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?

That's interesting, because in Bad Company 1 the Defenders almost always won

" That's interesting, because in Bad Company 1 the Defenders almost always won "

"That's interesting, because in Bad Company 1 the Defenders almost always won "

" @natetodamax said:

"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:

" @natetodamax said:

"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? "

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. "

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:

" @Slippy said:

" @natetodamax said:

"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? "

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. "

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'. "

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.

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.

" That's interesting, because in Bad Company 1 the Defenders almost always won "

"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. "

@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. " 

Ive played that beta alot and Ive won more as a defender then  an attacker, yesterday I won 7 as a defender and 3 as an attacker

" @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."

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.

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. "

Gah, reading this comments makes me wanna play it! Can't wait till it comes out/PC beta launches.

" @Seppli: You make some really good points, but like I said before, I still think some of the spawn points are less than ideal. "

" @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. "

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. "

" @Slippy said:

" @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.

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)