I am a big invasion/assault player. I don’t bother with conquest, because rally point locations and air strikes are basically the name of that game. Whoever builds the best rally point location wins. Pretty lame if you ask me.
Anyways, I feel that invasion style games should be longer. I’m thinking both sides should have limited reinforcements, both sides gain reinforcements from objectives(to mimic reinforcements from the rear), and the reinforcement numbers should be higher. If this is the case, it will be less about capturing and more about actually getting kills.
The games are really short when people sit at the next site, and the first site gets captured, then they immediately capture the 2nd site. I feel the game would be more fun if it was more about kills/strategy than capturing zones. There is no risk/fear factor, and at this point it’s just a race.
Actual divisions are like 10,000 soldiers. Of course we don’t have enough players to mimic this amount, but at least we should have 1500 or more respawn points in terms of squad mode. I think the only way we can pull off a division is by having players control more than one squad. This might be interesting, if the computer can handle it.
Invasion is already plagued by low IQ morons that don’t play the objective. Putting more emphasis on kills would have the reverse effect you are looking for.
IMO the solution is to make capture point areas larger so it’s not just another episode of “rush to this house and sit in a corner”. Teams should have to clear an actual strtegic AREA ala Battlefield to push forward.
Although I agree than Invasion and Assault could use some improvements to make them longer and more depending on tactics than “rush the point and if we get more bodies there, we will win”.
But this one sentence ruins your whole concept for me:
It should be the opposite - capturing the point should be the most valuable thing to do.
If the team cannot protect their points what strategy are you talking about? They should encourage people to properly attack or defend the points, not rush for kills. Sadly with current points gain the second option is more often chosen by players.
Instead of supporting “more kills=better” meta I would rather see larger capture zones, larger distances between them and some time for the defenders to prepare said zones, especially the first one. It is kinda absurd that defenders need to waste their time to run to the objective instead of fortifying them.
so what i am getting is that you want the point completely cleared before the attackers can actually cap? because that will cause more issues than you think it will
What I meant was to have a risk factor. Without a risk factor it’s just a race. If there’s kills involved not only is it interesting, it forces people to be smarter.
With proper team knowing how to defend there is a lot of risk factor in every move for the attackers. Same for the other side.
But if some guys sit on the side trying to farm some more kills and allow the attackers to walk into objective without putting any fight then that is their own fault. This is why I would like to see being closer to the objective much more rewarded than it is now. It would encourage more people to get in there and do what they are supposed to do.
Kills are important too, of course. But objectve should always be above them in the importance ranking.
That’s right. I’m not trying to mitigate that. I think it’d be nice if invasion was also like assault where you have multiple capture points. This way it’s more of a tug of war between the forces, and you also have reinforcement depletion for both sides.
That could work, but would require a lot of tweaking to get it right.
But it could also be another mode to play, instead of changing Invasion so drastically. WIth two teams starting on the opposite sides of a map with 4-5 points for example (one for each team and 2-3 in the middle - same as in Assault) and truly playing tug of war for said points in order to push the enemies back. First team which manages to capture all 4-5 points wins.
Both teams would have reinforcement depletion then of course.
It’s interesting that you say conquest is all about airstrikes when they’re far more powerful generally in invasion mode, as is artillery/HE shells/mortars because you’re taking the normal amount of people from a game and forcing them into one easy to explode area.
Rally points win invasion games too, almost every time we win or lose an invasion game it’s because someone placed a good spawn point (or set of spawn points). The other times are when our team legit can’t shoot straight and they all end up on like less than 20 kills like fuckwits, while still not being able to build spawns.
i like your idea but there’s not really anything we can do with 10k reinforcements unless they crank up the size of these games from like 12v12 to 24v24 that way we can actually have multiple platoons fighting for the points instead of just having a single platoon controlling point B in the middle and the other guys are just playing hot potato with A and C… with more people in the games we would actually have legit wars on each point
like seriously maps would be able to be used to their full potential then… the D-Day beach would be fucking epic since the germans would have enough troops to populate all of the MG bunkers just like what it actually would have been like.
Why do you feel they need to be longer? What would it add to the game to make this change?
I think the bigger problem with Invasion/Assault is that it is basically a series of 3 or 5 assaults you have to pull off if any one of them stall out the attacker likely loses.
So the defender has to do well once or twice, the attacker has to do well three to five times.
Giving the attacker more tickets might fix this, the other alternative would be to give tickets on taking a point based on the percentage lost.
Alternatively make it so that defender deaths account for a greater loss since they have unlimited tickets and can throw bodies at the problem where the attacker has to play safe.
One way to change this would be to give both sides unlimited respawns and put it on a timer, or give both sides limited tickets that refresh after point capture.
Or something else, it is really weird that attackers have to care about lives more then defenders though.
It may seem that the attackers are disadvantaged, but its counter intuitive. The attackers have the advantage at this point, because they have better artillery range, and more routes to attack from, speaking from all Normandy maps besides D-day. Ruins of Vaux for example, as an axis you start at the first site, which is a pathetic house with a cracked rear. The US army launches an artillery or air strike strike onto the house, all the axis soldiers are damaged or killed by it. Any capture point can be easily focused on and destroyed by tanks, artillery or air strikes. The point is, the current meta of capturing one point at a time offers a very poor game play, often frustrating and much too short.
I believe by adding more squads and amount of players to the game along with some sort of risk factor, such as spawn tickets on both sides or something of that nature, will make the game more intense and enjoyable. Who knows. My time is out, so I’ll leave it at that haha
I’ve had plenty of first cap defences on ruins, the trick is to get spawn points up on both flanks and push both flanks as defenders. If you can do this, and hold the first point for the first couple of minutes, it becomes quite easy to hold the first point using the flanks, if the enemy cant get into the buildings they’ll get fucked sideways.