tbh, i feel like tickets should be deleted.
and instead of adding tickets, attackers gain more minutes for the match to keep going.
so, either good defenders drain times from them, or good attackers capture the points in time.
which… not too much different from now.
but less experienced players would ruin the experience in both ways.
i’m afraid there is no simple solution.
Copy HeG massive conquest
Try defending a cap that’s very open with not much cover and see how difficult it is for attackers to cap. Atleast defenders can get away with just being near the cap and actually have presence there.
Defend the zone, but actually being in it is optional as long as whoever is in it dies before the cap finishes. Destruction really showed off how optimal letting one cap go in favor of building a firing line out of the enemy spawn is compared to flooding the cap and getting artillery barraged, bombed, tanked, grenade spammed, or simply mowed down by MGs because the gang’s all here.
I tried it many times, but I think it is more favorable to attackers. It is because attacker will spam bombs, rocket, artillery, mortars on it and wipe out any thing nearby.
So how do you not get in it to kill the enemy in it?
A huge IF when attackers do have planes but there are matches that its the defenders being the only one to have all kinds of spam especially in Berlin where not every Soviet player has a plane on their lineup as its mostly tanks while Germans may have Stukas and BF109s.
Its mostly US and Germany players that uses planes a lot while Soviet players, not so much but a huge help if they do.
nope.
it would be quite similar to what we have.
but more big and whit more trucks
Planes are very common for both side, no need to add huge if.
Some sort of bias? I had seen both side using planes equally.
1000 for attackers and 1500 to 2000 for defenders.
better than infinitum of reinforcements
Try capping the first cap of Hermann Goering Strasse as attackers then especially the version with the West side of the map(Tiergarten) as the first cap where its very open from the South. Defenders can just completely screw over the attackers with everything explosive and stuff like flaks. Even if both sides have tanks and planes and everything, it favors the defenders more since that cap is so open that its very difficult for attacking infantry to cap while defenders can just keep spamming everything they can throw at.
I can name some other bad caps on other campaigns like the first cap of Oasis, first cap of Maiskiy(the one before the river), Birch Grove, St.Lo and especially the open ones like the maps involving the Moltke Bridge.
I play the exact map and the exact cap as German before. There 1 match we have 3 rally point at behind, enemy keep spamming artillery , rockets, bombs and explosive packs. I can’t even get close to the point because of those thing. We lose that point eventually because we can’t even get close.
Must be nice for attackers to have something like that but the defenders can also do the same. I still remember this one match at Koenigsplatz where the defenders keep spamming kamikaze planes along with radio squad arty that makes capping the open area ones like the 3rd with the bottlenecks ridiculously difficult.
If the attackers killed so many defenders significantly more than attackers being killed by the defenders, then the attackers should be rewarded by draining the defenders tickets down to zero.
Confrontation already had this and had one match in Tunisia where its a tug of war until my team finally brokethrough the mid cap at the very end and the enemy ended up having zero tickets due to the long tug of war with my team having more kills and destroyed vehicles than the enemy.
The problem with this whole proposal is multi faceted.
One, there is no MM , so you can be constantly thrown on teams that are supplemented by Bots. While you and any human players might make the decision to fall back, the AI is just one step above a Pet Rock for intelligence, so they will keep going to the point you abandoned and getting farmed off of that.
Any player in his right mind is going to abuse that mechanic and farm the bots to lower the tickets without needing to advance or even risk their troops if they don’t have to.
And let’s be honest, some might argue that no one would abuse a mechanic like that, but all of us in some way or another already have for many things. Like the grey zone, or when there are glitches that allowed rallies to be placed like 10m from objectives etc etc.
Having it so the attackers can bleed out the defenders without having to push is asking for very boring games, and a lot of abuse to win. And we play to win so we’ll use every advantage we can take.
Attacking has always been high risk, hi reward. Attacking has usually always favored the defender, and as such I think it’s working good in this game. It also allows lesser teams and players a better chance to overcome match disparity.
There are ways to do this mode with both having finite resources. It would have to be something like “X amount of tickets gained per minute defending the point” and would IMO have to allow counter attacks to re capture areas. Those types of mechanics are why Confrontation works.
When you just have to defend , and the game allows a multitude of ways to just farm kills due to mechanics and low intelligence AI, you basically want to make a Camping Simulation 2.0 for Enlisted. Because there is zero incentive to advance as an attacker when I can bleed your team dry via every way but taking the point.
I would like to agree here. One of the most ridiculous games I ever had was when the defenders kept bringing in full rifleman squads, almost the whole team. It was so swarming with AI that it was effectively human wave tactics. I think we totalled some 100 kills on average across the attacking team where the enemy had like 20. But we still lost because of the unlimited zerg swarm.
But still I think it is more profitable for attacker because defender will always at somewhere nearby the point. So constant spamming explosive will get kills every time. But for attacker coming to attack your point , they mostly appear in waves, if no one is marking for you, you will miss the target.
Postscriptum, has tickets for attackers and defenders, if the attackers don’t take more than half of the points then they don’t get a victory, but that game has different kinds of victories, what they could do in Enlisted…
If both sides only get to the middle point and it’s not taken but contested when one side runs out of tickets, at which point the match would end, then there would be no victory modifier for points at the end it would be an even match a draw
If one side completely routes the other and captures all of the points than they would get the normal victory that we have now.
If they captured all but the last point then they would get a slightly lesser bonus.
So the amount of a bonus they would get would be dependent upon how far they got on the map basically or how well they prevented the enemy team from capturing points.
I really do think it would play better if both sides had tickets, it would solve this problem of the match going on and and on, in some cases.
The bottom line is that the game ends when one side runs out of tickets, The thing is it always costs the attacker more in the way of tickets than it does the defender so it seems weird that the defender has an unlimited number of tickets.
I think this is the best idea I’ve read thusfar. Ironically it would also be most realistic, given the issue of restrictions for either troop numbers or composition have on player choices within the gaming context.
IRL that’s the overarching imperative as timings are used to synchronise plans.
I would not mind a time based approach to capturing objectives, which extends the time in various increments when certain conditions have been met.
There is a little bit of this in game now where the defenders or attackers are given a 60 timer to counter attack a lost position - this resets and restarts as you can get troops on objective.
I think a time based objective game progression could be made to work. If you have a decent team and you can meet the objective timeframe then you get to progress, if your attack falls behind schedule then the game ends and the leadership attempts another avenue of approach - ie start another game. It would mean quicker and more decisive games, and “release” more live players into the MM pool, rather than be stuck in a game like Airfield in Normandy where a losing side can continue to drag the game out through dubious ingame ticket boosting mechanisms.
Nope, dumb idea, icould stand behind increasing the confrontation mode maps, limiting the number of plane spawns per player in one match, punishing campers by not giving xp for kills outside the objective zone, etc; but tickets to defenders are the pass the attackers want to camp just like they do when they defend and no one play objective once for all, at this point you are asking for a team deathmatch not an invasion mode.