Today I had the most fun game by far in Invasion attacking with germany, while we had 3 afk squads making it a 7vs10 game. The game felt so good because it wasnt a clusterfuck all the time and you had the opportunity to influence the outcome of the game in a more meaningful way than in a 10vs10. It also seemed way more realistic
As the game is still in closed testing and alpha I’d like to see different gamemodes with different playernumbers (like 7v7 / 8v8, or even some asymetrical battles) for like a day and listen to the feedback of the community as this stuff is pretty easy to change on the fly.
i don’t fully understand this post, but i assume you are talking about having smaller battles, with less elements, or even have asymetrical battles.
right?
well, to begin with, i really don’t see the point.
this game as the dev said, was made to have scalar battles, and in a recent post, they also said:
Q. Is “120-150 soldiers” still the theoretical maximum for one session, or will there be some changes?
Currently, we have successfully tested sessions of up to circa 140 soldiers in one battle. We completed many rounds of server optimizations to make this number possible with the current level of interaction of soldiers in the environment, the number of gaming events per time, and combat intensity. However, the number of soldiers is limited not only by the capabilities of our servers, but also by the capabilities of player hardware, and we are still working on further optimization of both the client side and the server side. It is also worth noting that the more fighters per area, the greater the combat intensity is in the given area, and it is reasonable for players to give more room to maneuver so that the battle does not turn into chaos and a meaningless meat grinder. We will try to realize greater freedom in other gaming modes with other combat missions, so then we can better imagine the upper technical and gameplay limits for different modes.
by seeing this, less chaos could be in somewhat and someway, a good idea. ( even if it’s not meant initially by the devs )
but, why would you evere have asymetrical battles. it’s no fun at all.
let’s make some explames:
if the defender team is stronger because they have more numbers than the attackers, if it’s not fully made of AI; will be most likely a defender victory.
if the defenders team has less forces and numbers than the attackers, it will be a good challenge for them to win.
even going further from the odds, people have their own way to play. resulting in having more stronger foes in one side, or another. making disavantages in one team that has less players.
without even considering how much casual it’s the whole thing.
because right now, people win if they cooperate well with teammates, have better equippment, and maps knowledge.
in conclusion, i don’t think this is a good idea, and will ever work.
like i said, in my suggestion post, if it’s for PVE gamemodes, this could work. as you are challenging entities, much numbers, and you have to play strategically. but when speaking in PVP enivorement, things get more complex.
anyway, Cherrs^^
The game is made for large scale battles, which is great. However currently the battles only revolve around one or two cappoints and a few 100 square meters. This isnt a large scale battle, not even if you shove too many people on this small battlefield. Currently the battle turns into a “meaningless meat grinder” and doesnt allow for room to maneuver due to the sheer amount of people in this small space.
Battles involving equal teams in equal conditions are, of course, interesting as a competition. But they do not have the immersion or the thrill of real battle, where balanced forces and symmetrical objectives are unlikely.
A “balanced game” isnt only balaced because of the equal numbers of players per team. There are a lot of different things to balance an asymetric mode. For example Respawn time, spawn distance, Terain, points to capture, equipment available to the defender, …
For example the invasion of Normandy could very well be an asymetrical battle, where the attackers are greater in numbers. This would be not only historically accurate, but could also be balanced when we take bunker MG’s, the large open field the attackers have to traverse through and several other influences in consideration.
Yes, I think the current Invasion mode is overpopulated, as the battlefield is very small. I’d love to see a large scale battle on a large scale battlefield, but not on the current one. And I’d love to see (at least in closed testing) an asymetric battle of some kind, just to see if this idea could work.
( i apologize for my late answer but i had my dinner )
The game is made for large scale battles, which is great. However currently the battles only revolve around one or two cappoints and a few 100 square meters.
truee. on the 4km x 4km we don’t fully potentially use it. i think that for now, it’s only for test purpose. and hopefully, in the final version, more and more giantic maps will be made.
well, this is the part where it’s already asymmetrical because of faction’s weapons.
an mg42 it’s different than a mbrowning or DP-23.
and this is why, it’s sorta tries to balance the whole thing by the players. immagine having just defenders with mg’s outrunned by amerians.
as historicall accurate would be, it’s not that fun. this is why the game tries to compensate with numbers, and as you correctly said, spawn distance, respawns, and other things.
this is what i meant, the battlefield tries to be accurate but balanced for gameplay reason. and the outcome has to be defined by the players. wether the attackers fight better than the defender, or the defenders manage to push back the attackers.
more likely, the invasion game mode does alredady half of the job, everytime you took some position as attacker, you gain new reinforcement. i think this system already work.
about the increased maps, i’m sure most people would love to see that.
but when speaking of asymetrical battles… i think that’s a no.
for the simpler reason that in your chase, you were lucky. because you found yourself in a 7v10, where the germans fought very well. while, the russian. might have pulled some little resistance. or even there, some players might have been afk or doing something else.
yet again, i respect your idea of having new gamemodes, and different settings. but i don’t think it would be wise. odds in fps are a nightmare. everyone influnce the battle. but if you meet a better team, and you are outnumbered by the enemy team, you won’t have fun at all.
Yes, In my case I was very lucky and we just about won that game, but that isnt my point. The game felt not like a meatgrinder and way more of an actual tactical battle as you had more influence on the outcome of the game.
The outcome cant be controlled by the players if the game isnt balanced. If an asymetrical battle can be made balanced, then great! Why shouldn’t we try it out, as we are still in a closed alpha? If it cant be made balanced, yes, the Idea should most certaily be dropped.
This isnt really asymetrical because the weapons are balanced. The kar is as effective as the mosin, even if they are different guns. But just different guns and one attacking and one defending team isnt really an asymetrical battle they more or less promised.
i would say it maybe need bigger maps