I want to hear your general opinion on this topic.
At the moment the defenders have infinite resources (tanks, planes, soldiers, weapons, etc etc). That’s why I’m in favor of a limited number of tickets for the defenders.
Especially as a defender and I speak from my own experience, people running braindead on point, with the mentality “get in there, we can afford it to sent in unlimited flesh”. That’s exactly how many defenders play: tanks push hard into the defenders, get destroyed and immediately spam a new tank. With aircraft, they simply play kamikaze pilot and with soldiers they simply run to the point, die, and immediately take a new squad while repeating the procedure.
It’s basically a never-ending wave of “stupid” yolo moves without feeling any consequences.
In WW2, defenders didn’t have an infinite supply of tanks / planes / soldiers… at their disposal.
Therefore and as mentioned above, defenders should also only have a limited number of tickets available. And when they have to reinforcements left … well then they have been overrun by the enemies.
I always thought defenders had it too easy. They should have a spawn count just like any other mode. It would also discourage the spawn camping many do when objectives change.
Imo unlimited tickets is the only advantage defenders have (or at least I can’t quickly think of anything else).
I’m not against removing infinite tickets, but imo they will need some compensation to not be at constant disadvantage.
What do they say in real life battle, if your going to take territory then you need a 3 to 1 troop advantage. In the game, the attacker has no numerical superiority since the defenders have an endless supply of defenders so the defenders can be extremely careless with their dudes as their numbers never run out.
I don’t think in a video game you can give a 3 to 1 advantage and make the games fair, however, the defenders shouldn’t have an infinite number of soldiers either, there needs to be a count for both sides.
If defenders have a chance to defend by fortifying the point then i would agree to this.
By the time you have built a rally point the attackers are already on the point on some maps.
Objectives (overall) and bots would have to be tweaked for better defensive combat if a 3:1 or even 2:1 numerical difference would even work. Right now many objectives are havens for automatic weapons and while bots hold positions and fight so statically and bunched together (regardless of formation spacing at times) that the only conclusion would be they want to die.
getting tickets back and having unlimited tickets on the other side is a big difference
Yes and No at the same time
No, because I disagree with the fact that defenders are limited in basically every other way
→ they can also flank
→ can also hold enemy back few meters before the cap while sitting in buildings, trenches or pushing enemies hard into their own greyzone (ofc not on all maps but on many)
Yes because I love to attack because we have to play more strategic and use our limited ressources
for me, it’s sounds like you did. Apologies if I missinterpreted it.
Yes, because there’s huge difference between attackers and defenders overall. wink wink
You don’t want to flank attackers, all you want to do is hunt for rally points and APCs from time to time. (Which is not flanking).
To flank means you would try to bypass the enemies that are attacking your objective, effectively allowing them to capture it.
But you want to eliminate them on your way for their rally points/APCs.
And hunting down rally points/APC is basically the only reason why would you want leave objective as defender. (Other than selfishly hunt for kills, because you are bored defending against incompetent enemies)
Btw. I have no clue what are you trying to prove with that screenshot. That you are deserting lost matches before they end for the sake of keeping high WR?
If flanking didn’t work, we wouldn’t win almost all battles as defenders with that method.
Flanking doesn’t preclude hunting rally points. And those who alwalys stay in the middle are hopelessly lost. Because this type of players allows the opponent to pin them in a pincer movement.
And no, we don’t desert—sorry to disappoint you on that one. Don’t accuse other people of doing things they don’t do just because their WR is relatively high
In my opinion, if the attacking team is able to absolutely slaughter the defending team, then they should still be able to win even if they aren’t able to take the points.
Defenders should probably get 2000 or 2500 or 3000 tickets for the entire game with no replenishes. I think it should really only be a problem if they’re cycling planes and crashing them constantly throughout the entire match
I am literally using weak larping lineups when I am playing in stacks. Doesn’t mean it’s efficient thing to do.
What makes you win is being in stack, not some pseudo tactic that realistically doesn’t make any sense. Nor you can’t even describe what and for why you are flanking.
Doesn’t really matter if you achieved your WR with playing in stacks to quitting lost matches.
