Currently, Defenders in order to be successful are more encouraged to play as essentially wreckless offense players, rather than fighting from the objective, often resulting in them overextending and leaving the capture point much more vulnerable than it should be.
Additionally, those that fight FROM the objective are rewarded far less for their efforts.
This suggestion aims to solve both those issues and more.
Give a score multiplier for points given while on the objective, and according to how much your team controls said objective.
This can effect kills, assists, support score, etc.
HOWEVER, to be applied, the player must be ON the objective. Meaning if they shoot an enemy outside the zone, while they themselves are in the zone they get the points.
Whereas if they are NOT inside the zone, but shoot an enemy that IS, they just get the standard points for that action.
This would incentivize a lot more gameplay within and from the objective, rather than everyone focusing on skirmishing outside of it.
Defenders would have much more incentive to actually play in a defensive manner rather than running out from the objective in an offense manner.
This game has an attacker bias on 90% of the maps and most of the time as a defender you’re facing attackers that up tier you by 3 levels. There absolutely needs to be more points for doing anything beneficial in or around the objective, especially for killing and defending on the objective. This would actually allow for the defenders to defend and the attackers to attack
Considering that those holding down the objective, regardless of if they are offense or defense, are the key part to winning the game, they should be rewarded adequately.
In the current state of things, I don’t think they are, and in fact (the reason I put this suggestion up in the first place) players currently seem to be getting more points by allowing opponents onto the objective, before the fighting starts.
I ran into a couple of fairly toxic players earlier this week (from group finder), that were telling everyone to let enemies onto the objective before trying to kill them, in order to get more points. If you tried to play the game as its supposed to be played and keep enemies off the objective, they would kill you and your squad with a molotov.
SO, whether or not they were correct, and you do or do not get more points by allowing enemies onto the objective first, players should simply be getting incentivized (and rewarded higher) for playing in the most correct manner, which is trying to dominate the objective, either on offense or defense.
I’d say at least give it a small radius around objective. Not all objectives give you clean lines of sight to kill attackers as they approach, and it may be more beneficial to be a few feet off to the side. Say in the building next to point and whatnot
It would incentivize players to set up in a way that by placing fortifications outdoors, rather than inside, they can change the entry patterns of enemies.
You can soften them up from inside the objective, and still get the rewards for assists, and support score for fortifications built up ahead of the objective.
This means even if you aren’t getting the kill while they are outside the objective, you are being rewarded from slowing them down and assisting in thinning them out.
That’s not the objective. It’s quite easy to get cut off from being able to even push to the building next door in many scenarios.
Then be off to the side. If it’s that much more beneficial, you should be racking up points just fine without needing to be in the objective for the bonus.
If being in that location yields you 3x as many kills, GREAT! You just won’t get the bonus from being in the objective. You may actually get more points than those that are on the objective, but at that point you are doing so by playing more strategically (if its working).
The whole point of the suggestion is to encourage more players as a whole to play from the objective. Helping to encourage a team win rather than just personal gain.
IF you are doing enough to notably help your team, without being on the objective, your score should reflect that still. Whether it be through the use of an MG nest, a field gun, or even just a good flank. If you are adequately helping your team it will show.
However if you are just running out, getting killed, rinse and repeat, your score will reflect that too.
I have tried to publicize this problem many times, it leads to a very boring pattern in which most games are stuck in a stalemate, I play as Japan, I literally know many of the first cap points by heart because the attackers are unable to break through it. This leads to a very boring, repetitive pattern that makes already small maps even smaller because the game usually takes place on just one sector. Defenders push the edge of gray zone and you need to push it too if you want to shoot anything.
Many people believe that defenders are simply playing too well and there is no way around it, but I think you can try to do something about it.
The following solutions come to my mind:
map design in such a way that each subsequent cap point is more and more difficult and more fortified, starting from literally some periphery to a very strategic ending point. It would have its logical sense and justification. In my opinion it would have a positive impact on gameplay flow, authenticity, etc.
bots that enhance roles, i.e.
defenders have bots that support different positions, e.g. mg, at, aa. they would be moderately effective, there is often a problem in the game that no one sets AT, AA - planes and tanks then become a persistent problem with which no one does anything. You can’t just assume it’s a skill issue and put it in a drawer. This is a casual game. No skill required.
Attackers would have additional attack bots, maybe more weapons of assault, more bombardment, more artillery.
then imagine D-DAY, German bots shooting in mg positions, and the attacking Allies, because they have additional bots, storm the beaches in large numbers. In my opinion, as long as it was feasible in hardware and server terms, it would be the best possible solution.
I support it, although I don’t think most people would change their gameplay just for the sake of rewards.
Sniper cosplayers will still find a place far away from the battlefield and spend the whole day lying there, and those who enjoy aggressive defense are also unwilling to camp in control points.
This is a huge topic of discrepancy though. There are those that say defenders are too strong and effective, and then there are those of us (myself and all the guys I play with), that see the opposite!
For the most part I agree. However, I don’t think defenders should be simply handed a location that is already fully fortified, without putting some work into it themselves.
I am all for a location that is more strategically sound, for example has better kill zone options, harder to flank sides, etc. So long as defenders still need to deploy fortifications to take full advantage.
On that note, I really think the greyzone change between objectives needs to change, in order facilitate fortification by defenders and regrouping for attackers.
As far as MGs are concerned I agree, but with the stipulation that they need to take a serious look at the AI Aggro and Priority target system. So as to make it not overpowered. Smoke and position suppression needs to be accounted for in this regard.
As far as AT field guns, I do NOT think AI should be able to run these independently. It needs to require input from a player.
As far as AA structures, I think the AI should be capable of running a second one if you as the player are operating the first one. Essentially they will try to aim about where you are in correlation to the lead markers of aircraft.
This way, it still requires the player to be accurate, but allows them to potentially double up on damage or damage other parts of the aircraft with the additional fire support.
This would be especially useful for when the Radio Operator’s Air Raids come in. As it only requires a single player on the ground to call them in, so it should stand to reason that a single player on the ground could reasonably counter them.
Not just D-Day but numerous other maps as well. It would change the entire face of the game, which lets face it, could really help the game in popularity.
Some may, while others will see their scores being drastically different from not just the top 1 or 2 players, but likely the top 1/2 or 2/3s of the team and may realize that they could be doing better.
Snipers aren’t always inefficient. I have several friends that main snipers but are still very effective because they choose smart locations.
Some that I have talked to think they are doing fine because their score isn’t THAT much lower than other players that are actually assisting in helping the team on the point. Hence why I suggest the huge buff to points those players get.
As I noted before:
If they choose to be aggressive, and are highly efficient doing so, it will show, and their scores will be competitive to those that do fight from the objective.
However, if they choose to be aggressive, but in fact are NOT effective in doing so, their score will in fact reflect LOWER than those holding the objective.
Overall, I think this would greatly encourage players overall to play more efficiently. Whether it be by holding the objective, or by being that much more effective in other roles.
Last sniper I saw had a grand total of like 35-38 kills and was the last alive other than a plane who did worse than him. I had triple digits. I have yet to meet a sniper main that does much better than that, and none of them are willing to put the scope down and rush point when it’s the dead end of the match and we NEED one final push or we lose
My best friend that mains sniper averages about 75 kills a game. I’ve seen him frequently hit 80-90. Not only that, but he keeps an accurate mark on incoming infantry, tanks, and MG/ AT fortifications, plus does very well at countering snipers.
Like I’ve said before, there are snipers CAN be good, but generally players need better incentive to play harder.
