because i always was under the impression of me not understanding the gamemode.
but since day 1 i noticed that, it doesn’t really matter progressing further, like, if you can, usually it’s because it’s a steam roll.
but when those draining battles happens, i noticed that it’s just straight up better to stick back, fortify a point, and kill everyone who comes. don’t even need to proceed further.
your team could just camp the last point for what matters, but as long the enemy doesn’t reach it and doesn’t kill more folks than your team, you are pretty good.
to which, i thought that wasn’t how this gamemode was meant to be played.
always thinking i never understood it.
but apparently, that’s how this gamemode wants you to play ( i think?! )
camp an objective, wipe the most ammount of enemies, and gee gee.
question is, is this what players really wanted?
dunno.
personally i just find it weird. but don’t necessarily dislike it.
Well, it’s simply game mode in which deaths have bigger meaning than objectives for most of the time. Which I do like a lot.
I am tired of being permanently forced to build rally points and then fight over tiny little objectives. Especially since maps in Enlisted are so interesting with so many fun to play positions (which often are completely neglected by the need to play objectives).
The only time when objective starts to play a bigger role is when the end of the match is near.
Of course, as long as it’s a balanced battle and not a steam roll.
Well, tell me then how you should play it optimally?
I’m dead serious.
If you and me were having a fight in confro mode, would any of us be that stupid to attack and sacrifice bodies to take the centre objective when we both know it’s certainly disfavoring to do so?
I don’t know, I don’t think there’s a universal guide. You always have to react to how your enemy plays.
Plus, picking up that midpoint isn’t what makes the difference. It’s what happens immediately afterwards.
If a team that just lost the battle for the middle point starts targeting people who are running fast under influence of tunnel vision and time pressure to build rally points to have a good base for the fight over the next point. They can rack up a decent number of kills there.
I think that’s the biggest imperfection of the confrontation. That the team that wins the fight for the middle point is going to come under tremendous pressure. Because they have to build a rally point in an area where there’s in majority of cases still lot of enemy soldiers left from previous fight. While the enemy team can build a rally point with freshly spawned swuads full of engineers in an area where there is not a single enemy.
That’s why I believe the cooldown of the protection of the second point should take twice the additional time. So that the defending team doesn’t have such a huge advantage in putting the more aggressive team under so much time pressure.
Because it can be used to such an extent that it becomes a really unfair advantage.
I kinda don’t mind this. Usually when I’m in a stale mate game (back and forth between 2 points), I start to prepare to cap ahead.
There is generally a fair bit of play area in confrontation, instead of attacking a point when its our turn Ill simply start creeping up our supply (rallies and defenses forward) flank a little and hunt theirs, dismantle fortifications and soften it up for an assault later. After a cap is fallen is a good opportunity to lurk (solo) and deconstruct a lot of stuff while they move on to the next
Sure its not always possible (and can sometimes backfire), but Alot of games swing on a quick double cap at the opportune moment that was prepared several cap points ago through logistics. feels good when it comes together
Yes, you can always adapt to anything. It’s purely up to the player’s intelligence, understanding the situation and analysing it.
I just personally find this the weakest part of the confrontation. Because you’re still trying to fight against an unfair advantage that the enemy team gained just by being inferior.
Which I don’t think is the best design.
But like I said before, it’s still my favorite game mode, it is just not quite perfect and top notch polished (like pretty much anything in Enlisted sadly).
adam, best way to understand a logic behind something is putting yourself on the other end I believe.
How would this game mode play out if you faced yourself?
Honest question. And if you would face yourself, where both side acting rational it wouldn’t be much of a fight to be fair. It would be stalemate.
The reason why it kinda works atm is because it’s a public lobby with a lot of ignorant and clueless players around. Sure, I could take advantage of it, since I know how to play this optimally. But I refuse to do it.
Partly cuz
1)I like action-packed gameplay (why I play Enlisted in the first place)
2) it feels busted of me taking advantage of (IMO) flawed game design.
But like I said before, it’s still one my favorite game modes, it is just not quite perfect and top-notch polished (like pretty much anything in Enlisted sadly).
[/quote]
Ye, making a thread like this maybe makes ppl think I hate it. It’s quite on the contrary. I do really enjoy it. It’s my second fav to Invasion.
there’s nothing “nah” about that.
I literally said this game mode plays differently depending on map.
I don’t accept it being excellent on some maps and utterly broken on other.
It’s nothing to “nah” about.
It should be pursepolly redesigned to work on a whole scheme of things.
I don’t understand. If both teams were to be made up of similarly skilled seasoned veterans.
The thing you have just stated would apply to literally every game mode.
How is that specific to the confrontation?
Btw. This is the reason why I have always been against SBMM and similar stuff.
