Please allow defenders a brief time to actually defend or fortify a position

Suggestions Maps
1
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Why defenders need setup time in invasion modes
In invasion-style modes, the entire design premise is asymmetrical gameplay: attackers push forward while defenders hold prepared positions. However, when defenders are given no opportunity to actually prepare, the mode stops being asymmetrical by design and instead becomes a one-sided steamroll.

  1. Defensive play requires preparation by definition
    Defense revolves around:

• building fortifications
• placing barbed wire
• mines
• sandbags
• setting rally points
• positioning machine guns
• coordinating firing lines

Without time to do those things, defenders are not “defending” they are simply arriving late to be overrun. Attackers, meanwhile, already have: momentum, spawn advantage from rally points placed ahead of time, and the initiative to choose engagement timing. So when defenders spawn directly into the next objective at the same time or later than attackers, they are effectively forced into attack from a defensive role, which breaks the intended balance of the mode.

  1. Higher-level matches make this imbalance worse
    At higher levels:

• weapons are deadlier
• explosives are more common
• vehicles and CAS are more oppressive
• fortifications matter far more

But these are also exactly the matches where:

• retaking points is impossible or intentionally disallowed
• defenders arrive under fire before they can even place one sandbag

So not only are defenders steamrolled they’re punished more severely for it. When points cannot be recaptured, losing one due to lack of prep time isn’t a “minor setback,” it’s a cascade failure that:

• collapses the match early
• destroys team morale
• removes incentive to stay

At that point, quitting isn’t toxicity it’s a rational response to a system that denies the player agency.

  1. The guerrilla squad problem magnifies everything
    The guerrilla squad (or forward-infiltration units) exposes the biggest structural weakness of the mode because they can:

• slip past defenders
• back-cap the next objective (biggest issue)
• arrive before defenders are physically able to spawn and move

This leads to absurd situations where:

• attackers are already capping the next point
• defenders are still running from the previous spawn
• fortifications literally cannot exist because there was never a window to build them

This is not “high skill play,” it is mechanical exploitation of map timing and it produces:

• frustration
• a sense of helplessness
• players leaving matches en masse

Which hurts the health of the game more than any balance tweak.

  1. Why setup time fixes all of the above
    Adding a brief preparation window for defenders between points would:

:heavy_check_mark: allow meaningful fortification building
:heavy_check_mark: reward engineers for existing
:heavy_check_mark: prevent instant back-cap abuse
:heavy_check_mark: align gameplay with invasion’s intended theme
:heavy_check_mark: reduce rage-quit incentives
:heavy_check_mark: increase match length without arbitrary HP inflation or ticket bloat

This could be done with:
• a 20–40 second “defender preparation” phase
• temporary spawn lock for attackers between points
• delayed activation of next objective zone
• automatic fallback teleport for trapped defenders
• suppression of guerrilla squad spawn behind new line

None of these change the attacker’s goal, they just ensure both sides are actually playing their roles.

  1. Why the current system feels “masochistic”
    When players describe the mode as “basically an incentive to leave unless you’re a masochist” they are reacting to three psychological factors:

• lack of control
• lack of counterplay
• lack of perceived fairness

Being overrun after a long fight can be fun, being deleted before you arrive is not. The game mode is at its best when defenders:

• build real fortifications
• coordinate around chokepoints
• make attackers earn every meter

Not when victory depends on who sprints to the circle first.

14 Likes
2

I don’t see how this could be a bad idea in the slightest.

5 Likes
3

this would make the game so much better

7 Likes
4

Lock out timer for the next objective similar to what confrontation has already.

Longer time for defenders to spawn on the actual objective.

9 Likes
5

I remember when I first started playing four years ago people were complaining that defenders had too much time to set up defenses. Back then, I think almost if not all defenders at the beginning of games spawned in the defense point.

Now at the beginning of some games I spawn so far away as a defender that the attackers are arriving about the same time I do.

6 Likes
6

Yeah back when you could spawn with a plane right away and spawn nuke the objective.

Good ol times

1 Like
7

You do realise that the attackers are pressed on resources while defenders are not, right? The whole premise of the mode is either rush or get worn down by an entrenched and limitless enemy.

If you give time to fortify, the attacker will suffer more losses, thus making it even more difficult in the long run. Especially when you consider most players front rush objectives without a care for tactic or flanking. Then add in AI pathing/AI squads for deserters or to fill in teams and you got a perfect reserve meat grinder.

Also just because a previous point was captured does not mean the next one is getting instantly contested. You have people on the front supressing enemy approach, most likely till the last man, or they’ll be doing delaying actions while retreating. And if paras dropping in is your problem, then consider looking up and shooting them down, before they even land.

8

You actually undercut your own argument. You said the entire premise of the mode is attackers fighting “an entrenched enemy” but then you also argue defenders shouldn’t have time to entrench themselves. Those two claims can’t both be true. If the design goal is attacking entrenched positions, then defenders need time and tools to entrench; otherwise attackers are just fighting a rotating stream of people sprinting into caps, not fortified defenses.

Also, I don’t have a problem with paratroopers. Paras at least have telegraphed drops, travel time, and counter-play. The real issue is the guerrilla squad, which can back-cap the next point faster than defenders can physically reach it. In higher-tier games that basically deletes the entire defensive phase of the match and turns it into perpetual retreat. That isn’t “attackers overcoming fortifications,” it’s simply skipping defenses entirely.

3 Likes
9

The positions usually are entrenched already.
Be it house, trenches, bunker you name it thats usually where the cap is.

10

Yet those positions have too many entry points intentionally to prevent it from being actually a real fortified position. The only map that has a position like this that works despite having so many openings is the airstrip bunker and that’s because the hole in the top of it is positioned on the defenders side of the map (there is also the large Church on the Japanese map that is somewhat effective as a defensible position). But in higher br gameplay this is easily overcome by riffle grenade spam and guerilla squads that can pre-cap points/denying defenders from being able to arrive at the objective.

11

if I recall correctly the game is set up in even teams, so 10 players guarding theyr own position should be more than enough in most of cap points if not in all caps.

Not exactly sure what prevents defenders from spamming said equipment.
The game is extremely easy for defenders.

12

I think this generally translates to either you rush and get through or the enemy will entrench and thus will take much more resources/time to break. If it made it sound that their meant to fight an entrenched enemy from the get-go then I might have phrased it wrong, or ur bs me.

These words were not said. The attackers will only fight an entrenched enemy, if their first attempt at breakthrough fails, therefore giving the time for defenders to fortify and entrench.
The first attempt has the highest chance as the defenders are unprepared, any other following one will be more difficult as the defenders stabilize both their respawn lines and their defensive sectors, if they are smart enough not to swarm on CP only.

You can build quite a fair few things if you have build speed perks. Takes about 1,5 sec I believe to put down wire or sandbags actually with it maxed. Sure it takes time if you are the only one doing so, but like, that’s the negative of this being called a multiplayer game, there’s a team and if it doesn’t work together, then you simply don’t win or struggle to win.

If guerillas infiltrate through your lines and get behind you, then that’s more problem of your map coverage via players. That isn’t purely a high BR issue, it can happen in low BR too and it’s a competence problem, not game mode problem.
As for grenades and Artillery being effective on cramped objectives, yeah they are. Same as SMGs, Tank HE and Airstrikes, but like, you know you can defend from outside the Objective? Get on the flank and supress the main route, force enemy to waste units/assets to contest you, thus reducing pressure on the main front.
It’s called positioning. There’s no need for CPs being entrenched or housing 5 ally squads, who’ll just get blown away with the first enemy HE shot, when you can stay spread out outside and kill the enemies before they even reach it.

13

Or let me humour you and find a better solution, that will allow you the time to entrench as you want it.

After capturing a CP, there’ll be a timer, till next area unlocks for attackers. Let’s say 30-45 seconds, plenty of time to get everyone to the front lines for the defenders and set up something. It’ll be set at a reasonable distance so attackers can get into positions and be ready to rush the CP, unless directly contested by defenders, but not capture or harass rear areas.

But for all that, let’s look at limiting defenders.
15 second respawns for defenders upon death, so make each life count when you cover behind those wonderful entrenchments.
Time restricted vehicle spawning, no more mindless vehicle spams on defender side, since there’s no downside to it, unlike attackers who pay double the inf squad spawn.

So would you take it, or do you prefer having the option to just spam squads and swarm the CP as you like with no penalty for doing so?

And I am not an attacker enthusiast, I much prefer being defender and doing flank coverage and drawing attention rather than screw around on a cramped CP circle, but even I recognise when the game mode favours one side over the other.

14

You’re trying to present this as “humoring me,” but what you’re actually doing is admitting my point and then completely gutting it.

You accept that instant unlocks and back-capping are a problem otherwise you wouldn’t be proposing a timer at all. A delay between caps is exactly what I argued for. So we’re already operating on my premise: defenders currently don’t have time to get to the next point and entrench.

But then you immediately tack on a list of “conditions” that don’t just cancel out the benefit they make defense objectively worse than it is now.

You’re proposing:

• longer defender respawns

• restricted defender vehicle use

• extra punishment for dying while defending

So yes, defenders “get time to entrench”… but with fewer players, slower return to battle, weaker vehicle support, and heavier penalties for actually doing their job. That isn’t balance, that’s kneecapping the entire defending side and then pretending you’ve handed them a gift.

This turns defense into something even worse than the current state:

• fewer bodies to hold the line

• slower recovery from losses

• less ability to counter breakthroughs

• more punishment for participating as defender at all

Meanwhile the original problem, guerrilla squads reaching and flipping fresh objectives before defenders physically can, remains essentially untouched.

The mode is supposed to be attackers fighting entrenched defenses. Your proposal turns it into attackers fighting penalized defenders who happen to have sandbags. That completely erases the advertised identity of the mode.

So no what you’re offering isn’t a “better solution.” It’s my solution in name only, paired with enough nerfs that the end result is still a downgrade from what already exists. Defenders don’t need to be punished harder, the real issue is instant unlocks and back-capping bypassing defenses entirely.

15

I did say that in the previous post, that coverage against rear infiltration by guerrillas is player responsibility. Bad map coverage is team/player issue, not the game’s. It’s the fault of the average defender not having the capacity to check his 360 for any enemies, before mindlessly moving to swarm the CP, as they do.

Well it currently is attackers attempting to breakthrough and hold a CP against a mindless swarm of R******, who spam squads with no penalty.

Truth is defence should be penalized just like the attackers are limited.
Attackers have to close in, often through open ground and break the defence, all the while having to maintain as low casualties as possible.

Of course an unlimited and unrestricted force does not require penalization. But it certainly needs time to prepare so the attacker suffers even more losses from his already limited force. And what do you give the attackers in return for that time to set-up huh? Didn’t mention any benefit for them. Maybe more reserves per cap, or less reserve consumption.

Sounds to me you want your holdout scenarios with prepared defences and all, but aren’t eager to take any negatives downsides, while the attacker has all the limitations. Except now with your idea, you’d just take away all their momentum of breakthrough, making it even worse.

16

Well, if the attackers know the next objective id expect the defenders to know it too.
Why there isnt someone doing the bob the builder shit as soon as it seems the current cap is lost is beyond me.
Generally in this scenario the one player in attacking team is up to hes task and the defender isnt.

But sure, some minor timer is fine.

Never heard any mode described as such but then again never really paid attention to them either.

In a game where defenders can freely throw bodies to counter attack without a care in the world due to unlimited tickets, its pretty difficult to imagine defenders as somekind of victim.

2 Likes
17

I think he derives the description from Real-life, except he’s forgetting the fact that the attacking side often had a ratio of 3 to 1 against the defenders, which can not be mimicked in-game. Often started with a large artillery barrage or airstrikes onto the enemy position’s, thus making a significant part of the defences useless. Some few little know facts.

1 Like
18

I say yes to the vote as from my own experience as an engineer if you get pushed back to a far away CP then your set up time is gone running to the cp only for attackers who have respawned from.a vloser angle shooting ya up before yoy get chance to build anything.

2 Likes
19

Might be worth to instead switch the first after-cap spawn area from inside the CP to like 10 - 30 meters behind it and make it last longer. Could even retain the spawn-protection during it, to prevent pre-set artillery or airstrikes, unlike as it is currently, where a direct CP spawn has no protection at all.
That could solve the issue of defenders with not enough time for respawning and having to rush in, while also reducing the chance of spawning right as an HE shell hits the CP, wiping half a team.

It would also make going to set-up rallies faster, since you’d already be closer to the minimum distance and outside whatever interior the CP is set in.

20

You keep trying to frame this as “player responsibility,” but you’re dodging the core structural problem. Guerrilla squads are not “rear infiltration” they are instant forward presence that unlocks and caps the next point faster than defenders can physically arrive there. You’re blaming players for not covering “360° rear sectors” when the next point doesn’t even exist on the map yet. You can’t “cover” something that hasn’t unlocked. That isn’t bad map coverage, that’s a system that literally allows objectives to be captured before a defense exists.

Calling that a “skill issue” is just hand-waving the design flaw because it benefits attackers.

You also kept quiet‐quitting my point about mode identity. The mode is advertised and themed as attackers pushing into entrenched positions. Your answer to that is:

defenders are “R******* swarms” so they should be penalized

So you’re not even arguing balance anymore, you’re just annoyed that defenders exist in numbers. You want attackers to keep their momentum and defenders to be mechanically throttled because you personally dislike losing breakthroughs. That’s not balance philosophy; that’s “make my preferred side easier.”

You’re not denying that your proposal turns defense into:

• fewer respawns

• slower returns

• vehicle throttling

• point-to-point back-capping left untouched

You just think defenders “deserve it.”

And no, defense is not “unlimited and unrestricted.” That’s just another invented premise to justify nerfs. Defenders already pay in:

• distance to new points

• disorganization after collapse

• lack of retake mechanics in many modes

• attacker’s initiative and tempo advantage

You want to turn tempo advantage into tempo + resource advantage and then pretend that’s reasonable.

Your final paragraph basically says the quiet part out loud:

“what do attackers get in return… more reserves… less reserve consumption… you’d take away their momentum”

Exactly, your concern isn’t fairness, it’s momentum protection for attackers. You’re angry that adding setup time for defenders would reduce the attacker snowball. You want a permanent attacker initiative snowball and you dress it up as “balance.”

Meanwhile the actual issue remains unchanged:

• guerrillas can cap the next point immediately

• defenders don’t know the next objective until it unlocks

• defenders travel farther and slower

• lost points can’t be retaken in higher modes

Your response to that is basically: “good — defenders should just suck it up.”

So let’s be honest: you don’t want defenders to be entrenched. You don’t want symmetrical fairness. You want:

• fast attacker snowballs

• instant leapfrog caps

• defenders penalized with longer respawns and vehicle limits

…and then you call any objection “mindless swarm” behavior.

My position is simple and consistent:
If the mode’s premise is attackers versus entrenched defenders, then defenders must be structurally allowed to entrench. Your position is: attackers should keep their easy snowball and defenders should be mechanically kneecapped.

That isn’t a counterargument, it’s just a bias confession.