Increase playable map area + remove grayzone camping

Suggestions
41

I agree with more playable space, HOWEVER, to do so shouldn’t remove greyzones. The size needs to be increased in ALL directions, and the greyzones still exist, but are further back.

I do not disagree that the grayzone camping is an issue, however, as with anything, there are MULTIPLE key issues that have a trickle down effect causing this issue in the first place:

  • Map size (which has been covered)

  • Options to counter tanks, there are actually quite a few, but due to the prevalence of explosive packs (because of how OP they are), very few of the others are used.
    Due to the sheer number of characters/players carrying explosive packs, and their ability to easily kill tanks, most tanks don’t dare move forward.

  • Reasons to push forward. In the current state of things, fortification is barely worthwhile. It is so easily destroyed by so many other methods, INCLUDING what they are supposed to protect from, that tanks aren’t really needed to push through the fortified lines. If that changed, you would see a lot more tanks actually pushing forward.
    In addition, mines are rarely utilized due to so few being able to be used at a time (despite being able to carry up to 3 grenades at once). If minefields became more viable by increasing the number that could be carried per character, tanks would be exceptionally useful to help push through minefields, setting off AP mines along the way!

  • There are multiple other variables, but these are a few of the major ones to consider when it comes to getting tanks out of the greyzones in a balanced way.

42

Pretty sure AI don’t play tanks, so that’s likely a player. If you are facing a camping tank, you are ofc a player. Sure, there are probably a lot of bots on both sides, but there are at least some players. At that point we are back to square one. The player coming towards you very well may not be a bot.

Quarry is not usually difficult to deal with, I’d have to study the replay more closely to see what exactly was going on that my team couldn’t kill them. It seemed like a lot of low level players, so I am guessing they simply lacked the equipment and experience. In fairness that game an attacker was not strictly necessary, but for whatever reason the tanks were holding off the advance quite well. I will admit this one was an outlier in terms of map and tank, but the general pattern was still present.

And you do make a good point about the danger of tanks playing poorly. This can usually be fixed by simply paying attention to how the soldiers move, however. Bots have tell tale movements, never lean, etc.

Problem with Monestary isn’t the gate objective, it is the one before the gate. usually:

  1. Tank places itself inside the gate.

  2. Remaining players fortify objective, the height of the gate places the tank in a position to shoot at all points around the objective except defender’s side

  3. remaining defense players mostly need to cover the defender’s side, tank has all other approaches covered.

I’ve seen this exploit a few times. I can kill the tank with an AT gun (usually do), but I can’t do so and get to the cap myself before the next tank does the same thing. And because the tank has already done its damage, my team can’t manage the already dug in positions.

Now, I can take out the infantry positions with grenades, but my team is either not equipped to take out the tank, or doesn’t think through how to deal with it.

I can do any one job, but I can’t do everything.

The problem isn’t that the tank can’t be taken out (though it literally can’t by players just starting that campaign unless it is premium pacific or something), the problem is that it can do many jobs at once, in effect. You might get 10 actual men in an rifle squad, but the actual roles you can effectively do are more limited. A camping tank can act as a sniper, mg, at gun, and more all rolled into one package, thus if they are playing well they need to be a priority. If they are not playing well, best leave them alone and focus on the objective.

43

The point the screenshot is supposed to illustrate- Is that vehicle play in a situation where both teams have a relatively even number of players would result in whoever is not using a vehicle winning due to additional presence at the objective.

And the defending team who has to occupy the objective has zero rallies with a roof over their heads. The attacking team has the benefit of rallies in the buildings surrounding the objective. The defending team is forced to either risk the rally being destroyed by placing them in a building adjacent to the objective, or in the open river banks.

This translates to the defending team collapsing in a short period of time before the aforementioned tank in the gate can do much damage to the enemy team- Especially since with how the objective is structured, the enemy tank cannot intercept anyone using the objective building itself as cover.

44

Options to counter tanks are kindof odd in that it really depends on how long you’ve been playing the campaign. Low level players have maybe 1 way to counter tanks in the playable area (explosion packs). High level players can pick from attackers, fighters (albeit inefficient), mortar, AT guns, and artillery (though this doesn’t generally kill a competent player as much as forces them to move, which can be enough, and only when in the playable area unless an airstrike is used). Sometimes AT rifles, but that’s mostly just the really light tanks on campaigns like Pacific. Worth note that tanks actually inside the arch at Monestary cannot be killed by mortar or artillery, and are much more risky to kill with attackers or fighters, so that particular spot knocks out a majority of responses.

I do like your idea about fortification. Most of the time I find players fortifying hurts their own team more than it helps.

45

Competent vehicle play in a situation where both sides have a roughly equal number of players results in one team not getting to the objective in the first place. Tank takes out most, players sweep up the remainder. Presuming roughly equal skill levels of those players.

As to the second point, we are clearly talking about completely different points. Either I said the wrong thing, something ambiguous, or you are thinking of something else. Because there are plenty of buildings, just spread out and each with a roof, or at least a wall.

Unless you mean that’s your suggestion?

46

And I’m saying that’s rare in practice.

image

As a defender who has to protect either 3A or 3B, where can you place a rally with a roof over it, when the attacking team comes in spawns 2A and 2B?

A tank in 4 can neither protect anyone in the objective itself (especially given the building’s layout not being conducive to HE fired from that position), nor any of the buildings that lead up to it.

47

Look, of all the things to mention as an example of bad map design leading to tanks being oppressive, Monastery isn’t one of them.

You’re better off using Quarry or some other map as a reference.

48

Oh, I was thinking same map, but invasion. So no, you only have to protect one point, not destruction mode. Idr for sure which building it is then, but I believe it is between 3A and 3B towards defender. Usually there is a second tank that covers between the objective and 3A. 4 covers between 3B and objective. Infantry covers in front of that.

49

There is also the option of molotovs to the engines (requires a bit more fine aim than explosive packs and still offers the tankers a CHANCE), TNT mines (unlocked pretty early on in all campaigns) and AT mines (lvl 10 or 11 if I’m not mistaken).

In addition, if sandbag walls were made more durable, it would offer a defensive counter to tank shells, which can be built by engineers that are gained within the first few levels of every campaign.

1 Like
50

This is Invasion.

Routes A and B are variations of Invasion, but also double as assault objectives.

51

image

image

image
(Second tank usually around here for backup)

Infantry in circle, tank LoS in red (after pushing out slightly, if attackers, mortar, etc comes it’s barely a foot to get back in). First is 3A, second 3B

I’ll concede it’s not nearly as effective in Assault, that goes more to mind games.

Compare that to moving up. LoS isn’t nearly as good, and the IIIB has to turn its turret a lot more for infantry coming from a different angle.

52

“That’s rare in practice” isn’t sustainable game design. If the game does eventually get more popular, maps will be more populated, and that includes high level players.

53

In the case of Monastery, I would like to point out that the ridge to the west of the map would be optimal for expansion of the map. it would allow attacking forces options both to counter tanks hanging back in the positions you pointed out, as well as options to shell objectives 1-3.

Additionally, it would allow an alternate path than just the bridge when assaulting the gate.

1 Like
54

I can get behind that.

55

Now there’s a second tank out of nowhere?

I already addressed why this won’t be an issue.

Now-

Look, if we’re going to bring up “competent team” and “equivalence in skill”, then there’s going to be a tank on both sides, maybe planes, and if they had even a modicum of common sense, a good chunk of enemy infantry will have access to AT weaponry.

What you’re bringing up as an issue is something that is a mild inconvenience that can simply be ignored, and inherently depends on an inequality between the team with a tank and one without- Which is less an issue with grey zone tanks itself, and more an issue with the absence of a matchmaking system.

Because frankly, I have a distinct feeling you’re using this anecdote- This example, to justify a situation wherein you experienced the issue and attempt to rationalize what happened- And frankly, given the relatively poor explanations you’ve provided, I’m inclined to believe this is not representative of how it would work out in reality- Something I can attest to with my thousand or so games playing both factions in Moscow.

Is this merely an issue with lack of experience, skill, equipment or a combination of all of them, that you intend to put this suggestion forward without much thought? Because this is like saying you got bit by a dog not familiar with you, which resulted in you coming to the conclusion all dogs are bad and must be banned.

56

No, @starkwolf has a valid point, its just a matter of how can it be addressed in a fair way that doesn’t skew balance in a massive way.

Adjusting map boundaries would be a great starting point, and is an excellent discussion if people of different tactics could weigh in on it in a civil manner, rather that just exclaiming “skill issue”.

1 Like
57

“Skill issue” is what you focused on replying?

I’m not surprised. Let’s just ignore everything else I mentioned.

I feel like a parrot.

58

The attacker’s tank has to move out of its grayzone to get LoS, and the defending tank can pull back very slightly to remove that LoS if the other tank gets the jump (somehow).

Attackers and fighters can work, but it is a very specific angle that’s required to hit the tank and not crash into the Monastery.

A mild inconvenience to have an mg aimed down those lines and limited ways to address it? Not to mention you are limited where you can build AT guns, or infantry will kill you. I’ve pulled it off, but really the job to get there requires doing a lot of jobs at once, meanwhile defending infantry has an extremely easy, braindead task of shooting whatever makes it to a very small area. One side simply has it overwhelmingly harder. I don’t see how else to make it more plain to see, it’s literally drawn out. The added tank on the enemy team is simply a bonus.

Now, if the attackers have a T-34 or something and the attackers are using a IIC or IIIB, sure. But again, no equivalence in equipment.

A tank isn’t a solo win condition, so? That’s not the only measure of something being broken. Remove the grayzone, tanks are far less of a problem. Too much less so unless they are given more space in the main area.

To respond specifically:

“It’s certainly oppressive to play against under the ideal conditions” okay. We have acknowledgement that it is at least good?

“a tank is ultimately dependent on its team” so is literally everything else. That would be a whole new level of broken if that weren’t the case. That’s like breaking into someone’s house and saying “well at least I didn’t shoot you.” Well good, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.

“what you are suggesting is essentially permitting someone annoyed with a tank the ability to take a long detour to get rid of a tank, which distracts from playing the objective itself.” When removing the tank is the only way to reach the objective, it doesn’t matter how long the detour is, it needs to happen. Best part is if you succeed, you get a nice flanking position on your way back.

59

As elegantly put by someone else…

Then we have a case sample of:

You’re thinking in terms of “how easy do they have it relative to what I need to fix the problem” without considering that a tank is one less squad manning the objective- Again, something I already mentioned in an earlier post.

You’re certainly responding to replies to your suggestion, but I don’t think you’re analyzing what they mean and what they are saying.

You can’t just hyperfocus on “But but their advantages!” and carve out hypothetical scenarios where you keep adding to the problem to make it seem like it’s a bigger issue than what it is while ignoring the flaws.

Do you want to feedback and a proper discussion to your suggestions, or people to merely agree with you?

60

I’m glad I’m getting feedback, though I will admit the whole "just rush the base mindset, nothing else matters any detour is bad) is a pet peeve of mine. There’s more to the game than gunplay and reaction time, you need to be strategic about your movements and choices. Detours sometimes save your team a lot of losses. Sure you are on a time limit, but there’s usually more than enough time, not nearly enough tickets. Very rarely have I lost or won on the timer. Not dying as you get there is usually the priority, which means destroying the stuff that is sapping your tickets the fastest. Or, as the defender, sapping those tickets as fast as humanly possible.

This is ultimately more of a game where each class takes one thing off the table for the opponent and opens new possibilities for allies. On some occasions it is even possible to do the inverse with some classes if not efficient/careful.

I’ll take some imbalance due to historical reasons, though the devs have generally done a good job of ironing those out at the expense of the game feeling a bit more arcadey, but that’s perfectly okay. What I hope to see improved is that those same mechanics don’t become a hinderance to balance, and in the case of the grayzone it has. Keep it or lose it, idc, just don’t keep it as it exists, immunity to getting flanked should not be possible.

“But their advantages” =/= “But they have an overwhelming advantage.” Please read my comments more carefully. If there is an advantage that offsets it that I am overlooking, please state what that is, because it is not any of what you have mentioned so far, and I have already addressed why.

1 Like