Totally AGREE. This has been happening for a couple of weeks now. US teams are overloaded with good players.
Defenders spend all of their time worrying about trying to hold off the absurd amount of firepower coming through the front that they are LUCKY if they can contain or slow down. Especially when it comes to flamethrowers, because if they DO get close, half your team at minimum is roasted then and there.
Any “homefield advantage” defenders should have is out the window because they are not given the heads up where they are going to be, time to get to the next objective, time to fortify the next or current objective, or even get a decent spawn to get to the next objective any quicker than what the enemy is able to get there.
So YES, getting hit from behind is bad enough, and is 10x worse when they drop a rally point with them and flamethrower squads (among others) start flooding through.
Exactly what is that going to achieve? The goal is to hold the objective. So even if you do drop on their side and manage to kill a bit, they are still going to push through and get on the objective, and there is nothing you can do about it from there.
We try to fight for the objective, and we set up what we can in advance. Even with that though, we get so overwhelmed its insane, even with decent fortifications (which helps a little bit), flamethrowers and grenade spam still win out EVERY time.
I couldn’t remember if there was a 3rd one so I left it open ended as such.
Let’s not pretend defenders are at a disadvantage when the defending team is competent.
If you have 5 proper rallies around the cap zone, there is simply no way for the attackers to win (unless the game randomly decides to give them like 500 tickets per each cap). There is basically no weapon strong enough to clear the cap zone if the defenders play right with the fact they have infinite manpower.
But the way people play is dumb. No one builds rallies, morons walk off the point and do nothing, you have tanks trying to spawn camp getting overrun, because literally a single soldier walked onto the point and capped it. The amount of games allied planes have complete free reign is hilarious. No one builds AA. Half the defenders are stuck on some stupid roof/building getting a kill a minute, unable to get to the capzone. And the amount of times i’ve watched the minimap where people sit 1cm off the cap as its being capped by a single dude is also brain melting
1 Like
IF you have 5 proper rallies around the cap zone, that means you have a bare minimum of 2 squads of players that know what they are doing and are dedicated to winning. Usually when that is the case, they simultaneously cue up to get in the same game, or its a customs match. The likelihood of that occurring is so low I’ve only seen it maybe twice in a year of gameplay.
In rare situations like that, “normal” goes out the window. That said, if the SAME type of thing happens for offense, its an absolute wash.
Also, I’ve seen custom games with 7-8 good players on each side, and offense STILL wins out majority of the time.
I agree
Do not try to save your foolish teammate’s play by simple reinforcement by the game system. It is balanced at this point.
GuardianReaper @61839981 repeatedly spams the suggestion threads, or shouts out the unobjective opinion that “the defense is at a disadvantage” in unrelated threads like this one.
I doubt he really plays the game.
When a good team plays defense, the defense usually wins.
When the attacking and defending teams are equally good, the battle lines are stalemated.
This means that the attacking team with a finite number of tickets loses.
In fact, the attacking team is at a slight disadvantage, because in a pure clash of strength, there is no way to beat the one with unlimited resources, and it is necessary to try several attacks to outwit the defending team, such as flanking attacks.
But the GuardianReaper @61839981 wants the attacker to forbid the attacker to attack creatively, because it is disadvantageous to the defender.
“Make the barbed wire indestructible.”
“Give me sandbags that can withstand tank fire.”
“Take away the paratroopers’ rally points.”
He proposes all these terrible ideas that ruin the game.
Also his friend Greyparrots @Greyparrots makes a strange claim.
According to him, game developers hate the defense side and many game players ignore the defense side. This is not true, players of the game cannot choose when they join a match whether to play on the offensive or defensive side, and they play well on the defensive side.
Their argument is completely disconnected from the current state of the game.
In the end, it is up to the players.
What would happen if we strengthened the defense side as they claim? Will everyone be able to fight fairly? The answer is no.
Teams with good players will continue to win whether they are attacking or defending, and beginners and poor players will have less and less chance to win.
In the real military, it is said that the number of attackers needed to break through a strongly fortified defensive line is three times the number of defenders.
But what about in this game, of course, there are the same number, 10 vs 10, not 30 vs 10.
And the defenders have a clear advantage. Something that everyone points out: they have unlimited tickets.
What happens if the defenders are able to build a solid line of defense in this situation, as the Guardianreaper @61839981 demands? Needless to say, the attackers are at a huge disadvantage.
Even though they have an even number of men that can be made into a force, the attackers have to wipe out the defenders’ soldiers while devoting resources to destroying the fortress. And at the same time.
The defender can concentrate on intercepting the opposing player the rest of the way once the fortifications are built before the enemy arrives, but the attacker does not.
The attacker’s player skill must always be greater than the defender’s to win.
It is unfair no matter how you look at it.
The current game works well. It works because the attackers are able to properly destroy the fortifications built by the defenders.
Guardianreapers @61839981 claim that the defenders have gaps and vulnerabilities. But that is the correct game design.
It is intentionally designed that way to achieve balance within the game rules of 10 vs. 10. It is one of the gimmicks to give the attacker a chance.
I can only assume that he thinks the experience of being outplayed by a good player is a flaw in the game system and is trying to destroy it with his one-sided arguments.
His opinion is totally unacceptable.
3 Likes
Its not the stuff built, its the players that matter.
A competent attacker team can take a point in a short time, and a competent defender team can drain attacker tickets faster than a sieve. I think its fine the way it is now.
2 Likes
Don’t lump me together with Reaper I like some of his stuff but I don’t like everything I don’t want Indestructible barricades I just want barricades with a little bit more Health And what I’m saying is I’m seeing more pro attackers than there are defenders in the forums
What do you mean by pro-defender? What kind of player is meant by pro-attacker?
Again, a player cannot choose to defend/attack. Players can choose a faction, but are otherwise forced to play in a random game mode/random side.
My understanding is that a player who is good at attacking is also good at defending.
I myself enjoy the defensive side well enough and have never felt anything was unfair, if a fair match was made.
That is the point where I feel uncomfortable with your and Reaper’s statements.
You speak as if the offensive and defensive teams are divided like factions, and you speak as if they have few people who understand them. In reality that is not true.
I can’t find the posts at the moment it was talking about the capture rates and different maps and in different campaigns and how they’re apparently off at the moment And they’ve removed Sandbag stacking And some of the objectives don’t even make sense for defending or they’re very hard to defend or sometimes the German MG’s are facing us the defenders for some reason
And what I mean about pro defender versus pro attackers I don’t see many people talking about buffing the defenders in the forums besides Reaper or helping them in any Like giving the defenders different sandbag combinations or different constructs of sandbags
1 Like
That is just to say that non-reapers think the buffs are unnecessary.
Because most people are coping well with what they are currently given.
If simply complaining is a requirement for a professional, then that is a pro-complainer.
2 Likes
Same can be said vice versa plus attackers cant be reckless/ have to pay for that unlike defenders since they have ressources and usually, defenders have map advantage.
Get into attacher chokepoint and result is pretty much the same.
So your best strategy is the good old sitting duck strategy?
And you wonder why you get ass kicked.
Because sitting duck is apparently not an effective strategy.
3 Likes
So are some cps hard to capture for attackers.
Has nothing to do with defenders etc. but with factions.
Oh no. Nobody can climb a couple of roofs anymore.
Defending impossible.
Its called map design.
Reaper spends his time in the game building the shit out of the cp and gets triggered when an arty call destroy his sandbags.
2 Likes
I’m not asking for “indestructible barricades” either. My point is the same as you that they need to be more durable, and the fact they take an engineer time and materials to build them, they shouldn’t be able to be taken down without some kind of cost to other soldiers. TIME does not count. Either another engineer, or a consumable of some kind should be needed.
The reason you don’t see as many people fighting for the defenders as much anymore is because so many have given up trying to fight for balances. They get run off by the trolls that would rather spew hate than hold an intelligent, civil debate about balance.
1 Like
I have already talked about the attacker having to perform two tasks at the same time: destroying obstacles and clearing defenders.
If the destruction of obstacles will always require an engineer, then the attacker’s difficulty level will increase even more unjustifiably. Even in the current situation, there are situations where the removal of fortifications is a handful.
Your stupid idea, it is almost impossible to remove the obstacles.