Jump to content
Rivy

Warzone balancing proposal - require at least one more soldier on the winning team to cap objectives

Recommended Posts

Inspired by the above thread I have read, where the beginning of the match is far too predictable for the end in many cases, I propose a balancing measure.

I propose that in Warzone matches, the winning team needs an additional soldier in order to capture objectives - for instance, if one team is winning and is attacking an objective, at least two soldiers from that team are needed to claim that objective - objectives cannot be claimed when only one soldier from the winning team is present, even if no opponent from the losing team is present at an objective. The losing team only needs at least one soldier to claim it back.

In the case that the winning team outnumbers the losing team by a significant amount, more soldiers from the winning team are needed to defend an objective. For instance, if the winning team has 16 soldiers, but the losing team has around 10 or 11 soldiers, 3 members of the winning team are needed to (re)capture an objective at the same rate that one soldier from the losing team can. To further illustrate examples, in the unlikely scenario that the winning team has 16 soldiers, but the losing team has around 4 or 5 soldiers, 4 members of the winning team are needed to do the same.

I'm not sure how well this will balance the game, or if it will even serve the intended purpose. This would still make organized players who are part of a clan or whatever fight effectively. At the same time though, it would encourage more individualistic players who are on the winning team to work harder with their team and/or squad to ensure their objectives are defended.

I admit I have thought of this based on my rather recent experiences of playing Warzone matches, where I have trouble staying alive when either playing the objective or simply just coming across enemies (more of this on another thread - I don't blame all of this on TTK tweaks from recent patches). I also admit I prefer to play in a more individualistic manner, too. If I am on the winning team, in many of my experiences, it's either because it's as a result of good team work from the squad leader, or as a result of enough players being able to capture and defend enough objectives closer to the start of the game. I wonder what the World War 3 community thinks of this.

Edited by Rivy
Added scenarios for unbalanced team sizes.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree that the WW3 must be different from BF-3-4 to be a strong team game.

With such little ideas, you can persuade players to team-level movement. 

And to refine the weight system, the soldiers will be a little slower, so players will slow down. And they'll be ready for teamwork.
This is psychology. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...