When Paras was released one problem people addressed was their ability to speed cap the next objective (Capturing the next objective just as it opened).
It’s obviously even faster and easier now and absolutely game-breaking with the new class, guerillas. Anyone with some battles under their belt can exploit this.
Suggestion: Make every newly opened objective locked with a timer of 20 sec (or something).
The mechanic already exists in confrontation where the objective is locked for 90 sec, so it would probably not require a lot of time of developing, I’d assume.
Even before guerillas were released I’ve been thinking of this solution. Locking the next objective for a period of time would create a much more healthy and interesting game environment.
I also believe this is the right step instead of nerfing guerillas in some other way (which I suspect will happen sooner or later).
If you proceed with this change, you should also revert all changes to paratroopers.
Example of speed capping the next objective with guerillas:
The most shocking thing is that Battlefield series with 20 years of multiplayer battles experience already had it in their Operations, so anyone who was designing Enlisted’s Invasion mode could go and see how/why to implement them.
With the current Enlisted pace, meta and playerbase, these snowballs are inevitable, and even more so with paras and now guerillas.
We 100% need sector lock, not even objective lock.
it sucks, but at the same time, as an attacker, speed is the only key to sucess.
just like in warfare ( i think ) you don’t want the enemy to reorganize and lock down the next objective.
even more with assault type of gamemodes.
i think why confrontation works, it’s because both have tickets, ( even though it can be exploited ) but have spawns at the same distance.
mostly because i believe defenders have more advantages than attackers.
attackers have to deal with defenders, tickets, time, place rallies and ( possible ) infinite suicide divers / spam of tanks
defenders on the other hand, just fight in and around the point. strike and ambush, don’t have to worry about tickets, just place one rally and be done with it, respawn group on points, etc.
not to mention, most maps in the pacific or normandy would suffer for attackers due to being mostly wide open. and then just to get picked off by hulled down defenses.
and the only challanege defenders has to go through, would be just to get on the point first and defend it.
Then it’s a bad game design that is solved by another bad game design.
In reality deffenders know several positions where they will deffend and are prepared in advance. Defence in depth and stuff.
Also it has nothing to do with reality. It’s just vets speed runing victories.
Lmao with invasion at least there’s a chance of randomness with some objectives but with destruction where the bombs are already pre-placed… Man, good luck anyone playing against a sweat stack of voice chat gorillas
we just got conquest rework which got mixed results ( i personally love it, but not many others do )
not mobile defense no.
it’s kinda pre-planned, i guess. since they are a bit more organized.
but for gameplay side, you’d have 2 people on one point facing the whole army, while the others defends other points.
it would be an entire different gamemode where it’s debatable if that would work.
Edit
it kinda does in HLL and post scriptum / squad 44.
and you know why?
we both know why.
but as a reminder, much slower phased game where death kinda matters and vehicles aren’t spammed left and right.
in enlisted, it’s kinda all mindlessly.
not necesarrily just vets, but if you take your time and waste it, even bad defenders have a higer chance to slow down or halt an entire attack.
more than times i dare to say defenders are more likely to win than attackers.
because they can just counter attack without risking too much.
I don’t want 2 objectives. That’s too much to process for average enlisted player.
I said vets as they are more likely to remember where is the next objective and can prepare to atack it as soon as posible.
Meanwhile new players (or casuals like me) don’t have such knowledge so they can’t prepare.
I guess that’s true.
Though I tend to save lives of my soldiers (habit from other games) so it’s not really an advantage for me personally. And from this perspective I’d say that without infinite lives deffenders are at a dissadvantage.
Snowballing happen because the other side has better players, no zones locks can fix it and confrontation showed it, the snowballing side is going to occupy the cap anyway even if need wait 20s for cap it
I agree, but think the solution could be just giving attackers more tickets back after a cap to make up for it. Something like: 1st cap/bomb starts open, 2-5 caps/bombs all have the delay of 15-20s. A few seconds isn’t enough to build serious entrenchments but does give the defending team time to fall back/respawn and maybe drop a rally without immediately being capped by guerillas, paratroopers, sprint + sword guys.
Yes please. Don’t even have to revert all the nerfs, I’d be okay with just reducing the height at which the bots pull their chutes and leaving the longer fly in time. Paras these days are strictly relegated to low Br (and even then I barely use them) as any team with more than 1 braincell mows paras down as they fall. Can’t remember the last time I saw one land and not have lost nearly the whole squad in Br3+.
I agree about attackers being disfavored. Two evenly-matched team and defenders will likely win the majority of games (invasion/destruction).
Paras pre-nerfed balanced things out, same with guerillas. They break the boring linearity and offers a more dynamic battlefield. Imo its also more fun to defend having to cover all directions.
As ppl stated, a good/better team will always be able to speedrun. And not to talk about stacks. But it’s not fun to lose this way (shown in the videos above).
I can also see your point that this might weaken attackers a bit.
But let’s not forget attackers got a brand new tool, guerillas in the first place.
And after implementing a objective timer lock, it can be furthermore balanced by adjusting reinforcement to the favor of attackers, as Tooya said.
