Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is there incentive to defend?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there incentive to defend?

    I've noticed a decided lack of defending flags in BF3. It feels like we even had more defense going on in BC2.

    Does the game give us enough incentive to play defensively or is the game relegated to the attack as hard as you can in order to win play style?

  • #2
    Re: Is there incentive to defend?

    I don't know if it's the game, but more the culture of the BF3 community. Lots of rounds devolve to human waving to the next flag regardless of bleed. The game gives you the same bonus for attacking as it does defending, but defending you loose the flag cap points.


    TG-18th 18th SF Operational Detachment Delta

    If you're playing the game, be in the correct TeamSpeak Channel.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is there incentive to defend?

      I'm glad you brought this up. I have a reputation for being too aggressive, but I justify my decisions based on what I think needs to be done to win the round (in a TG manner, of course).

      If my team has more tickets and the majority of the flags, then there's no reason to attack; the plan is to just bleed the enemy team out and take the W. However, if we don't have the majority of the flags, I don't believe defending your flag will win you the round. All things remaining equal, having less flags than the enemy will result in a loss for my team. Defending your flag won't get you the additional flag you need.

      Unfortunately, without a commander, it's difficult to coordinate squads and divy up the assignments. I don't have the absolute certainty that another squad plans on getting our team the extra flag we need. In these scenarios, I pull up the minimap, zoom out, and watch friendly movement. If I see other squads going for the last flag, I'll hold back and defend. If no one's going for an extra flag, I'll take on the responsibility of doing so.

      The problem is that the flag count typically jumps between 3 flags and 2, so I'm constantly attacking/defending based on the current scenario. Other times, we're down 4 flags to 1, so I'm constantly pushing to grab extra flags when the flags we previously capped are being re-captured behind us. Obviously, that's a flaw in my MO, but personally I'd rather play to win (fight to have the majority of the flags) than playing not to lose (staying to defend regardless of having less flags).


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is there incentive to defend?

        Originally posted by Spyder228 View Post
        I don't know if it's the game, but more the culture of the BF3 community. Lots of rounds devolve to human waving to the next flag regardless of bleed. The game gives you the same bonus for attacking as it does defending, but defending you loose the flag cap points.
        If we're talking about points, you also only get defend points if they're on the point, which generally means you've failed at defending. In general, BF3's flags are set up such that you'd rather defend in front of the point rather than on it itself, which then leads to this weird situation where you're halfway between the point you're defending and the one you're attacking. A lot of people say "to hell with it" and just head for the next one at that point.
        I can ADS using more than a 2x without significant stutter! This was a good patch.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is there incentive to defend?

          When every flag can be flanked from 360 degrees, defending becomes impossibly hard for one squad.
          The game values and rewards attacking. It's aggressive for a reason because the advantages are too numerous to count.

          Limited information + close flag positions + the ability to outflank every control point + SL to SL communication being limited* = Attacking > Defending

          Sure you can bring a MAV, but it's radius is limited. You can set it and forget it but I don't want to have to designate a squad member to constantly run MAVs for me so that I have better situational awareness. The points are limited and being a good spotter is a full time job. Switching between the two is hard as witnessed by BF2142 where we forced the commander to just command. No fighting, nothing.

          *Knyghtmare I love your plugin, but people don't readily take orders from people of their own "rank". Sure you can give helpful information, but I feel sometimes that having a commander would be better suited since the chain of command is definite and no one can argue against him or her. I would love to dictate how a battle flows but not everyone would value my input since I am in no higher position than them. I can't command another squad to move forward to take an objective if I don't have the information to guide them there. I don't have awareness of the battlefield as a whole.

          A good defense relies on anticipation.
          Just look at Strike at Karkand, and any conquest assault maps. The first ~100 tickets are perfect for the defender. After that, you dissolve into complete chaos. Giving orders to 8 squad is complicated enough. Not having a role to actually doing that means we're just meandering from one flag to the next.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is there incentive to defend?

            I chalk this up largely, but not entirely, to the lack of a commander. A poignant quote during a match last night was a squad mate (apologies, I forgot who it was) telling our SL "you don't have to apologize for giving a defend order."

            I find that the smaller maps and ability to spawn on any squad member make it tough for defenders to take their time setting up a defense, since they're constantly under pressure.

            *edit and QFT:
            *Knyghtmare I love your plugin, but people don't readily take orders from people of their own "rank". Sure you can give helpful information, but I feel sometimes that having a commander would be better suited since the chain of command is definite and no one can argue against him or her. I would love to dictate how a battle flows but not everyone would value my input since I am in no higher position than them. I can't command another squad to move forward to take an objective if I don't have the information to guide them there. I don't have awareness of the battlefield as a whole.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is there incentive to defend?

              Originally posted by Barracuda_Magoo View Post
              I chalk this up largely, but not entirely, to the lack of a commander. A poignant quote during a match last night was a squad mate (apologies, I forgot who it was) telling our SL "you don't have to apologize for giving a defend order."

              I find that the smaller maps and ability to spawn on any squad member make it tough for defenders to take their time setting up a defense, since they're constantly under pressure.

              *edit and QFT:
              Haha, that was me :) Our SL was def. a bit green and lacked confidence in his SL abilities. He was doing a good job and was trying really hard to reinforce that he was doing really well.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is there incentive to defend?

                Most all of my squads play defensively now.

                Just because you don't have an eye in the sky telling you a point needs to be defended does not mean defending a point is not the best tactical decision.

                Defense will be even more critical on the bigger maps that came out.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is there incentive to defend?

                  Every map has flags that are more highly contested than others. If my squad is on those points....it's defense. If however there are already ample squads defending those flags I like to make a nuisance of myself and go for the flags that are closer to enemy UCB....it usually pulls their forces off of the higher contested flags and disrupts the flow of them progressing over the map.
                  "Everyone makes fun of us rednecks with our big trucks and all our guns........until the zombie apocalypse"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You should check out E-Males videos about using 2 squads. There you can see that you can dominate a map coordinating 2 squads by defending after gaining upperhand.

                    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
                    sigpic


                    Proud to have been part of the 101st Siege Corps of Engineers
                    "Cum bellum clamavit, respondivi"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is there incentive to defend?

                      Is it technically feasible to balance teams according to players' in-game playtime?

                      Not rank, but the amount of time they've played BF3. After the players are moved, the sum of all the player's playtime on one team would (roughly) equal to that of the other team. I think that'd be a fair and simple way of balancing teams, and if it's technically feasible, I would support that way of dealing with the team imbalance issues.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is there incentive to defend?

                        Originally posted by Zhohar View Post
                        Is it technically feasible to balance teams according to players' in-game playtime?

                        Not rank, but the amount of time they've played BF3. After the players are moved, the sum of all the player's playtime on one team would (roughly) equal to that of the other team. I think that'd be a fair and simple way of balancing teams, and if it's technically feasible, I would support that way of dealing with the team imbalance issues.
                        Wrong thread?


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is there incentive to defend?

                          Originally posted by DocGuo View Post
                          When every flag can be flanked from 360 degrees, defending becomes impossibly hard for one squad.
                          The game values and rewards attacking. It's aggressive for a reason because the advantages are too numerous to count.

                          Limited information + close flag positions + the ability to outflank every control point + SL to SL communication being limited* = Attacking > Defending
                          You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but I just want to add a couple things.

                          There too few vantage points in which to defend flags.
                          The space in between flags is very small and cramped, making it impossible to operate a proper kill zone.
                          You are spotted on the map every time you fire a bullet, so the enemy will always know where to find you.
                          Client hit detection is such a mess, that latency and "lucky hiccups" eliminate the advantage of shooting first.
                          Enemies have infinite sprint, and little disadvantage from hipfire and sprintfire.
                          Being still makes you an easy target for mortar spam.
                          Being in cover makes you an even easier target for RPG spam.
                          Did I mention the wide selection of easily accessible and spammable splash damage weaponry?

                          This isn't like BF2 where you can find a good spot to bunker down and rely on hard cover or obscurity to protect you. This game punishes you for standing still, and gives you a better advantage for staying mobile. The proof is in the pudding.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is there incentive to defend?

                            I'm able to run from position to position without hesitation. It's too easy. There's no penalty for sprinting forever. In BF2142, I had to evaluate my position relative to what kind of distance I could cover in a limited amount of time.

                            With larger maps that are more thought-out with the B2K expansion, defending a position can be feasible.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is there incentive to defend?

                              Originally posted by DocGuo View Post
                              When every flag can be flanked from 360 degrees, defending becomes impossibly hard for one squad.
                              The game values and rewards attacking. It's aggressive for a reason because the advantages are too numerous to count.

                              Limited information + close flag positions + the ability to outflank every control point + SL to SL communication being limited* = Attacking > Defending.
                              I agree but I still almost always defend. Even when I am effectivly playing solo (on other server or when my squad is just not listening or sl is not giving any orders and is up in a jet).

                              It is hard but even a single guy can slow them down. Yes, they will take it but they will get frustrated if I can hold out a minute or two. Plus when I die I often go right back to that flag and recapture it because they have gone.

                              I do this for three reasons.


                              1. I just like defending more than attacking. (Plus like I said above I will often be on the offense retaking a flag.)
                              2. I get tons of points because I end up with several flag capture and defending actions on the exact same flag.
                              3. Between the attacks there is more time to drink beer.
                              Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
                              - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
                              - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
                              - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
                              - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
                              - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
                              - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X