I’m not going to assume anything. I’ve noticed people change their minds on what is OP very frequently.
I can and will. Since everyone has a different experience, and I believe most people’s takes on their experiences are valid, it’s hard to use that as evidence when they don’t match up.
Like I said, first defenders were called OP, now attackers are OP. With all the back and forth it’s hard to make determinations without tangible evidence.
Defenders lose without trying.
I would disagree. Especially in “Invasion” mode. Once attackers have made any degree of progress on an objective, there is nothing that defenders can do to clear that progression. SO, if you are constantly trying to fight the enemy ON the objective, all they have to do is get even a single soldier more than you to begin making progression. They don’t have to cap it all at once. Through constant pressure, offense usually wins out just due to this mechanic.
For defenders to actually have a solid chance, they have to do everything they possibly can to thin out the attackers BEFORE they reach the objective. What is left SHOULD be manageable by troops inside.
However, defenders generally aren’t able to set up, let alone hold much of a defensive position out in front of the objective, leading to almost guaranteed losses when the enemy spills onto the point.
1 Like
Easiest way to tell, look at how the players are bringing forth their opinions and experiences. If they are putting together well-thought out replies, pros & cons, pointing it out from both sides, etc. Chances are they are the ones bringing forth valid and true information when talking about their experiences.
On the flip side, if a player is notorious for trolling other players, only ever taking a single side, or making short smart-ass answers, they are much more likely to defend a mechanic or item that is simply game breaking OP.
As far as what makes something game-breaking OP:
Almost everything in this game is designed with a specific use in mind. That is what it does best, though it can do other things with less efficiency than what other might. It’s a system of hard and soft counters, as well as pros vs cons. Look at the sources of infantry AT capabilities for example:
- AT launchers, can be used at a range, but are really only effective against armored vehicles and ONLY if you have good aim and angle. Can only be equipped by AT soldiers. I’d consider this balanced.
- AT mines, must be planted ahead of time, must have the track of a tank run over it, doesn’t effect infantry unless forcibly detonated with another mine or a bullet, but has the capability to one shot even heavy tanks. One per character. I’d consider this balanced.
- TNT charges, must either be placed ahead of time and triggered at the right moment, OR you must get point blank with a tank, attach it, and detonate it to kill the tank. Can also be used to good effect against infantry, but still requires manual trigger. One per character. I consider this balanced.
- Explosive packs however, only need to land on top of a tank or even directly under it, can be thrown at a distance (which with a perk can be increased even further), has the potential to one shot a tank, each character can carry between 1-3, and it can kill infantry like a standard grenade. I would consider this extremely UNBALANCED and OP.
For those that are going to try to harp at me and say to stay on topic, I’m looping back around with what I just was saying about the explosive packs.
Unfortunately, something that greatly plagues the game, ON BOTH sides, are tanks sitting in the greyzone. Tanks would be far more likely to push up however, if there wasn’t the existence of explosive packs. Attacker tanks currently are able to sit in their spawn and endlessly shell the objective in many locations without even needing to push up.
If the game mechanics were changed to where they were forced to push up and help their infantry, and OP explosive packs were removed, it would make for much more interesting gameplay. However, it stops certain players from being able to run around with whichever squad they choose and spamming a “one size fits all” grenade. Forcing them to make use of an AT soldier or a much riskier form of AT like TNT or AT mines.
Other examples that I think are worth mentioning are:
- Flamethrower squads
- Assaulters
- Paratroopers
- Radio Operator Artillery
- Grenade spam
- The ability for any infantry to break down fortifications without requiring even a consumable, despite it requiring an engineer to build them.
These are the major issues to me that need to be addressed, that are usually being defended by those that I mentioned before.
I’m more than happy to have a civil debate about them to find good solutions, but it usually just ends up with them slinging personal insults instead.
2 Likes
I disagree.
I think it is a biased opinion with little evidence. When players of similar skill level play against each other, the attacker does not win easily.
2 Likes
Good point. From what I’ve seen, the main issue is I’m seeing a lot of one side arguments, especially from faction mains.
Another good example is the para squads. I’ve seen people quick to complain about the Thompson but conveniently ignored that the Kreighoff is equally dangerous in the hands of a good player.
Explosive packs just need to go. There’s absolutely no purpose for them when we have AT weapons and anti personnel grenades. TNT charges should be the preferred anti tank weapons since they require skill to use and can’t just be chucked at a tank from 20 ft away.
100% agree. There’s multiple very simple fixes, which is why I am so frustrated that nothing has been done about it.
The only issue I take here is that none of the examples listed there are inherently OP. They become that way when used in shady ways or in excess.
One or two appearances of a flame or para squad in a battle is not OP, it is once they are used excessively, which is what I think the devs should focus on when trying to balance these squads. Examine in what ways they can be made OP, instead if targeting or nerfing them as a whole.
1 Like
First of all, I’m not a “REMOVED MY MODERATOR”.
Second, QUOTE REMOVED BY MODERATOR.
Example 1
Example 2:
Example 3:
Example 4:
Example 5:
Example 6:
Example 7:
Example 8:
Example 9:
Example 10:
Example 11:
Example 12: Paratrooper fail part 1 of 2
Example 13: Paratrooper fail part 2 of 2
2 Likes