Second objective ring

Suggestions
1

I haven’t seen anyone posting about this yet and i am curious what you would say about it.
Basically the whole idea is rip-off from HLL warfare mode, where apart from the main objective it also matters who control the area around it.

Players do avoid playing objectives. Maybe the reason is that they mainly have BA rifles, and they don’t really want to go into CQC with such a weapon? I mean it is literally downright intuitive to sit further back looking for distance engagments.

It could be like people in second ring simply empowers the people who fight in the first ring. So you would still have to push the main objective and not like stack in the second ring and it’s done.

I won’t go into further details though as i want you to focus on the overall idea.

2 Likes
2

No the reason is because most of them think they are playing Hll and do all the road from the spawn to the objective crowling only for die or they dont want play it and stay back farming kill or something else

2 Likes
3

then maybe improve the game mechanics so it would make benefit for rest of the team instead of ranting all over? (i mean like the people, not you specifficly)

4

The one wo is ranting about people dont play objectives is you not me

I already ranted about it

What i get was

“Dont take from us our fredoom of doing nothing”

Is a lost battle live with it

1 Like
5

I didn’t mean you specifficly, i did an edit there, you are so quick with these answers!

6

A lot of Training

1 Like
7

I can’t quite agree with you here though

i’ve seen a lot of squads trying to get the objective down by camping in nearest houses trying to get some kills, as they didn’t know the best way is to actually push like a mad man. They do play more passive and why wouldn’t devs do it in favour of them?

There is no momentum in this game, you could simply stay in these houses literally the whole match and the defenders would still have enough reinforcements to keep you out. You can’t really clear your way in.

8

There is a difference between

A player wo is in near hause killing all the enemy wo rush toward the Cap

And

A player wo is in near hause firing only for get some kills and call it a day

And this is wrong, what you describe is a classic defender stomp with attacker wo start camping for get some xp, but if the battle get the same ammount of experienced player on both side the battle keep change face

9

Killing enemy rushin the cap isn’t much effective, for me it’s like 3-4 kills most of the time (with BA) so i would say there’s no difference between those players as they usually contribute nothing at all (besides those who manage to destroy enemy RP). Not to mention rally points allowing you to resp on top of the objective which only makes your effort less meaningful.

and why this classic defender stomp is so doomed to happen? make the campers contribute passivly to the game. I simply can not understand why wouldn’t anybody want to get rid of these stupid boring as hell moments in game.

Simply, if my team doesn’t push the cap with me at least they empowers me actually doing it.

10

Avoid enemy enter the cap is ineffective? Ok i read sufficient nonsense for today maybe someone’s else like your idea or agree with you bye

11

i mean ofc it is effective if you deploy for e.g. MG and mow down whole squad instead of taking 3 kills with your BA that’s it.

it would be just more effective if you could additionaly empower your team capturing main obj same time.

12

I greatly disagree. There very much is momentum in this game. Usually in the form of grenade spam, flamethrowers, or RO bomber runs. You can clear your way in usually far easier than you can hold enemies OUT as a defender. Fortifications rarely hold at all. As soon as you see any huge kill feed, you know its time to push. If you are trying to push with just BA, then yeah you are going to have problems. You need to make use of your resources to successfully push, and it seems there are usually only 2 kinds of players: rushers and support.
Rushers will always keep pushing, even when at a disadvantage and wasting tickets, while support players will only push forward when necessary, and prefer to hit from range, thin out enemies, or provide “infrastructure” such as rally points, ammo boxes, trenches, sandbags, med support, etc.

I don’t think the answer is to have a second objective ring. I think the solution is to have stronger fortifications, and a delay time in between objectives, for BOTH sides sake. It would allow defenders a chance to fortify, and get ready for that next push, while at the same time giving the attackers dedicated time to clear up stragglers from the last objective, and regroup, rearm, and get ready to push as a group to the next objective.

The biggest issue I see in the game right now is that it is entirely focused on pushing in and fighting infantry vs infantry as quickly as possible, instead of fully incorporating the other elements into it. For example:
there are dedicated AT squads and AT weapons that are used extremely rarely in many cases. Why? Because they gave the explosive pack as an option to ALL infantry. While this makes it easier for infantry, it removes a large element of tank usage from the game. So instead of tanks pushing up and helping block bullets for infantry, or breaking down thick fortifications, most of them sit in the back of the map!
Due to the tanks not pushing forward and helping with the thick fortifications, the sandbag walls, barbwire, etc was nerfed so that all INFANTRY could deal with it easier. Anyone can simply deconstruct fortifications, or start spamming frags, and it all disappears. They nerfed entire elements of the game down, just in an attempt to satisfy the rush tactics players, and now we are seeing the major issues arising. Rush tactics are so overpowered, that a lot of players don’t even want to attempt to fight that which by realism standards SHOULDN’T work but do in a game setting.

This wouldn’t even be an issue if fortifications actually held properly. Again, both offense and defense would benefit. Straight rush tactics would be less effective, and support type roles would have more place.

3 Likes
13

unfortunately

this is good point, im looking forward for it to change.
although still not so sure about whether it would have such great impact on the reasons i’ve mention for why this topic exists. I kinda feel like people would still sit back.

14

“Objectives”…well…
There aren’t much in this game, right?

As for my experience, there are way too many people trying to achieve objectives completely headless, wasting tickets like eating popcorn.

I wish for more players that act tactically - flanking, holding front lines (if necessary retreating and re-grouping, dragging fire onto them, suppressing, taking out nests or sniper sites - and start attacking objectives as soon as a real chance is given. That’s at least how I play (depending on the match mode).
As I stated a couple of times, a commander mode would be very very helpful for this kind of play.

1 Like
15

i know, i kinda hope my idea would somehow close us to this being a reality, as BA infantry wouldn’t have to push that hard and could focus about fighting around it and eventually do what you mentioned.

because i would do what you mention! currently the only reason why i throw myself at the cap zone (when i’m not the specific troop class to do so) is because this is the only way i can contribute to the game, and not by sneaking around

being outta objective is hella risky currently

1 Like
16

As for the developers side, it’d be so easy to implement some secondary objectives along the given primary road.
So, as from my side - thumbs up for more task variety within a match; not at least to make certain classes valid at all.

2 Likes
17

No it wouldnt, it would only make attacking even harder than it currently is.
Defenders can build radios just like attackers can, defenders dont have tickets they can rush and push attackers all the way to edge of greyzone without losing tickets ( as they simply dont have any tickets )

1 Like