So, after extensive playing of BC2's beta, I started to notice that more often than not the defenders lose the match. I decided to start keeping a tally of the Attacker - Defender win ratio and here is my tally thus far:
Attackers - 58
Defenders - 6
Now I know my own personal experiences within the game and my tally aren't a completely valid way to say that the game is unbalanced toward the attacking team, but it's a pretty revealing tally if I do say so myself. Also, I started the tally around maybe 30 or so matches in the Beta, and I would say the actual tally is something like this:
Attackers - 90
Defenders - 15
I can only remember a handful of times before my tally of the Defender team winning a match. What are your thoughts?
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Game » consists of 26 releases. Released Mar 02, 2010
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is the second installment in this spin-off Battlefield series. It has a more serious campaign and a vastly expanded multiplayer system.
Bad Company 2 Beta Observations - Defenders at a disadvantage
" That's interesting, because in Bad Company 1 the Defenders almost always won "Really? I remember feeling that the two teams were well balanced, and I never felt I had to take a tally because the ration seemed fairly equal. Anyway yes, aside from my belief that the Defenders are at a disadvantage, this Beta is awesome and I'm really liking the changes/improvements over the first BC.
" @natetodamax said:Maybe, I didn't notice any glaring disadvantages between each team in BC1 like I have with this Beta. I've noticed that some of the spawn points for the defenders are absolutely atrocious, specifically "The Last Stand" spawn points. Another thing that may or may not be attributing to the defenders losing is a lack of players willing to take out tanks. Effective use of tanks can absolutely rape the defending team, especially if there is a lack of engineers. I notice that a lot of defenders play the Recon and Engineer kits, but very few of those Engineers actually do their job, and opt to try and camp in the attackers base."That's interesting, because in Bad Company 1 the Defenders almost always won "Indeed, the same could be said for many games including MW2. Maybe DICE are trying to go against the grain with this one? "
" @Slippy said:This is a problem in most multiplayer games. In fact, i'm guilty of it myself in MW2. When faced with the prospect of easy kills versus winning a game, most people would opt for the easy kills, even if it's deemed as 'cheap'." @natetodamax said:Maybe, I didn't notice any glaring disadvantages between each team in BC1 like I have with this Beta. I've noticed that some of the spawn points for the defenders are absolutely atrocious, specifically "The Last Stand" spawn points. Another thing that may or may not be attributing to the defenders losing is a lack of players willing to take out tanks. Effective use of tanks can absolutely rape the defending team, especially if there is a lack of engineers. I notice that a lot of defenders play the Recon and Engineer kits, but very few of those Engineers actually do their job, and opt to try and camp in the attackers base. ""That's interesting, because in Bad Company 1 the Defenders almost always won "Indeed, the same could be said for many games including MW2. Maybe DICE are trying to go against the grain with this one? "
Well I just view it as a different strategy. If you know what your doing, then base camping is a great way to keep attackers occupied in their own base, instead of blowing up your stations. The most common base campers are Engineer's, and they typically roam the same places, making them easy to get rid of. Most of the time though, base camping is a bad thing as it means that your not really doing your job of DEFENDING. On the topic of easy kills, that's why this game is overpopulated with Recon players, because it's easier to kill people from far away, and they can have a really good kill-death ratio.
" @SathingtonWaltz said:In MW2 killing killstreaks is pretty heavily incentivised though. You get the equivalent of between 4 and 10 kills in points depending on what you take out, meaning I always go for it." @Slippy said:This is a problem in most multiplayer games. In fact, i'm guilty of it myself in MW2. When faced with the prospect of easy kills versus winning a game, most people would opt for the easy kills, even if it's deemed as 'cheap'. "" @natetodamax said:Maybe, I didn't notice any glaring disadvantages between each team in BC1 like I have with this Beta. I've noticed that some of the spawn points for the defenders are absolutely atrocious, specifically "The Last Stand" spawn points. Another thing that may or may not be attributing to the defenders losing is a lack of players willing to take out tanks. Effective use of tanks can absolutely rape the defending team, especially if there is a lack of engineers. I notice that a lot of defenders play the Recon and Engineer kits, but very few of those Engineers actually do their job, and opt to try and camp in the attackers base. ""That's interesting, because in Bad Company 1 the Defenders almost always won "Indeed, the same could be said for many games including MW2. Maybe DICE are trying to go against the grain with this one? "
Games just need to make it more worthwhile, like MW2 does, to destroy team-destroying tanks etc.
It depends heavily on how each team plays it. Currently I have a 50-50 on Defenders and Attackers.
As I normally play as a Recon, I also use my Air Strike to take out tanks, which in turn, can decided the outcome.
So, its all dependant on how your team works. Ive had times as a defender where attackers could not get past the first bomb, and others were as a defender we withstood against all odds in The Last Stand.
Ive come to realize that when one is in an organized team, with people willing to do their job, and not just "fragwhores", the game is balanced. But as soon as you have a team where half of it is just looking for kills, you can forget about winning. And its specially important when it comes to Defenders.
I agree, perhaps the defenders aren't nesessarily at a disadvantage, maybe too many people go rambo and ignore playing their classes correctly. I just played a game recently as the Medic kit on the defending team. ALL I did was sprint back and forth across the field reviving fallen comrades and putting down medpacks at key defensive spots. We won! So yeah I definately see where your coming from, about having an organized team as opposed to people who just run around not doing their job.
In my experience, the outcome was based on how much the team worked together. If we have a lot of lone wolves go off on their own, the defenders will fall pretty quickly. However if the defenders are concentrated around the objectives and are properly using the spotting system. The attackers would have a hard time of getting far inside the base.
I think I can safely say it comes from the vehicle for each team ratio.
The attackers get cars, quads and that UAV thing.
Which often just results in someone rallying to the back of the base ghosting the car planting the bomb and defending it.
@big_jon said:
"@Fierrze said:"I think that might have something to do with peopple playing this like standard deathmatch fragfest ála MW2 and just concetrating on killing dudes and not defending the objective. "Thats about right. "
" @ADTR_ZERO: same here, usually means the defense is too sniper/assault focused, which works better in the last 2 sections. In the first 2 sections, good tank usage by attackers can pretty much nullify the defense if they have snipers taking out engineers."
But good sir, that would imply a team effort!
All too often I find myself as the engineer keeping some poor fool alive with my repair tool. Perhaps they should have a battery on those things to stop them constantly repairing.
Yeah, as many have stated its because of people not defending. It makes me wish they would just put a straight up deathmatch mode in the game so the people that do that and ruin the game can just go to the deathmatch mode and leave strategic players to strategic game types.
That's a good idea too, and they could make it that the tank's HP is permanantly lowered once a spot is destroyed. I also suggested on the EA forums that either the defenders got one extra tank, or the attackers got one less tank to encourage more footsoldier tactics. There just needs to be some sort of negative side to the engineer class / tanks .
The attackers have to be in the advantage, since they got to win 5 times (maptiers) to win a round. The defenders only got to win 1 maptier. Pretty often I win maptier 1 defending, just by being a competent engineer and tank commander. As long as the attackers don't have a veteran piloting the UAV (using the Vehicle Primary Weapon Zoom specializaiton), who definitly will decimate the defenders tanks, defending maptier 1 successfully is very feasible. Maptier 2 is won by pushing the defenses up to the slope right infront of the attackers base. Given enough mortar support and a decent tank crew, attackers can be held off there too. Maptiers 3,4 and 5 are even easier to defend.
In the end it all comes down to pressure and momentum. If the defenders don't know, that they have to push up the frontline to the vantage points on the crate and bring an even mix of classes and especially anti-tank kits, then they will lose. The best example is maptier 4. As long as the defenders can hold the bridge, keep the attackers from flanking objective bravo from the seaside and can keep the frequently respawning tank at bay, they will win the round. If they lose the bridge, they will lose crate alpha. If the attackers know what they are doing, that is. The attackers can take down crate bravo from the vantage point at the bridge with the engineer's TOW rocketlauncher and the tanks main cannon.
I love the game, but some roles are key on the Battlefield, so that a single weak link can hamstring an entire operation, a fact which makes me wheep every now and then. Bad UAV pilots losing this very important asset just like that. Bad engineers and tank commanders. Generally all cannonfodder players. But then again, fighting hard is a lot of fun, even if my efforts are doomed to fail by a subpar team. So that's what I do. I do my best and give 'em hell. Fighting hard to the bitter end. Usually I switch servers after a losing round with bad teamplayers, which often works wonders for my enjoyment of the game.
" @Seppli: You make some really good points, but like I said before, I still think some of the spawn points are less than ideal. "
It can't really be helped when most people spawn on top of squad mates.
I have been having a thought lately - we are talking about who has 'the advantage' based on the gameplay balancing, but has anyone stopped to consider that perhaps it's the map that's at fault? I realised tonight when I was defending that the attackers will always come from a higher position. They have a geographical advantage, which means a lot as all of the following is easier to do from higher ground - bombard the objective with tanks shells, snipe camp, order in endless mortar strikes and in general fuck shit up for the defending side. I know for a fact that it's a lot easier to take out a guy from a downhill angle than it is to take out a guy bounding across the horizon. Maybe it's not the reason why defenders lose so much - it wouldn't explain why bases 1 and 2 are lost so fast 90% of the time - but it's something to consider.
Yeah. I don't like attackers in my default spawn points either. I think it's a cheap and unsportsmanlike, yet valid tactic. It's just that when the attackers get to pressure the defenders default spawn point, the maptier is as good as lost. The trick is to never let that happen." @Seppli: You make some really good points, but like I said before, I still think some of the spawn points are less than ideal. "
Personally, I'd love the default spawnpoints to be beyond the attacker's reach. Further away from the action and the objectives, in their no-go zone, so that spawncamping is no longer an issue and that the attackers earn a decent opening, when they have defeated a larger part of the defenders forces and forced them to use the default spawn point instead of squad spawn. Some spawnpoints are located a few steps in the attacker's no-go zone actually. In maptier 3, 4 and 5.
Since there are way too many new players around right now, who don't provide good squad spawns and don't use them themselves, the pacing of the game, as well as the balancing of the map are quite off from what will be common a couple of months after release. With defenders spawning on squad at vantage points and medics doing their job there, the difficulty to attack successfully will rise quite a bit. I'm pretty sure of that.
Crate bravo in the final maptier is almost impossible to take when one or two squads with a couple of medics are in the construction site, which in fact has already become a more common sight. It takes a successful flanking manouver and pressure from a good tank crew to clear such a fortified position. Obviously playing defender gets easier with experience and attacking gets harder.
" @Slippy: That's an interesting idea. I have issue when a tank finds an easily defensible spot that also allows it to shell the defending base, while an Engineer just sits behind the tank repairing any damage done to it. It effectively makes the tank nigh unstoppable. Yes you can flank the tank (lol rhyme) and kill the Engineer when he comes out, but that can be difficult to do as the tank almost always spots you or the gunner spots you, or somebody else spots you and kills you. I definitely wouldn't mind seeing some sort of limitation put of the power tool. How about something like having to repair the spot on the tank that actually took damage? Like the spot that got hit on the tank lights up or is outlined for the Engineer, and he has to apply his power tool to that particular spot on the vehicle. "Thats were recons come in. Recons unlock the Air Support skill. Which kills static objects easily. I even once took out 2 tanks just because they were toghether.
But as I previously said, it all boils down to Team play.
As a Recon, I do my best to tag enemies, and throw the helpful Radarnade in key positions to help my team spot enemies when they come near, which also facilitates defending the M-Com. So, as long as the gears are in place, everything should be fine.
@Seppli:
I know what you mean, sometimes I get stuck with an incompetent team, it gets on my nerves, but the game gets "better" its like you are really pushing the boundaries and doing your best. Though sometimes you just exhale the: What the Fuck is wrong with you guys xD
I have a suspicion that for some beta players, the Battlefield: Bad Company 2 beta is their first experience with a Battlefield game. That may explain the lack of team play.
" @SathingtonWaltz said:" @Seppli: You make some really good points, but like I said before, I still think some of the spawn points are less than ideal. "
It can't really be helped when most people spawn on top of squad mates.
I have been having a thought lately - we are talking about who has 'the advantage' based on the gameplay balancing, but has anyone stopped to consider that perhaps it's the map that's at fault? I realised tonight when I was defending that the attackers will always come from a higher position. They have a geographical advantage, which means a lot as all of the following is easier to do from higher ground - bombard the objective with tanks shells, snipe camp, order in endless mortar strikes and in general fuck shit up for the defending side. I know for a fact that it's a lot easier to take out a guy from a downhill angle than it is to take out a guy bounding across the horizon. Maybe it's not the reason why defenders lose so much - it wouldn't explain why bases 1 and 2 are lost so fast 90% of the time - but it's something to consider. "
It's not the map's fault. It's the maps intention.
Attacker's should have the advantage, since they have to win all 5 maptiers. Defenders just have to win 1 maptier.
The whole point of defending is to stop the attackers from gaining momentum by pushing back. If you don't wait at the very foot of the hill for the attackers to come and rather siege the hilltop, you will win. The attacker's want to be an avalanche that buries you. You want to turn them into the cast of 'Hamburger Hill'. Pinned on a hilltop, destined to perish at your hands.
" @Slippy said:Yeah, that hill top is a very obvious choke point. The attackers only have one obvious exit out of their base, an engineer can go over there and lay down a mine and slow down the attackers' movements. Just contain them at the hill top, otherwise if they get down the hill, they have multiple angles of attack available to them." @SathingtonWaltz said:" @Seppli: You make some really good points, but like I said before, I still think some of the spawn points are less than ideal. "
It can't really be helped when most people spawn on top of squad mates.
I have been having a thought lately - we are talking about who has 'the advantage' based on the gameplay balancing, but has anyone stopped to consider that perhaps it's the map that's at fault? I realised tonight when I was defending that the attackers will always come from a higher position. They have a geographical advantage, which means a lot as all of the following is easier to do from higher ground - bombard the objective with tanks shells, snipe camp, order in endless mortar strikes and in general fuck shit up for the defending side. I know for a fact that it's a lot easier to take out a guy from a downhill angle than it is to take out a guy bounding across the horizon. Maybe it's not the reason why defenders lose so much - it wouldn't explain why bases 1 and 2 are lost so fast 90% of the time - but it's something to consider. "
It's not the map's fault. It's the maps intention.
Attacker's should have the advantage, since they have to win all 5 maptiers. Defenders just have to win 1 maptier.
The whole point of defending is to stop the attackers from gaining momentum by pushing back. If you don't wait at the very foot of the hill for the attackers to come and rather siege the hilltop, you will win. The attacker's want to be an avalanche that buries you. You want to turn them into the cast of 'Hamburger Hill'. Pinned on a hilltop, destined to perish at your hands. "
I'm going to go ahead and guess, that while defending, no one actually has the good sense to team up and go out and fuck up the tank that is inevitably blowing the shit out of your defend points from a mile away.
Remember kids, just because you're not camping, doesn't mean that you're not defending.
For the first, it's ALL about the tanks. Keeping their tanks at bay, and when possible, pushing up to their base. It can be tricky but this is one of the best ways for the defenders to win a quick victory. The attackers don't have much of a geographical advantage, and both sides have adequate amounts of armor/vantage points. The attackers big weakness is lack of any defense at their own base though, so pushing up your tanks to their base can be a quick sort of "blitzkrieg" tactic. With the second map tier, the attackers have a BIG geographical advantage, and their tanks can easily sit far away from the battle and shell the buildings containing the crates until they collapse. Easy victory, and this base almost always falls. Now the defenders have to switch up their strategy drastically. It's no longer about the tanks as much as it is about trying to flank the tanks up top, which is HARD, and keeping the rest of the attackers from arming the charges, which almost always results in some fierce firefights around objective alpha.
With map tier three, "Defense at the Bridge", the strategy again changes drastically for the defenders. For the defenders, they have to push their defense to the flanks, and the results of this are more fierce combat with attacking soldiers, plus the attackers advantage of geography and armor support. Now, the thing I've noticed about map tier three, is that it either falls almost immediately, or it's a long, brutal, drawn out fight, that could go either way depending on if the defense can destroy attacking tanks.
Map tier four, "Defense at the Harbor", is the only map tier that retains a similar strategy. Heavy defense of the flanks, elimination of tanks, and (I forgot to mention this for the previous map tier as well) MEDICS. Good medics. And lots of em'.
For the last map tier, defense should be heavily concentrated around the crates, and like before, MEDICS.
Someone mentioned mines and I rarely see them used in the beta. Probably makes more sense to use them than have anti-tank in some of the chokepoint-based tiers, need to play around with that.
Also, I'm finally seeing more tracer gun usage the past few days. those things are great (kinda hard to judge the firing distance on them)
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment