I’ve already talk about it before. When attacking team took a capture point, greyzone instantly disappear and its a race to next objective. And now with paratrooper who can drop directly on top of it…wtf…even engineer can’t build rally point too close so battle can be fair. Winning like this is no fun and losing like this is frustrating! Another example just now I’ve lost a battle (under 10 min, and attacking team finish with 900 reinforcement) that’s what i call unfair and I’ve seen too much of those now. I’m asking : keep greyzone active for a moment, doesn’t have to be too much, or put a lock on capture point just like in confrontation. Give a real chance for defender to actually defend. And we can at least put the same distance for paratrooper to drop near capture point as rally point. I don’t know what’s the penalty for desertion but i’ll quit any unfair game like this now (no matter the side I’m on). And i’ll also try to write a new topic like this every now and then. I don’t want/need lots of likes or reply, just a real change plz! Thanks
Skill issue. Defenders can instantly spawn on objective. And can infinitely rush.
Just now : I’m attacking. First point is quickly taken (ok no problem) now second point is a little hard but its ours, now i wanna build a rally point but team capture point 3 even before i finish building. Point 4 is next with 1000 reinforcement for us. F*** it : Desertion (even for easy win)
I agree 100%. Not only are defenders really not given a chance to get back to defend in time, but it doesn’t tell you in advance (as a defender) where the objective is going to go. Therefore, trying to set up defenses as an engineer (the ONLY thing that really gives you a potential advantage) is barely possible unless you move 2 objectives back and happen to guess the right location.
Having to deal with paratroopers that can attack from any direction, on top of a full frontal assault, without added defenses, will almost always result in a loss.
Engineer squads and game mechanics regarding defense need to be adjusted for the gameplay change that came with paratroopers.
The window of time in which defenders can respawn on the objective is extremely small. So unless players intentionally kill off their entire squad just to make it in that window of time, that’s really not an option usually.
That’s still not really useful when you can’t get a rally point down fast enough to move those “infinite” forces forward. Rushing forward to push the attackers back is no longer a valid tactic with the introduction of paratroopers.
No No No, i can understand if y are asking for locking next point for a few seconds and put restriction on paras to jump straight on point. But y are asking for unbelivle bullshit so after point is taking atacking team will losing tickets with out advancing forward - its absurdly BAD proposal.
Thanks, you (unlike some…especially Adamnpee) have actually some interesting / useful comments and details to share
Let me ask your opinion on this then:
how about the grey zone slowly creeps forward, giving time for defenders to set up at next point, while also giving attacking forces a chance to regroup for a coordinated attack?
When point is taken some of defence is still on it and fighting, if grey zone slowly creeps forward it will give such players more advantage, they will kill more engineers that cant build rallys because they are too far away - thats will be nasty. If we speak about suh mehanic i think its best to lock point and show its timer so everyone can understand what is going on and when it ll be unlocked.
On the otherhand we should understand that mehanics that prevent avalanche will be punishing atack if teams will be competitive.
Right now i think we need restriction to jump straight on point - 4 players (premade) with 4 thompsons (100rnd) can take point in a blink of an eye.
7.43 mins wow a new record, well done knew it could happen.
previous records, 9 min give or take a few secs.
How is that any different than the current mechanic? I really don’t see how that gives an advantage in the way you were trying to describe. If you are worried about your engineers as attackers getting killed, perhaps don’t put them in the middle of the firefight?
That’s my point.
It’s more than just restricting them from jumping “straight on point”. Even jumping to a point that is 50m out but on a flank or BEHIND the next objective is absolutely detrimental to the defending forces. Even before paratroopers were in the game we had big issues with the attackers moving forward too quickly without having really any chance to put up any meaningful defense.
The ONLY way to make it balanced is to give the defending team a chance to actually defend.
So whe are gonna ignore half of attacker are veteran stacked and almost all the entire enemy team (stacked veteran as well) have deserted already at first point? Lol… the paratrooper are the issue here clearly
what game are you playing that that can happen -if there is not a rally point built (which often the case is not as players are so stupid to realise what a hammer is for) defenders spawn far back from the objective
Actually some guys including myself went paratroopers at the very beginning where the first two objectives got blown up real fast and the enemy team just collapsed very quickly.
Lets not forget : Reinforcement number ain’t a handicap for attackers, its more like a timer. Your 9 soldiers infantry squad won’t go down to 6 soldiers cause you lost 300 reinforcement right? 1000 reinforcement until defeat is like 5 capture point until defeat. And defender can’t take back any % of the point they’re protecting. Maybe if that was on (lets say half the speed of attackers) that would be a different story
And is not paratroopers work, from the end screen veteran attacker simply spammed every WP granade they have on the first point and veteran defender simply deserted because they searched a battle with less competition
Avalanche happens when big ammount of defence players are staying (spawns on old rallys) on taken point and fighting. If y put some restrictions on atacking team movement they will lose tickets and time with out real advancing.
The most soft mehanic that can help to prevent Avalanche - is automaticall destraction of defence rallys that are near to taken point.
Just so that we are on the same page: Are you aware that when a fortification is zoned out by the greyzone, its automatically destroyed? That part is already in the game.
A creeping greyzone would eliminate those rally points when it reaches them, which is better than it is currently for attackers.
As far as
- If they aren’t rushing forward in small groups just to get gunned down, you will actually sustain LESS losses.
- It forces attackers to group up so that they are more effective in waves rather than every squad for themselves.
- You will likely see more defenders actually falling back due to the ability to actually fortify or reposition for a defense.
- You will see significantly less defenders trying to push into attackers as the wall is pushing them back, therefore less attacker deaths.
What are we talking about? how much time is needed to put grey zone on lost terretory?
I m saying that when point is lost ALL DEFENDERS rally should be atomaticlly destroyed so defenders have to spawn on point or not far away from it.
The Avalanche happens only when BIG amount of defenders begins fight for already lost point. In fact thats their fault.
WAIT WAIT WAIT - y want to make atackers more comunicative (in game that is not about comunication its not a SQUAD) and want to put restrictions on atackers because DEFENDERS dont want to comunicate and spawn on new point that should be defended. Really?
I can say it in another words - Avalanche - forces defenders to group up and spawn on point that needs defence…But we know that it doesnt work…
So i will say again if defence rallys will be destroyed immediately after Point was taken it will make Defence to spawn on new point…
Lol! All I can simply do, is say case-in-point.
The OP is 100% accurate about paratroopers spawning ahead of the defenders, and being able to capture objectives before the defending team even has time to fall-back from the previous objective.
Yet… here you are, deflecting the issue, and accusing the OP of having “skill issues”.
Stop shilling.