At the very least the helpers (one would hope perhaps the devs) look into conversations, especially when the number of replies gets high. Its my HOPE that well-thought out conversations and good manners attract their genuine attention and hopefully gets passed up the ladder.
@James_Grove would I be correct on this?
2 Likes
One would hope with such a thing but with how much pro attackers there are over pro defenders I think weāre losing this fight
I chose to stay hopeful.
1 Like
I ran out of hearts to heart your comment
1 Like
That way of thinking is self-conscious.
I too play defender. Rather, the game does not allow the player to choose whether to be a defender or an attacker. You just play the role you are given.
When I play as a defender, I engineer and build just like you guys. I pile sandbags, pull barbed wire, and set up tank traps. They work well and I have no complaints.
If my sandbags are frequently destroyed by tanks, I will not counter tanks with sandbags. I build fortifications elsewhere if possible. If that is not possible, I use AT soldiers or eliminate the threat itself by attack aircraft or tanks and return to defense. Then again, my buildings work fine.
There are many different ways to deal with problems, and that is the fun part of the game. The other player will have a different response to my actions. Thatās part of the fun.
So, as a player who enjoys the same defense missions, I disagree with suggestions that seem unsympathetic and unenjoyable.
Perhaps I should have clarified. Paras have stopped the ability to camp with the attackers being helpless. You shouldnāt be able to build and MG nest, create a chokepoint, and sit there the whole match. If youāve locked the place down, the enemy has no chance of winning. This isnāt a PvE game, it shouldnāt be like that.
Look for them? Theyāre kind of impossible not to notice. Some people are still being stupid with them and just dropping on the objective. Itās not like an attacker plane where you canāt fight back.
Paras still have to conceal themselves. They can still be found and killed, and their rallies destroyed. Which is far harder for them to do, because they drop from the sky with an entire squad of AI that seem to have a death wish all the time.
I have no problem with that.
Itās not that your opinion is irrelevant, itās just I donāt think youāre examining the full scope of the issue and looking at it from both the attackers and defenders side simultaneously.
I never have said paras are perfect, and Iāve suggested numerous tweaks to their mechanics. But unfortunately I fear little of it is being heeded because of people saying nonsense like this:
Iām still being bombed into the ground by attacker planes, blown into oblivion by gray zone camping tanks, grilled by flamethrowers, magic molotovs and WP, and getting in horribly unbalanced matches, but yes, paras have ruined the game. Cool.
If asking too much is a āprofessional defenderā, then its existence must be very rare.
However, if you call a good defender who is dealing well with the current situation as a āprofessional defenderā, there are already many of them. Everyone is a pro attacker and a pro defender.
They donāt cry on forums.
Iām not sure what you mean. Defenders have an inherent advantage over attackers, both in Enlisted (with the exception of an handful of maps) and even more so on reality. Paras minimize that advantage, sure, but it doesnāt eliminate it.
2 Likes
I agree with him.
+1
I thank you for the clarification. As far as āattackers being helplessā there are most definitely a lot more available options to attackers than there are for defenders, though they may not be utilized because of popularity.
Trenching, smoke, breaking through with a tank all immediately come to mind.
- Trenching can take time and is only an option on soft soil (Iāve made suggestions in the past that could help its viability).
- Tanks have to fear the āall powerfulā explosive pack, on top of having to worry about the other methods of AT that are a lot more balanced. (I personally think Explosive packs need to be removed from the game. Though I will take that up on another thread).
- Smoke grenades are rarely used. I get that their smoke cloud is rather small, but their duration is fairly long, PLUS you canāt keep tossing them forward. I personally use this tactic a fair amount on offense. I have some characters that I equip with 3 smoke grenades, lay them out, and as I move forward I pick it up and throw it again if its still active. I can usually get one or even two additional throws out of them as I am pushing forward.
Players, especially on defense, have their attention already divided among multiple angles. Adding to that they have to worry about looking up at the same time. Not to mention that if even one of them makes it past their gaze they have to worry about a whole host of possible issues from the crate, not even to mention if they dropped a rally point with that one guy?
Not if they drop DIRECTLY on the location they are putting the rally point! They land, grab a hammer, go prone and boom! There is another squad rolling with them. If its a flame squad, your side is burning immediately.
Thatās why Iām hoping to have civil discussions with those that disagree. To better learn from their side of the conversation to make sure Iām not missing something. Iāve played on both sides of this situation, which is why I donāt THINK Iām missing anything that would change my mind on it. I AM looking at it from both sides.
Take a look at my other posts. Itās definitely not a situation that there is one lone problem with the game, there are definitely a lot of contributing factors. HOWEVER, a lot of those issues have the same theme:
Counterplay and/or the lack thereof.
Paratroopers are a counter to heavy frontal fortifications. However, when there are no heavy frontal fortifications, they make it far too easy to take positions. There really isnāt much counterplay that can be used against them, except āspend your time looking at the sky and ignore the other things around youā. Thatās a problem.
1 Like
First, Iād like to note that there are tons of factors where Enlisted varies from reality in ways that completely change how the fight works, highest on the list being importance of staying alive.
As far as the game is considered, I am assuming you are talking about the āunlimited reinforcementsā that defense gets?
- Defenders get slapped into the first objective in bulk, usually not even giving them time for players to get a rally point up. That point is hit with explosives and quickly cleared due to density on the objective and absolutely no defenses to begin with.
- Defenders are not told in advance where any of their future objectives will be, making it extremely difficult to set up an established ālineā.
- Defenders are not given time in between objectives to regroup. Even without the usage of Paratroopers, its common for a large amount of the attacking force to get to the objective at the same time as or even before the defenders are able to.
- In the case of āInvasionā mode, defenders are not able to undo the progress made on an objective by attackers. So even if they push the attackers back, they have lost something they CANNOT get back.
3 Likes
I have no problem with more fortifications. I would like to see the Engineer squad have new and upgradeable buildables. Having different AT guns for example, which has been suggested repeatedly.
I completely agree, I think TNT should be the main anti tank weapon for infantry. Having explosive packs on every soldier in some ways makes the AT gunner useless.
I think adding one more is not a big deal. Iām already looking at the sky to see if Iām about to get blown to bits by a plane, so I adapted very quickly to para attacks. I will admit that could be a personal thing, but from my perspective, situational awareness is already very important to winning that adding another dimension just isnāt that big of a deal.
What in the very likely event someone sees their drop? The closer you get to the objective, the higher the chance of discovery. Also, anybody who sees a para squad dropping in a remote area will know instantly what they are up to.
In my mind, this is no different than building a rally in a concealed position but very close to the objective, say 50-40 m away. Thereās many maps that allow this. So building rallies on the flank just doesnāt seem any different than what we have now.
I agree wholeheartedly, and the examples I gave fit that description as well.
The thing for me is, as a long time player who truly enjoys this game despite my own grievances with it, it find it seriously frustrating when people say idiotic things like āparas ruin the gameā but not a peep about anything that actually is problematic and has been for some time. This pattern of behavior leads me to believe that those people just fear change and refuse to adapt.
Not saying youāre doing that. Thatās just been my general observation when people discuss paratroopers.
Let me put it this way: until the ability to fortify a position better, both through stronger structures as well as advanced knowledge of where the objectives are going to be, is added to the game, there needs to be at least temporary nerfs to Paratroopers to keep them in check. Without the thing they are supposed to be countering even being present in the game, they are far too strong as they are.
Not just AT gunner being useless, but also AT mines.
It wouldnāt be anywhere near as much of a problem if it was just the paratroopers that had to be dealt with. As Iāve said, all it takes is a single paratrooper making it down and grabbing a hammer. Now you have to contend with attacks from both sides and have your reinforcements cut off, usually by a flamethrower, which isnāt dropped in the crate itself for good reason.
It doesnāt even matter. The second that they get a single rally point down, it opens the flood gates. Other engineers can come out and place more rallies rapidly, or even just having that many additional troops coming out from it makes a significant impact.
Ultimately, it makes it too easy for them to get that rally point down in that position, without taking much time (if they were to spend the time sneaking up there on foot), and usually results in the capture at a rate that is far too fast for game balance reasons.
3 Likes
Some defenders are overtaxed and overworked enough as it is adding more dimensions to them does not help them itās just breaking the camels back Were you the only fool holding up a defensive line on the objective while everyoneās doing God knows what else itās painful we need more players in the game bigger lobbies so itās just not one defender holding up the entire objective and when he dies or was looking at somewhere else the objective falls in his absence
1 Like
Flamethrower shoots into the air!
Hey calm down. Itās hard to read, so please use line breaks.
There are many beginners in the game you participated in, or there are many campers who are not useful, so there are few people who protect CP. Or there is no player to guard the sides and rear. As a result, one veteran is burdenedā¦Are you talking like that?
Thatās no reason to nerf the attackers or buff the engineer kit after all.
If newbies or players who donāt work tactically irritate you, you should look for a better stack. or if you fix the game, you should fix another part.
For example, give more incentives to players who contribute to teamwork.
The theory of buffing an Engineerās ability to carry useless teammates is complete nonsense.
In that state, if two or three engineers who understand the game participate in the game, the attacking side will be at an unreasonable disadvantage.
What you and GuardianReaper screaming for is mostly wrong coping. It just makes the game worse. Thatās why few ppl agree.
1 Like
Having the Max lobby size increase from 10 to 15 will give better odds and better chance of defense by chance of more players instead of bot teammates But if they do that thereās also chance will have more bot but then we can just hold them back with numbers if nothing else
In that case, the number of attackers will also increase. I also think the idea of āāincreasing the lobby size just for defenders is nonsense.
nothing wrong with increasing the lobby size for everyone it just does means thereās more hands on deck And it doesnāt not matter how many people are in the game as long as thereās more people on the objective putting up some defensive structures it should buy us more time
Fair enough, but how is that different from having a rally 50m away with the same effect? Isnāt just as bad, regardless of where the rally is placed? Itās better protected than a flanking rally since itās harder for the enemy to reach without being discovered.
Itās kind of a trade off. A flanking rally is harder to defend and you have little reinforcement, although you have a chance of surprising an enemy expecting a frontal assault. Meanwhile a standard rally is hard to reach by the enemy and has infantry and armor protection (most likely) but the enemyās position is likely to be better protected from the front.
Thatās also why we need squad class limit. If people think cycling 3 para squads is as worse as itās gonna get, just wait until the US and Germany can bring all their flamers from all campaignsā¦.