Re: Breakthrough is heavily unbalanced to the attackers benefit
I'm pretty sure Breakthrough was intentionally designed to favor attackers to help keep the game moving forward.
Sounds like you might like Conquest better.
Forum Discussion
10 Replies
- @DarthFDG This is a really poor response. I'm sure the internal teams have metrics and if they see attackers winning 80% of matches that's not a fun or fair gameplay design.
It's good for attackers to have momentum but defense in breakthrough 2042 isn't fun. That's why you see the lists of "attacking factions" people use so they can quit matchmaking if they are on defense. The heli spam you're under as defense is absurd and unbalanced at a minimum. And then the defenders often cant spawn on squad mates "in combat" if they are on the point so it's running to defend the point that rarely even has cover.
And then 20-30 teammates are just sitting away from the capture point taking potshots at infantry or going for kills, watching the point get taken.
The fact is that the attackers gameplay flow is much more straightforward and easier for the casual player to understand and accomplish than the defender gameplay flow, even without the huge imbalances in tickets and vehicle spawns.
Defenders are asked to not sit back and get kills (which is fun) but instead go into a small, dangerous area with limited cover that will be under fire by ground vehicles and infantry, while bombarded by helicopters. (which isn't fun)
It's no surprise most casual defense teams will sit around outside the point and try to shoot at attackers from a safer area. While attackers have a very simple and fun objective: move forward and kill defenders, who either lose by being killed or lose by retreating. - @DarthFDG This post angers me a great deal as someone who has tried to go out of my way to defend this game and find the good in it and have patience with updates and fixes.
"Breakthrough was intentionally designed to favor attackers" is a really, really bad way to design a game mode, for half of the players to have a bad time. Do you remember Battlefield 1s' 64 player Operations and how there were constant complaints about the attacking team not having enough tickets? In that game it was often said that the mode and maps favored the defenders, and that this was unfair.
Attackers get more tickets now because it was a huge issue in previous games. Also I always see people defending from useless positions. The vehicles will be parked far behind the objectives. Which is good for keeping the vehicles safe, but a terrible strategy for preventing the other team from getting into the capture area.
- @Skill4Reel there's a core problem that most of the capture areas have very little cover for defenders, and defender spawns are often too far away so reinforcing a point is unlikely since players who spawn in won't simply run across open area to reach the objective and die on the way, so they sit outside the objective and go for kills.
The excessive heli spam doesn't help either.
Kaleidoscope's center objective in the data center is probably one of the best for back and forth. The last points on kaleidoscope are the worst. - @SpudBug That’s a great observation about spawns for defenders, it’s been a major flaw for defenders. Helo does a run, kills a few, the flags gone by the time they can run back… if they choose to even run back. Too many maps are lost on the first point when a portion of the team decides that sniping is better. The maps do pretty clearly favourite the attackers, however the right defense can be effective but it takes all the players to do it. Taking the last point off the roof in Kaleidoscope was important, but dropping it in the middle of a kill zone was lazy development. Attackers can kill from above and again by the time you can spawn and run back, it’s over.
- @DarthFDG Then whats the point in defending ? If this gamemode favours the attacking side people will quit the que if they get put on defending side.
I played so much breakthrough since launch and on every map the attacking side has major advantages, one of them is to get more vehicles.
The defending side have to deal with 3 air vehicles and 4 bolte / 2 tanks at once, how is this balanced ?
But aside the Fact that the attacking side can literally spam transport vehicles, the defending team DO spawn to far away if an objective is contestet, making it extremely punishing if you or your squad get killed once.
And many get killed on the way back to the objective becouse of the open area.
On discarded on defending side you spawn more close to A1 then to A2 if you want to A2, making it literally pointless to run across the wide field of Grass.
An additional point is the reinforcement, attackers get way to much reinforcements per sector gained.
600 tickets and each sector replenish 300 means you start to gain the upper hand past 300, everything before is just pointless beside farming kills.
In my opinion the tickets for the attacking side should stay the same but drastically reduce the replenishment of each sector gained to 150 tickets so the attacking team can be punished earlier.
personally I only play on attacking side on each map so I don’t have to deal with the vehicle spam and have to equip an m5recoilles all the time and I immediately opt out of any game if I get out on defending side.
Also I noticed that the defending side got a longer respawn Timer if you get killed by headshots, explosives or being run over by vehicles where as attacker you can spawn instantly again, not having to wait the timer.
@SpudBug wrote:
@Skill4Reelthere's a core problem that most of the capture areas have very little cover for defenders, and defender spawns are often too far away so reinforcing a point is unlikely since players who spawn in won't simply run across open area to reach the objective and die on the way, so they sit outside the objective and go for kills.
The excessive heli spam doesn't help either.
Kaleidoscope's center objective in the data center is probably one of the best for back and forth. The last points on kaleidoscope are the worst.There are areas that have very little cover for defenders, and that is why as defenders they must take advantage of the defensive position that does have cover and give them an advantage during the match. Maps where capture/defend points can favor either side are balanced in my opinion. If the defensive side knows that losing objective B1 on the Kaleidoscope map will push them back to two objectives that are not favorable for them. Then it is in their best interest to shut the attackers down at the strong objectives or suffer the consequences. Why should the defensive side be rewarded with another set of objectives with great cover that is easy for them to defend when they have already wasted their opportunity to end the match at an objective that gave them the best chance to do so?
Yes, but the differences is far too great.
- @Bolvard I just wrote a post about this too.
Breakthrough 128 has been heavily attacker-favored for many months now....so I suspect it's intentional or they're just some of the slowest developers in the history of game development. - @AvocadoPablo Apparently the entire Team is Working on 2042.
So…. That means that even 100+ people in that company are to stupid to change the year of date in the loginscreen to 2022….
How in the World are we supposed to get proper balance if even small, easy things are a tremendous obstacle …
They just have given up on this game, there are likely 10 ppl working on it with the smallest amount of effort.
