I think this is the kind of improvement we needed more than to abolish our campaign.
2 Likes
What you are missing is that the pop plays at wildly different hours. I play random campaigns at random hours and see it all the time. One hour Tunisia allies is just stomp after stomp after stomp and then suddenly its all Axis stomping. Same with every campaign. On “average” the pops might be similar, but almost always its just one side stomping, because the active hours seem to be different
there will be 50% xp bonus for choosing random
i am not missing that. only thing i am missing is server. btw times are in CEST.
Team balance
Limit the team that has more players, don’t allow them to have double vehicles and double planes, that gives ridiculous advantage, also don’t allow them to spam meta squads
Give the team with less players, extra bot squads, perhaps even bot tank squad and extra mortar ai squads to help pressure the other team, and flanking bot squads to really push the team with advantage to give them a challenge
Give large incentives for players on teams at disadvantage to stick it out
Punish the deserters severely, so that there is less of that happening, so matches can be more balanced
Make system to determine a teams power potential and apply balance mechanics based on the disparity between teams
Say if the disparity is at a maximum, the weaker team gets far more extra ai squads that spawn from different flanking positions to pressure the team with advantage
stop with the fish in the barrel maps and objectives, increase significantly the capture objectives size and reduce considerable the choke points that form that create unfair situations for reduced player teams that cannot break certain situations.
Open the battlefield up more, they try to cram everything into such small areas, there need to be more areas being fought over, so it is spread out more, this would help with the balance if all the other suggestions are also applied, as then the ai can become more effective when brought in to help the weaker team
Also remove the out of bounds mechanic, that mechanic is abused by players and doesn’t help with balance, it just helps make the experience worse
Slow down the speed of the game, things like capture speed can often be a huge issue, as it doesn’t allow the team with less players a chance to react in certain situations, so the weaker team needs some advantages in some areas such as cap speed, and also closer reload points for vehicles to help balance things
obviously improve the ai so that it can be used to help the weaker teams
1 Like
This is the stuff that I can agree with.
This is a very tricky situation. Personally, I think the better solution is to REDUCE the size of some objectives.
(Monastery on Moscow definitely comes to mind. the gate area is capturable from BOTH sides of the wall. Meaning attackers can be in the area and still safe without actually pushing. That is an issue)
Meanwhile both game mechanics and maps need to be revised to allow defenders to actually play DEFENSE, not just have a moving arena at which to play offense against each other.
This would help both sides. It would require a change in tactics, but defense makes more use of actual fortifications, while offense would need to make more use of offensive push tools like smoke and tanks (tanks that actually push forward and help break through fortification lines, not sit back in the greyzone).
1 Like
That is not a solution, that would only make things worse, because dominating a small objective is far easier than a big one, and already it’s ridiculous seeing so many soldiers on such small objectives and then easily wiped by one grenade or HE or bomb… that’s terrible idea
That isn’t an issue at all, both teams have equal chance at clearing the other side of the wall and covering their own side of the wall, the defenders have more indoor cover on that objective on their side, the objective on that point would benefit from being wider and different shape, like rectangular and covering good section of the wall, so teams have to cover a decent front, and that would be the better solution for many objectives, creating a front like objective would make more sense than these circular ones
The idea of frontlines in general as cap zones would be preferable considering the way most maps are structured
1 Like
The issue that you seem to have issue recognizing is that there is OFFENSE and there is DEFENSE.
- OFFENSE’s job is to push into an enemy location to take it.
- DEFENSE’s job is to hold the enemy out of a location.
Unless you are talking about the Confrontation gamemode, there should be very clear differences in those roles.
Objective zones need to be smaller and more manageable for fortification. Most games you are lucky if there is even one player that has the combat awareness to set up good fortifications. This one player is limited on how many fortifications he can place. A large area like what you are asking for is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to fortify and defend.
All too often we see attackers blitzing forward with flamethrowers and other mass casualty weapons, without much of anything stopping their advance. This is an issue especially when the objective area is so large. It means attackers can stand on the objective and force defenders out the front to engage them, which is the exact opposite of what should be happening.
Essentially, if the zone is too large, defenders are always at the disadvantage. Before you try to pull the “defenders have infinite spawns which is bigger advantage”, the primary reason they have the infinite spawns currently is because there are areas that have objectives far larger than they should be, allowing attackers to sit in it and force defenders out. If the defenders had limited tickets, the meta would no longer be pushing into the objective as attackers, but rather focusing on killing large numbers of defenders.
IF the size of objectives were DECREASED, and defenders actually had the opportunity to fortify, I could definitely see the infinite spawns as defense being removed.
Like I said, tiny objective zones are easier and faster to clear, completely undoing your idea of it becoming a fortified defensive powerhouse, the exact opposite happens in a small objective and we have objectives in the game that are like that, even some the medium ones are impossible for defenders to hold or fortify, as it’s all so easily cleared because it is too compacted, just some bombs and HE, artillery and explosives and defenders are destroyed and if they already lost their rallies, they lost the objective super fast and any fortification work was easily undone
This idea that you have that capture zones should be small actually work against the other idea you have that defenders should have an advantage.
The only true thing that determines which team has an advantage, regardless if they are attacking or defending is who has the most players and best players with the best gear & vehicles, I experience more matches that are steam rolling by one side (defense or offense) than I experience closely contested battles
An Effective defensive team in this game is not your ideal of fortifying digging in and holding ground
The true effectiveness in this game of a defensive team is to push back the attackers, not wait around to be destroyed, and you might not be aware of that fact, but that’s the truth of it, because this is still a video game, and that’s still at the heart of it how it works, just how it is
and having a larger wider front as the capture zone will make it more fun to fight over each objective for both sides and therefore also help with balance, as a lot of people don’t just quit because of unbalanced teams, but because of crappy objectives that are impossible to either defend or attack if their team doesn’t have the dominant advantage of better aggressive players
which is why you hear so many that quit when their team is full of campers, because they know if the other team has the aggressive players, whether or defense or offense, that determines the outcome of the match
bottom-line, fortification is only useful if you have a good team and the other team sucks, otherwise it is easily dismantled, so at least with a large objective there is more chance for a defensive team to stay in the fight for a bit longer, even if the other team is superior. Small objectives get obliterated if the defensive team is weaker, larger objectives would therefore provide a little help to balance the matches out and keep more players interested in playing
Some players leave matches because of the objectives being so tiny and being impossible to either attack or defend if their team is inferior, so they leave, creating the constant culture of quitting and looking for better match
because they don’t want to spend the match running into a small objective to be constantly obliterated so easily because it’s so small and every mortar, bomb, explosive, artillery shell etc…is constantly wiping the objective due to how small it is
having a wider larger front as an objective has the advantage of players having to coordinate as a team to communicate where the current front is and where they need to clear out the other team, which adds an extra layer to the game that is currently missing, because on a small objective it’s very easy to know where everyone is or is going to be, which hurts the game honestly
1 Like
Not always the case. I’ve seen some games that were pretty evenly matched on skill and gear, however defense was down on players (as per usual as defense usually has twice the number of quitters). Making use of engineer fortifications and mines were the only thing that saved us. They were always close games, but making use of minefields and fortified positions with some pretty creative defenses allowed us to more effectively clear up attackers moving across open areas.
That said, we had to have 2 different groups of engineer players fall back to set up fortifications in advance of an objective just to have that chance.
i hate those experienced engineer. the barbed wire and other obstacles hamper the shit out of capturing objectrives. not helping matter is if they can cover fire the obstacles.
too many times i have to crawl and pray i manage to deconstruct the barbed wires before someone realised i’m not a corpse and turn me into one.
As it should be! Everyone being able to just freely run around doesn’t give much chance to defenders. Actually being able to lock a position does.
It’s called using cover. I know it seems to be a foreign concept to many players, but its how you properly keep your guys from getting decimated.
- Smoke
- TNT
- Opposing Engineer
- Use a shovel to trench up closer
- Use sandbags to give yourself cover as you are pushing
- Move in with a tank to plow through anything in the open (I still wish explosive packs were restricted to AT soldiers so this was a much more viable tactic, but still).
- Help vote for Bangalore Torpedos for Assaulter engineers.
There are solutions and ways to counter fortifications.
Fortifications are there to counter assaulting infantry forces.
1 Like
true! now if only i feel like i’m playing with bots instead of dumbass player… at least bots would have better teamworks if suicidally.
no, no, i meant like, the defender know they should always cover the fortification and other doodads built. players tend to understand how to hide behind a cover. perhaps too much.
yes! but digging a trench cost too much time and cause too much movement, making it easier for me to be discovered at times.
sandbag have similar issue, where enemies know even more that there’s an engineer behind it.
tanks… most player of tanks are too cowardly to advance, and the one that does tend to overexted… so not too reliable 
wait, explosive packs were restricted to AT soldiers? fucking hell, that would make tanks a lot more viable.
what’s a bangalore torpedoes? i assume they’re not the nautical torpedo?
Digging with a shovel is also effected by the melee speed perk. I use it on MOST of my engineers, and any others that I give a shovel to. It makes it FAR more viable.
This is why I carry at least one smoke grenade on my engineers. (Depending on the campaign I’ll sometimes give a grenade pouch with 3 smoke grenades). Block their vision with the smoke and then work quickly to get some sandbags down.
You can average 3-5 sandbag placements within the duration of a smoke grenade.
That’s exactly my point. There are forum members that try to say the only reason tanks sit back like they do is because they are most effective at distance… that’s simply not true.
Majority of players that I have talked to agree that the only reason tanks don’t push up is because so many people carry explosive packs. Which can 1 shot tanks, kill infantry, and players can carry up to 3 per character…
If you look at the number of players that use explosive packs in direct comparison to those that use AT squads, you will easily see the problem. Almost nobody uses AT squads because explosive packs are just so much more versatile. Restricting Explosive packs would help against this, and make AT squads viable again.
In turn, it would also make pushing forward with tanks much more viable, as many players aren’t willing to equip an AT squad instead of one of their CQB squads.
LOL, no they are not.
A Bangalore torpedo is an explosive charge placed within one or several connected tubes. It is used by assaulter engineers to clear obstacles that would otherwise require them to approach directly, possibly under fire. It is sometimes colloquially referred to as a “Bangalore mine”, “banger” or simply “Bangalore”.
“The primary use of the torpedo is clearing paths through wire obstacles and heavy undergrowth. It will clear a 3- to 4-metre wide path through wire obstacles.”
The idea is that is would give Assaulter squad engineers a unique structure they can use to clear fortifications, especially large patches of barbwire. What would be really nice is being able to use them from the edge of a trench, making them combo really well with shovels for trenching.
that’s… i haven’t tried to dig a trench in active combat zone with that perk. i’ll try to do that one day.
whenever they figure out i’m there, they’ll start shooting wildly or throw explosives at me
not ideal when you are mostly staying still deconstructing stuff.
i should be able to build sandbag in peace i guess? but i am already able to do that.
it’s the combat deconstructing that i sucks at.
yeah… pushing with tanks is highly unviable because of eventual random squad with explosive pack. it’s not fun pushing forward only for a squad of rifleman with one explosive pack blew you up.
this sounds heavenly for rapid clearing of fortification! assuming it’s not too slow to build.
If you are pushing on offense, utilize TNT mines to break fortifications. The only thing that really requires deconstruction (and this is only if its indoors or on hard terrain) is Czech Hedgehogs.
You don’t even need to use an engineer to utilize TNT mines.
There is a perk that increases build speed, but it would come at the cost of other green perks. As it should be.
As is, TNT does fairly well against fortifications. It just requires you to get in close.
oh, so that’s what those are for… i thought those are for blowing up tanks, somehow.
This sentence pretty much sum ups the problem.
Technically the game is good… but it just sucks.
Most camapaigns are heavily one-sided, either because of heavily better gear on one side, bugs and/ or because too much copy+paste.
Combine this with ticket and capture rate adjustments and it trulely sucks.
And usually the devs keep trying to fix it by ticket rate adjustments.
3 Likes
In combination that the roles of “attack” and “defense” are not actually allowed to do what they should. Especially defense: they have no idea where they are pulling back to, rarely have a chance to set up defenses, when they do they are broken down with ease, and that’s if the enemy doesn’t make it to the next objective first, which is usually the case.
The really screwed up part is from what I’ve been seeing in my games (I’ve started keeping track), almost every single game, there are deserters on the defense team, usually more than double what leaves from offense, AT THE START OF THE GAME. Looking at the win/loss rate of attack vs defense, defense definitely loses more, by a pretty good percentage.
1 Like
They can be used against tanks too.
In addition, they are good for clearing nearby terrain (boxes, crates, fences, etc.).
If you have a good chokepoint, or area you know the enemy will push up to, you can use them to clear out a squad too. (I used to set a pair of sandbags they would run to with multiple squads at a time on Pacific, cluster up and a single TNT would get 10-14 kills.)
1 Like
Yes, team un-balance is so anoying. 1 out of 5 games are a good ones, the rest is pain (good only for desertion) Why they just don’t take, idk average 20 previous game scores and put into the game players with the same or simillar game scores? When I see at the end of the game people at the bottom of the table with 8 squad deaths and 3 kills I ask what are they doing there?