Breakthrough, mostly. There's so many maps where one side gets armor where the other has none and it just sucks. It's especially awful because half the time the armor can just sit back and play turrent to cut off half the map while being almost completely uncontested.
I don't know which designer thought this was a good idea but it's complete trash
It's garbage in a sense, attackers have vehicles at the start. Defenders have nothing. In BF4, at least defenders spawned with a vehicle and kept it until it was destroyed in each zone. You are just getting steamrolled by the attacking team... hours of data analyzed ROFL.
It's the playerbase that sucks not the gamemode. If every player in that one side mode would spawn as engi w/ antitank weapon it wouldn't be a problem but everyone wants to be a killer sniper ending the match with 8 kills and 34 deaths...
Like mentioned, if half a dozen people spawned as engineers the vehicle would last 2mins. A symmetric spawns are what breakthrough is about.
What it should be is that the first stage will always be in the attackers favor. This would mean they get armor when def gets none, their spawn is closer, better cover, etc. Then, as you progress through stages, it becomes more defender biased. So defenders get armor when attackers get none, better cover for defenders, etc. One thing I will say is that if one team gets a helo, so should the other since the maps were designed just so amazingly well and helos let players reach otherwise inaccessible areas.
This can actually be seen on Eastwood and Blackwell breakthrough. In general, the first point is quite easy to capture, the second is kind of a pain for everyone, and the third is difficult to take. This is also hard to notice sometimes because both of those maps suck.
Yup. When I see a tank, my whole squad engineers up and blows it up in seconds. 4 rpgs on a tank gg since you only need 2 if you hit it in the right spot. I think vehicles are the easiest to blow up. But then again, we play to counter-play, take-objectives, and win the game rather than focusing on our kds in an objective-based game.
Love those players. Have absolutely no impact in the game. :-)
I mean you know devs at AAA companies don't actually play games so they have no clue what a good idea or "balancing" actually is right?
