I blitzkrieged fair and square
1 Like
lol fair but Iām not sure itās ālighting warā in most cases.
Iāll try to point out the main janky mechanic that breaks this game mode too often so please bear with me.
Right, so when a point is lost, any player that is currently waiting to respawn can do so directly onto next point. Not sure how this works entirely or how long the option lasts. I think the spawn can be negated if the enemy team get within a certain radius but thatās just a theory. Basically you have to be dead when point is lost to immediately defend the next point in an effective manner. Period.
So the main problem arises when no players are dead or opt to spawn elsewhere, (Vehicles, way back to build rallies) when point is lost.
Now the point is completely unguarded with broken squads maybe trying to fall back to defend. And thatās a BIG maybe as your average player will just try to get as many kills and wonāt even try falling back. Not that falling back will
matter in many cases as the next point is probably less than 200m from the last and a good veteran player probably has an idea where the next point will be and has already closed half that distance with a fresh squad and is already building a rally. Plus if youāre on a flank, chances are that the attackers have a shorter distance to that point than you. Retreating hardly favors the defenders and it more often should. To really help the team we should suicide our squads all the time and never attempt a retreat, which is completely ridiculous! But yeah even if you beat the attackers back to point, your broken squad (and it will mostly just be you as bots lagging behind are easily killed) probably wonāt buy enough time for your team to make it all the back from main spawn, let alone build rallies.
Now thereās a lot of variables here and so many things are absolutely relative to individual skill and certain maps are worse than others but I hope you see my point. And that simple point being, these quick games are often a side effect of poor game design and/or poor map design. Player skill being a major factor in compounding this issue as well as a one-sided imbalance of the two types of enlisted players. (The ones that play the objective and the ones that donāt) Luck being a factor as well.
If the game mode were designed better, these latter factors may be much less of an issue. It has very little to do with not falling back fast enough.
A temporary lockout could fix this but it would absolutely impede your blitzcap. I imagine you take some pride in ending a game in 7 minutes. Nothing wrong with that, though it is a complete waste of a booster and would therefore argue that a 7 minute game should not be possible.
But hey youāre the man for pushing point. Donāt stop! Yāall win games.
And sorry for the long reply.
3 Likes
Right. Like how itās done in BF1 operations.
2 Likes
Yup. been brought up before my multiple peopleā¦another alternative method that works wellā¦
2 Likes
Which is why the greyzone should start to move immediately - just not all at once, the greyzone could move meter by meter, which would force the defenders back, but would also give them time to move.
1 Like
This is certainly better than having the next point temporarily locked. It works well in BF games. Would work well in Enlisted.
1 Like
you know 2 negatives give a positive in english language? 
but i disagree with this. maybe it wouldnt help with final result, but it would give defending team fighting chance.
also sometimes i āabuseā building rally point on flank that is close to next possible cap. you could actually have 2-3 squads that are not even teamed up on cap in 5-10 seconds after previous cap is captured. defending team has almost no chance in defending that cap when that happens.
sometimes it isnt even problem in that. well coordinated stack will have rally point already built towards next cap before current one is captured, not to mention you can drop while both teams are still occupied with fighting on previous cap. it would not be the first time that i saw team capturing cap point seconds after previous one fell.
i disagree. capping next cap in seconds after first one fell just shouldnt be possible. this is not āteam is too slow to respondā. defenders stand no chance in defending next cap if attacker is already on it in seconds. 30-60 seconds lock timer should be there like it is in confrontation.
but it is not fair and square. this game mechanic is essentially punishing people who went to defend previous cap point. or maybe you want defenders to have 2-3 squads always defending next cap point to prevent āblitzkriegā.
2 Likes
Donāt apologize for the long reply, it was well worded. Now I may really surprise you here, but I agree, the defenders do not get the advantage at all in this game, nor do they get good spawns, and my team almost never falls back.
I think youāre right about the point spawn being negated if an enemy gets too close. I have noticed before that I can build a flank rally, and as soon as point is taken, I rush past it and move to the next point (usually less than 150m away because I flanked and have been running in that direction while the point was being capped).
When I arrive, there is usually no one there, so I can solo cap it, even without a team. I have won a game at 100 tickets because I did this twice on the last three points, took point three rushed to point two, and my friend rushed to the last point while I solo capped.
So, I know for a fact there needs to be a solution, but I feel that locking the point is the worst/will be the least realistic.
I think we should let engineers (or everybody) be able to build defenses and rallies and whatnot at the next objective before it before the objective Infront of it is taken. By letting people know which objective is next in advance they can prepare. This can be done by extending the grey zone backwards for some or all classes.
My other idea only works if the defenders have a ticket count (since they donāt, I will give my other half of the idea). When the team or most of the team successfully retreats, they could knock some tickets off of the enemy team (although this isnāt very on flavor with Japan as they do not retreat).
My final idea is to have a minimum number of people required to capture the point, while I am hesitant in this idea because I enjoy close games, it might be a change for the better that promotes teamwork.
My first idea is the one I prefer, and I know this was first suggested by @TheUnclaimedOne .
I mightāve had more ideas, but I have forgotten them at this moment.
1 Like
Actually Iām against letting defenders see objectives ahead of the current one being taken. Reasoning? Engie abuse. You give me enough time, a small enough building for objective, and teammates to man the defenses and Iāll give you a near impassable obstacle. So long as my teammates are on objective and using what I build, no one will be able to break into that objective and take it
However
You give me 30-90 seconds and I can make a half decent defense that will be helpful, but not frustratingly impossible. My suggestion always has, and always will be, to delay the Attackerās gray zone advancement by 30-90 seconds. This gives Defenders some leeway to fall back and a little bit of time to put down some small fortifications without going all Fort Knox on that thing. They are able to do this while not being interrupted by those fast advancing Attackers who either start capping before anyone can properly fall back or rush in and gun me down as Iām trying to get my Czech hedgehog just right to most effectively block the doorway. A minute and a half is the most Iāll ask for. Not some 3-10 minutes where every single way into objective will be nothing but sandbags, Czech hedgehogs, mounted MGās, and AP mines (obviously excluding our own entryway because Iām not that stupid)
Not to mention that my solution helps even in a immediate steamroll, as seeing second objective doesnāt help in those opening 30 seconds where youāre busy building a rally point and objective falls before you can even go back to fortify second objective. However, if the Attackers are physically unable to push forward due to the gray zone not advancing until some time has passed, then no matter how first objective turns out be it standing all match or falling in 30 seconds you will always have whatever time is allotted to you via delay
1 Like
Ok, my mistake. it was someone else who really wanted to have that feature that I agreed with. was it @guardianreaper0 ?
Who knows. All I know is Iāll make the game cancer if given all the time in the world
It already happens.
Except now itās done only by vets / tryhards who remember where is the next objective. So yeah, āmuch balanceā while casuals can go kiss themselves.
1 Like
Only on the ones where itās a set objective every time. Most have a 1 of 2 choice. Iāve gambled on that and gambled wrong. Lol
I used to love back in the day when you knew where the points would beā¦
some epic fortifications!..I miss old enlisted.
1 Like
Iām glad that you see that too. And that was a great example you mentioned with your friend. It really can take only 2 friends working together to completely dominate a match. And though that may be a reflection of how good some players are, or even how bad their competition may be, it still kind of sucks when good gamers can seemingly just end a match. Have always enjoyed a lengthy bout over a blowout.
Even though I did throw it out there, I am 100% in agreement about not locking the point. It breaks immersion and is a somewhat lazy way of extending a game. There are certainly better alternatives.
Now this would be a great addition! Having some time to set up a good usable trench would add a lot more flavor to defense. I can see how some may be opposed but hey it works fine in Hell Let Loose and donāt see how it wouldnāt work fine or even better in Enlisted.
Thanks for the feedback!
1 Like
Well, you have 50% chance so not bad. Though I guess the House always wins.
Also all you need is one friend and you can prepare to rush both objectives.
Also also, imo such timer would be good as it would give ppl time to build their sand castles. And imo the more playstyles are viable, the better. (I have a friend who would love that.)
1 Like
do you member the good ol days??
*Couldnt find picture of Quad barrells in every door way and sandbag covering MG
3 Likes
Glorious days of cursed contraptions.
It was stupid but at least it was creative.
I guess devs have PTSD from that period and are affraid to give ppl too much time to build.
I see a trend. It was once obnoxious and then nerfed to being sometimes viable. Or even barely viable.
2 Likes
Well, devs donāt want to limit us but making things next to useless is a fair game.