Regarding Map Balance: Defenders Lopsided

[Bane5]

Many people have noticed that the defenders in RS2 tend to win in territory maps. The last full lobby Hue City game I played, Vietnamese had 350 tickets to the US' 100 when the time ran out. Seeing the attackers win was a rare occurrence and usually only happened as servers were filling up partially. I do not think that this is a faction imbalance problem. If the roles were reversed, I am certain that a US defending team would still be winning most matches.

In the past, the devs have tried using tricks like expanding capzones, adding more cover everywhere, and eliminating the ability to recapture zones. These are fixes that I hope the devs do not pursue this time around. Problems come by pursuing these solutions.

• Some capzones in R02 were problematic because they encouraged teams to not fight. A bunker may have 5 people inside, but if the capzone is the bunker + the land in front, the attackers are simply encouraged to ninja cap the zone and force the enemy out through the red "out of combat area". It really cheapens the experience.
• Adding more cover is fine in rare circumstances but maps often can become too visually cluttered. RS2 has a nice balance of long range and short range shootouts. Trenches like on commissars house that directly lead you to the capzone feel artificial and cheap.
• Recapturable zones create firefights. Some of the most memorable moments in barracks on R02 is the constant back and forth between C and D. Hue city has very intense back and forth firefights because of it as well. I truly hope they do not neuter this going forward.
• Tickets and respawn timers are fine and dandy but only go so far. Winning through sheer force of tickets but still being slaughtered during gameplay feels abnormal (look at what happened to Apartments balance).

-----------------------------------------

What would help the most in my opinion is breaking up large objectives into more smaller objectives and add an "attacker lockdown/secure" system. The system works as this:

• When the attackers capture an objective that is part of a multicapzone front (like A and B on Hue), the objective can only be recaptured in a limited window of time. Like 3 minutes.
• If the attacking team manages to hold an objective, it is considered secured.
• A "Secured" objective cannot be recaptured and the attackers can spawn at it.

Imagine if a difficult objective like "C" on Hue was broken in half into a left and right capzone. It is much easier for the US to take one side than it is to clear out both sides at once. Once one side is captured, players would feel incentives to dig in and hold rather than to keep attacking since there is more to gain from it. In doing so, I think we will find that ticket loss throughout the game would be more balanced if both sides can have their encouraged (but not forced) moments of attacking and defending. Furthermore, the ability to spawn at a secured objective acts as a springboard to attack the remaining zones and reduces the difficulty overall for the attacking team.

As it stands now, a squad leader dying wipes out all progress in moving the battle forward for the attacking team--and it happens often. The ability to secure a multicap objective and spawn at it after holding it for a while would add some more permanence on progress. If balanced right, the choice whether to go for a "secure" or to quickly capture the other objective would represent a compelling choice.

-----------------------------------------

Some other techniques could be pursued as well. Widening maps is a very potent tool that I hope the devs use more. A few more alleyways on the sides for the US to sneak in would greatly increase the chances of a successful breakthrough on Hue City. On the rubber plantation on Chu-Chi, expanding the map to include the road on side of the map would give attackers a parallel embankment to take cover behind as they advance--yet still represent an obstacle that they have to cross--not an easier approach, but an alternative approach much akin to Spartanovka's great long ditch. Map balance can swing greatly by giving more avenues of attack. Something I've noticed is that attackers win a lot when the server isn't totally full; I've seen lots of 20 vs 20 matches where attackers win. A lot of the attacker vs defender imbalance comes from having every possible avenue of approach fully and evenly covered. More frontage per soldier means the front is less dense in some places and it swings maps hugely in favor of one side or the other.

-----------------------------------------

Thoughts on attacker vs defender balance? As it stands, something I feel, needs to be adjusted.

 

[Lemonater47]

The shortened respawn time always favours defenders. Custom mapping in RO2 taught us this lesson. So the overall shorter respawn times for both teams just makes it more in favour of the defending team overall. Raise the minimum and maximum respawn times.

 

[Flashburn]

The shortened respawn time always favours defenders. Custom mapping in RO2 taught us this lesson. So the overall shorter respawn times for both teams just makes it more in favour of the defending team overall. Raise the minimum and maximum respawn times.

Unless you force distance from spawn tunnel farther out. Now you can respawn quick, but got to run farther. Gameplay wise does the same thing and gives defenders something to do and visible punishment (running) do to getting killed off. IE...hopefully less stupid things attempted. Not gonna work but ya.

Using military theory....... Attackers get more players than defenders. Defending right off the bat is a force multiplier. Stronger the defenses, the fewer people you need to defend something. Like how a castle before cannons.....500 guys could hold off 10,000. Ok extreme example. =) In RS most defenses where swiss cheese. I never found it gratifying to attack most objectives where its just SO bad. On defense I would rarely get in a damned cap as other spots where better to defend the obj (or get kills) than IN the dang cap. Of course players have this idea that you always need even teams. But not really. If you have one strong point more players on the attacking side VS. an actually militarily sound defensive point might be a GOOD thing for a change. And IMO more rewarding to over come legit defenses. Although not always. Variety is the spice of life. More than one way to do similar things on balance, why only pick 1 way for every map? Also would be nice if C4 or satchel charges could blow bits of a legit strong point to pieces. Suddenly its a multi staged kind of assault. Blow a bit of wire here, blow a bit of wall there. Get in and kill everyone.

Of course there are a bunch of ways to tackle this stuff. Way more tickets like always. Still not the same as just more guns pointing at the defenders. Maybe on some maps limit weapons of defenders to other stuff like anything not an AK or automatic (or all M14's), no sniper anything for defenders, like 1 or 2 MG's max etc... Or weapon limits based on server population. Like first 4 get an option on a AK, next 12 get an SKS and whatever bugger gets in last riflemen spot gets a mosin. =) Oh and IF there is a sniper on defense give him a nice bolt action mosin over the option of SVD. That SVD for a good sniper on defense can be a bit OP at times. Certainly 2 SVD snipers for defenders is a bit much on many of these maps. IMO a sniper on defense should be focused on killing MG's and SL's over wasting the entire enemy team.

For traditional multi point attacks you can often can get an entire or most of the attackers to focus on 1 point. Its still hard often enough when 1/4 to 3/4 of defenders are at that point. Also often hard to get players to do this. Even over comms. It would be nice if a commander (and or that squads SL) had more say on this like forcing players to spawn on a certain spawn. And usually this always falls apart as soon as that 1st point is taken as US. People bugger off to the other cap which is understandable. But also hard to just get one squad to stay. Its a confusing mess and maybe some better visual for SL/TL to make it understood? Something. Also it would be vary nice if claymores could get a tripwire detonation for engineers. For this reason alone. Makes it a little easier for attackers to hold an OBJ when more than 1. As VC/NVA that sapper dude is incredibly powerful unit when its working right. Something like that but less booms all over the place. Or fewer little booms for a few big ball bearing booms.

Smoke screen as an option for attackers as arty.... Ok its basically willy pete. Just get the smoke to stick around longer. And OR, more smoke for all m79 grenadiers. Like every load out gets at least 1 smoke. Actually if it where up to me every load out would get 2 smokes and 3 or 4 if you picked a smoke load. And more fun colors. Like hay team, I just lobed a red smoke where there are zillion bad guys. Go kill them in addition to screening stuff. Or go blow that up chopper.

oh an make it as stupid clear as possible to SL's that their primary job is a spawn point. Even to the point of removing marking targets to a different class. Arty spotter dude. And bonus if there is an level/honor limit for SL.

Personally I will always favor legit defenses that are not swiss cheese and find other ways to balance out most points. A hard point should make the defenders want to get in them. It should be the best dang place to be if your job is to defend. If its a map trying to do a force on force meeting engagement (basically more king of the hill sort of thing) then go with even teams. Choppers just take guns away from the ground pounders. And often that murders the US team. Uh1's seem to suck up to 3 players and then often x2, cobra sucks off 2, and then oh-6 1 or 2 if TL. Worst case you lost 10 rifles when you are attacking stuff. It ends up more like defenders defending on a point. Unless everything is going perfect. Perfect AH-1, perfect oh-6, and uh-1 does not have grunts stuck to the M-60's on the doors. And I will say it again..... an M113 ACAV would be more effective support (if used right) than choppers. And another spawn option/target. Not saying every map...oh no. Just more spice to life. That is, if APC's had a legit damage model and not the hollywood blow up one. Which brings me back to UH-1. An option to force kick every grunt out of the thing once pilot touches down. And maybe allow a really crappy AI gunner for door guns (maybe not too). Anything to get more rifles to the fight when UH-1 is around.

And more VC/NVA maps where they ATTACK!

Oh and current ruck sacks on most models make it hard to be Mr. sneaky pants. This big shoot me here thing pops up when crawling around. That does not help US when they are attacking stuff. As well as static or near static brush, trees and bushes. To easy to spot movement on attackers. Also would mess up defenders trying to wear bushes as a wind effect would muck up their aim a tad with bush bits flapping in their face.

 

[Sgt.NightFire]

The biggest issue is, the US side no longer has SL's with smoke, the Point men only have them now, and they rarely use it. They really need to bring them back, even though the grenadier with the m79 does have smoke rounds, almost nobody knows this by now and i doubt someone picking a grenadier will pick an loadout of 50/50 smoke and HE grenades but will go for 100% loadout of HE grenades. So they really need to bring back smoke grenades for SL's. Only ONCE during the entire wave this time, i have managed to get passed Objective A on Cu Chi as allies.

 

[Lemonater47]

Radiomen also got smokes. Everyone's got smoke.

I don't think lack of smoke is the issue.

 

[-Moody-]

Yes, there is a some issue. In RO2/RS you saw that your leader threw a smoke. That way he's not just your spawn but also the guide to the position you have to go to. It's a valid point. I think SL's lost impact on US-Side a lot.

Get rid of smokes on certain othet classes and add a smoke to SL. Maybe that's the way to go.

 

[Flashburn]

Yes, there is a some issue. In RO2/RS you saw that your leader threw a smoke. That way he's not just your spawn but also the guide to the position you have to go to. It's a valid point. I think SL's lost impact on US-Side a lot.

Get rid of smokes on certain othet classes and add a smoke to SL. Maybe that's the way to go.

But then where back to SL doing 3 things. 2 of which usually lead to death. Marking targets and throwing smoke. On its own the throwing smoke is not all that bad. This issue is when you get a squad of guys that spawn in on you and then do not advance. Makes some SL's feel the need to keep pushing into objective. At least this happens when I play SL. Which leads to me getting dead more than I should. In RO2 it all seemed to kind of work out enough. In RS2 well placed spawn tunnels are simply better than a spawn point SL a lot of the time. Every time an SL gets killed marking targets and throwing smoke there is a major impact on the attackers loosing that spawn. Having a class with smoke like pointman makes a heck of a lot of sense IF the pointman is thinking about throwing a smoke screen up.

At any rate I think the spawn tunnels are good its just finding the right mix. Right now where not there.

 

[MeFirst]

Gonna revive this thread slightly, so I don't need to create a new one.

The issue described by OP seems to be very prominent in current wave (7) and it feels "worse" than in wave 6. There are a lot of factors involved and I think Hue City still pretty much combined all of them.

First at all, the NVA has more/better defensive options. They have various traps and they also benefit a lof from the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The OP and Lemon already explained quite good why a faster respawn is usually in benefit of the defenders.

The second thing is that some map areas could use some tweaking. The prime example is once again C on Hue City. The NVA has a really good defensive position by itself and the approach for the US is pretty bad. Not a lot of cover or concealment and you also have the speed penalty when avoiding the bridge.

Point number are are dual capture zones. By dual I mean two points that have to be both captured in order to advance or to win the map. These capture zones can work, but they are extremely painful when they don't. I hate to say it, but Hue City is once again a prime example. A or B can not be recaptured once you have them and this seems to work fine. On the other hand you have D and E in the later stages and this does not seem to work to well in the case of Hue City.

My last and final point are the tickets. At least in wave 7, it feels that the attackers could use more tickets in general. Lately a lot of matches end with the attackers not really doing bad, but they simply run out of tickets.

These are all issues that are reasons why defenders seem to win more games at the moment. In some cases it is just one or maybe two of these issues, but in some cases you have multiple of them. Hue City currently combines all these issues and I would really like to see some statistics at the end of wave 7 about the map.