What is the win rate? there is no way attackers have 50% win rate. The odds are terribly stacked agaist you.
you need to make changes until this is as close as posible to 50%!
i win as much as i loose on invasion. and i just play on the same side. its all around the team we and enemy have. Dday for example is as hard to atack as to defend, all lays down on the teams and what you are doing.
i would say 50% here.
6 Likes
Do you have a certain campaign in mind?
Best team wins, every time.
1 Like
The most imbalanced I’ve seen it was pre-normandy CBT and that was still ‘just’ a 60ish percent winrate in favor of Germany.
Things are a lot more even now.
3 Likes
The should release winrates and try to balance them
They are balanced
Invasion is quite balanced if you ask me. The artillery and mortar spam has to be controlled but other than, it’s not difficult as attackers other than in specific maps like the new ones. If the defenders have competent players, it’s extremely extremely difficult to push through. That is expected. Defending is always easier.
As for assault, it all depends on your team. I haven’t lost an assault attack match in a long time. Don’t think I’ve lost any since OBT. A single player with an SMG or LMG can clear a point. You just need 2 competent players in a team and it is an easy win. I’ve finished assault games in like 10 minutes.
1 Like
d-day you really need a team thats willing to push the obj every spawn in. also placing good rallies. if notice them just sniping and or trying fight over MG places just leave. youre gonna lose not worth the effort. german side its not really easy. considering again every noob is fighting over an MG or sniping. or playing bluedrake simulator just building random stuff every where. but i think d-day should be hard map.
btw we still in OBT lol. do you mean closed?
I said I haven’t lost any since OBT started. Assault existed in closed tests too and it was usually very difficult to play the attacking side.
Plus all the game mechanics benefits defenders.
•Engineers defense buildings
•Squad, because attackers while advancing their bots get shreded while defenders peek with 1 soldier at the time so you never see defenders afk bots
•Artilery spam, mortar spam
•tanks are much better in defence than in offense
And the biggest problem about this is that maps have fixed position and depending on you faction you might end up having to always attack! This is so fucking ridiculouse
That’s their point? I mean, you can’t make offensive buildings, the closest thing to this is a tank.
As the atacker you can go around arty zones. Your advantage as the attacker is the mobility, use it.
Meanwhile the defenders have to sit on the point instead of escaping the arty because if they leave the point, they loose.
I don’t see how it’s because of the game mechanics.
To be clear, I don’t think that the game is perfectly balanced or something but those 3 arguments don’t prove much.
1 Like
Can attackers go around the actual point too and cap it from somewhere else?
You are either an artillery spammer or a twisted human being in general to defend the artillery spam.
Depends on the maps (and to some extend of the spam of arty). Moscow is almost fine except the Monastery map where the defenders usually win unless they are totally braindead.
Yes, unless it’s the point in the open. If yes then I have to admit that it’s a game problem.
If the game designers would listen to you, we would have a Germany invading the US in Normandy with siege towers build by engineers with really big tanks that would need to be able to drive over the bottom of the ocean since nothing would hold them afload during a landing so that they are better then the defenders tanks. With the US soldier then making a parade line to welcome the defenders in because otherwise it would be unfair.
Its a game intended to have a attacker and a defender. It is really really clear who in this game should be the defender and the attacker. If you dont know, I will enlighten you, it is Germany because they decided to start a war in 1939.
Now on the original topic, the game is really well balanced. I have not met any difficulties defending or attacking. You dont seem really experienced in the game and just appear to be here to complaint about not winning.
-
im not saying we need offensive buldings. I say that an advantage for the defenders.
-
if there are 2 players spamming and the do it when its the right momento you can barely advance. You screen is shaking you´re running in open ground while the enemy could be also under arty but inside the camputre buidling with almost no effect.
3.again, not a problem if game mechanics but it should be balanced by giving attackers other advantages like shorter respawn times of longer for defenders (because shorter for attackers would mean faster ticket burn)
and you didn´t adressed the Squad mechanic.
the defender can put his soldiers safe while peeking with 1 soldier. Lets say there are 2 players each with 5 soliders.
the defender can kill 4 of the NPC of the attacker and when the attacker gets to the point he has 1 soldier to fight 1 player and 3 bots. now multiply that by the total amount of players in a match and tell me that defenders don´t have an advantage
DEFENDER NEED LONGER RESPAWN TIMER!!
All caps does not make it true if the sentence is just bullcrap. If you would increase the respawn timer the winrate would go to the attacker. I thought you wanted 50/50
We have close to 50/50 atm.
People with more experience in the game told you this in this threat and the other one you made the same moment.
The only change i would make is longer respawn for defenders. Red Orchestra did this right.
Defenders have longer respawn so their objetive is to kill as much as posible while staying safe. The attackers have more tickets and shorter respawn so their objetive is to advance and win ground.
ths is historically accurate you would always attack with more men to fewer men because in a totally even fight the defender would have a huge advantage and why attack where you have no advantage?