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.
@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?
