Dreamgazer said:
Your argument so far is still based on this question: "And you didn't answer my question: With total destruction in place, how would you balance the sand-box to where it isn't "either/or" for one side if they abuse a tactic?
Why do you assume me blowing a hole in the wall means "either/or" tactics for any side?
Did Dice took away all destruction? No. Did I specifically say it has to be a wall where it would give me instant glorious access to m-coms? No.
Except in the sandbox near that M-COM, it does. You are just one person. Add in the whole team blowing up cover and you get what I'm getting at. Leveling the area around the M-COM
makes it tough for the attackers to get close. Since rocketspam has been reduced to no damage,
how would the attackers get close if the defense has a 360 degree view of the M-COM because they blew up all the cover around it? Yeah, that's right,
they couldn't.
1) Like Nelson Bay, any sandbox/tree clearing tactic can be, and has been, countered by rocketing the machine guns out. That of course, depends entirely on the expertise of the opponent teams.
You can't hit one of those machine guns due to the rock. UAV? Two machine gunners can take it out.
Which again, have happened (and may only be rare for GAF since we don't do clan battle or anything like that.
...Which is what I'm getting at. Let's continue.
2)Destroy all buildings and cover is not an instant win for defenders. Isle Innocente second set B has no cover no wall, not an instant win. You talk as if destruction was taken out of m-com's surrounding areas completely.
Because it does. Level an area a good amount and you'll have a
really good view of the crate to where getting at it other than rocket spam is tough and damn near impossible for non-organized clan teams. This ties into the above... let's continue:
Firestorm first set has a m-com with no cover no wall (a destructible building on the front) and a long ass travel distance for attackers without beacons - not an instant win.
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding, because they have to travel around the rocks and those rock faces don't give the defense a 360 degree view of their advance in general unless the defense spreads out.
Caspin first set has an m-com that sits in a building with destructible wall on all sides.
Which I'd done and gone on to hold to great success because the attackers can't even reach it.
Then there's also highway's 2 set A, 3rd set in the trailer building, all sit in buildings where you can clear all the walls down blah blah blah blah. How come DICE didn't "fix up" that stuff to give attackers more of a chance? (cause they don't need it)
Because they have the tanks in those sections and thus can punch through the defense and reach those crates. You're looking at this from a "derp vehicles solve all issues" perspective instead of the bigger picture:
3)See first section. All I'm requesting is to be able to blow up more walls, they can be miles away from the m-com for all I care - but at least it gives me varieties/new ways to think about my approach.
Okay, but those holes
tie into the sandbox which is what I'm getting at.
Yes, except there's also a support, in prone on top of the crate box waiting for you to get to top of the stairs so he can just shoot you. The claymore is only a backup.
And a rocket splash damage will get him as well. Point being? Chokeholds can be taken down with rocket spam. Just see Metro B chokepoint. Unless the attackers flank and the defense doesn't have people in that flank area, the B hallway is rocket spam central. Impossible to take unless you have someone dodge the rockets, throw a rocket down that hallway and take three defenders out.
Now, how would I, a non-designer balance the sandbox assuming that there existed some super unfair, one-sided, non-glitched tactic that would instantly guarantee a win?
I can't. Does that answer your question? However, when have it ever been so "either/or" in your memory? can you name a map on bc2 where we just got shutdown/shutdown by someone else completely no matter what? Even when white pass wasn't fixed we have still manged to win it.
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. You just proved my point and DICE needed to nerf. There is no viable answer to total destruction in the gameplay balance sense for the sandbox.
Also I can name numerous maps for total cover destroy:
-Nelson Bay Rush Second Set if not the first set, remove the trees it's a march of death and generally will shut down the attackers.
-Port Valadez First Set, rush up, remove trees. Lay AT mines. Shut down. If not there, second set. Remove cover, watch the attackers rocket spam (and get lucky), they'll take the base. Otherwise
shutdown.
-Ilsa Innocentes (IIRC the fall helicopter map), first set. Take out cover: Shutdown. Unless the attackers
rocket spam the objectives or areas we are in to harass us.
-Cold War: Destroy buildings and the trees and attackers have a hard time reaching us. They can get into cubby holes in the collapsed buildings, sure. But it's still
damn near impossible and a ticket drain to get that far. SHUTDOWN.
That's four right there. I could provide more but my brain is nearly going to shut down from needing to go to bed. But you get my point:
Remove trees/cover and the attackers have no chance of reaching the defense vice versa for the defense and getting UAV/C4/rocket spammed by good attackers.
Yes, therefore we have never won white pass as attackers after the nerf or ever lose it either. I hardly recall when we ever said "oh shit white pass we're doomed/rage quit". If anything that title usually was given to Nelson Bay or Cold War
Whoosh goes the point when you're providing these "well, we won on these so they can't be
totally broken, gosh!" defenses.
Again, tons m-coms in this game are still around destructible or even open environments.
Line of sight does not guarantee win.
Except against Organized Clans (AKA: GAF)
it does. Destroying the cover and buildings gave attackers/defense a
greater line of sight therefor
spotting is easier shooting spotted enemies is easier ergo "shut down" in the big picture.
DICE added indestructible cover around these areas for that reason: To give the defense/attackers a chance to punch through and hold an area against organized clans/groups. And it was
sorely needed. Do you honestly think the people on the end of my C4 trolling on Port Valadez had fun when all of us rushed up toed the out of bounds line and proceeded to mow them down from where they spawned with no chance of defense?
No. And that's what I'm getting at: In the bigger picture
allowing you to blow holes in all the walls opens up the possibility to "level the whole fucking map" because it's either/all for the sandbox. They could allow holes in certain areas, sure. But that also opens up line of sight in those areas and also runs into "how can we shutdown line of sight and too great an advantage here" problems.
This is what I'm getting at: Against higher-skill players, total destruction
was the most effective tactic for defense/attack to win rounds. And, yes, it did make the game "either/or" depending on which side you were on that was doing that tactic.
It broke the game, DICE agreed and thus the nerfed damage. If you don't like/see this point, then simply go back to BC2 where you can have helicopters collapse buildings and then proceed to lay waste to the defense that is unlucky enough to spawn in the open and have no cover to get into to avoid massive air rape.
