Rebalance of Confrontation, Assault, and Invasion modes

English speaking section Suggestions
#1

Confrontation:

  • Leave the objective locked for a longer period of time. Currently one team is given a large headstart on capture simply due to the distance the other team has to travel. In addition, trying to put up rally points while advancing usually leads to not enough soldiers getting to objective to contest it.
    Also don’t forget that each time an objective is captured it gives more tickets back to that team. If this happens too frequently, the number of losses might be far less, resulting in a never ending back and forth like we see quite often now.

  • Show team where the next objective should they get pushed back would be. This gives engineers a chance to set up in advance should it be necessary.

Assault:

  • Each time an objective is captured by attackers, it gives 1/4 permanent capture on that objective. So if defenders take it back, there is less time needed to capture each additional time.
    This makes it feasible for attackers in the event there are only a few coordinated players that are consistently attacking and taking objectives.
    Meanwhile, it encourages defenders to put more focus on DEFENDING the objectives, rather than pushing out and going on the offensive.

Invasion:

  • Show defenders the location of ALL objectives on the map, and the areas on the ground when near them, even if they aren’t the ACTIVE objective. This allows defenders to make more informed decisions when trying to put up DEFENSES and rally points.

Many players are complaining that defenders are always on the offense because they don’t have tickets to worry about. The thing is, that they usually don’t have ability to sink time into defenses because they don’t know where its going to go (and if it goes to the other location, all their effort will have been wasted). So the only solution for most is to go on the offensive rather than focusing on defense.

  • In addition, I would like to see a smoke barrier and rolling greyzone added before each objective. This means that instead of the current system, where defenders are forced to retreat while running from attackers and an eventual greyzone, its implemented as follows:
    Lines of smoke are dropped in by artillery to help obscure vision from both sides
    Greyzone creaps back slowly, making defenders that are deep in enemy territory forced to retreat sooner, and defenders that are closer to the rear get more time.
    The greyzone creap effects attackers too, not allowing players to instantly sprint for the next objective, often arriving before even the defenders can. In addition, it gives the attackers more ability to regroup and attack as a unified force, rather than one by one, creating more teamwork than what would happen on its own with the current system.

*Please keep the discussion on these suggestions, if you have other suggestions, add them to their own thread. Keep it on topic!

9 Likes
#2

i love this, for confrontation it is very simple change yet can change much, so many times we’ve captured neutral point much before enemies could even reach it. for assault maybe it could be like defenders have much less capturing power so it does take much more time to recapture. Also, as i mentioned before, in invasion i’d love something like if defenders have taken too much casualties they will be forced to spawn at default spawn, retreat the whole point or something like that. Defenders must pay the price for going rambo mode.

and on top of anything! make these game-modes more understandable. I just feel like people don’t understand the game at all, as a begginer myself i was very confused of how this game-modes work. This is a big problem especially since there are lots of newbies.

#3

Id suggest simply move points closer, if make more time, attackers would face point full of mines and barbed wire

#4

I see you are committed to turning this game into a trench warfare simulator. :smiley:

#5

Defenders should have tickets in all modes. That can be balanced out by giving defenders more time and space to fortify positions. The current system for invasion and assault is more like a meeting engagement that can only go one direction than an attack on a defended position

1 Like
#6

agreed, they should definetely experiment with that

#7

This is a must for confrontation on maps with points 200m apart.
1/4 timer is gone before spawn even more, 1/2 takes getting to position and another 1/4 to set up rally.
Just to have enemy team instanly cap objective anyway.
With bonus enemy team not retreating but trying to slow You down, makes it impossible to push points.

Overall good suggestions to other modes too.
Just would add something to destruction, in current balance it sometimes takes longer to defuse than for bomb to blow up.
And we need more 5 point conquest maps

2 Likes
#8

The problem that I have with just increasing or decreasing capture power, is that in itself can be extremely unbalanced. So many campaigns are lopsided on capture power and ticket gain and it makes them annoying to play. One fourth for each full capture as I said would be the equal for both sides, and this way if its captured 5 times, it stays captured, making it actually feasible to win as attackers without requiring over half the team (6 or so players) to be on the same page. Meanwhile it adds more importance to trying to hold the objectives down rather than just recapping it fully again.

As i’ve mentioned, the reason that so many people “go rambo mode” is because trying to defend the base outright just isn’t feasible with the current setup. If defenders don’t push the front line, it means their defenses actually have to hold up against the enemies. With how weak fortifications are right now that just simply isn’t feasible. Defenders already have a decreasing resource: the capture points. Once that objective loses some of its amount, they cannot get it back, no matter what they do. Meanwhile attackers resources gain progress by capturing the point, which actually gives them resources back. Defenders don’t have as much freedom as attackers do, unless they are pushing out of the objective to do so.
The attackers can keep up an assault much more efficiently than current defenses will keep out. Sandbag walls pop after 1 or 2 frag explosions, let alone if artillery, aircraft bomb, or cannon shell doesn’t hit it first. Barbwire is a joke, it can only withstand hits MAYBE if its in a trench that is dug out for it. Czech hedgehogs which are supposed to stop vehicles, can be broken down BY TANKERS.
My point is that unless we see a significant buff to fortifications, there is no way I can get behind making defense even more difficult.

1 Like
#9

The quarters of the objective capture is taken after each successful capture on that point. This means:
The first time they have to fight for the full objective.
The second time they have to fight for 3/4.
The third time is for 1/2.
The fourth time is for the 1/4.
The fifth time its permanently captured.

It is far too often that it takes my buddies and I working together to capture an objective. Where if we take one and try to hold it, the rest of the team won’t go for the other. Though if we leave to cap the other, nobody stays to keep the capture of that one. This always leads to losses. There are many times that we end up with 14+ captures on the first set of two objectives.

With the proposed change, the hope is that it will get defense to focus on the defense aspect more, and the attackers to focus their attacks and be able to push up eventually.

#10

Ye i was talking about timer on confrontation that disable capping.

The assault could use Your idea as it’s near impossible to cap 2 objectives when defenders are decent.
So yeah i understand and approve the semi-captures on that points.
I guess it would be like semi-destruction, but honestly even destruction is better than assault.

#11

My idea regarding quarters is specifically for the ASSAULT game mode, I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Regarding CONFRONTATION, that lock timer just needs to be longer. Period.

1 Like
#12

This one is interesting, thanks for suggestion с:

2 Likes
#13

100% agree on board with this

Also for the people complaining about defender tickets, unless defenders can recapture their objective, they don’t need tickets

1 Like