Invasion mini rework

[cerulean pasture]

OP: @faint parrot

I put together a document on reworking Invasion (A 3 page in a world file). Here is what I would improve about it after spending a fair amount of time thinking about what this mode still lacks and how to differentiate it more from other modes as well as looking into modern wars to really make this mode live up to it's name.

The current iteration of the gamemode is fine and a fresh wind for Battlebit, however it seems currently very defender sided in my opinion and lasts a bit too long.

I also think this rework is not needed right now immediately as we still see enough Invasion servers, but should the mode grows boring this could change it up a little.
As always, if you have any questions feel free to ask.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EPU8BsIFuK-cDZJmhtOvzT1WOyDbQ6WAGkN79m3aM8U/edit#heading=h.bdemxv64ea1j

Invasion mini rework

[faint parrot]

Thank you very much, now only the Word File is missing (nevermind, the word file is just a different format, its really not much different.

Also keep in Mind that I wrote this before the last Invasion update. And no, I no longer think its defender sided, it's attacker sided now.

[quick thistle]

I deleted it for you.

[faint parrot]

Thanks, and thanks for the checkmark. As always, everything I put in my suggestions is the base concept that can have it's numbers tweaked and such (I just put whatever I felt was balanced).

[steady depot]

i agree with most of the points on here. I feel the vehicle counts may be a bit high however its still lower than what it is now and it would need testing before we can say for certain whether it is too high.

With the tickets it could be like squad, the defenders get a very high amount of tickets and the attackers get a quarter of them, however the defenders cant gain any tickets, where as, the attackers get more back for every zone taken

i dont like the ending scenario where the defenders get no vehicles and have to defend their main base with no safe zone, where the attackers get alot of vehicles and would still have every advantage that they did before if not more so with the increased vehicles spawning. the only way i can see this actually working is if the final objective is underground and the attackers would have to assualt through tunnels and narrow roads leading to the base so the defenders wont be steamrolled.

[tardy copper]

Cool idea, I like the intention and the background for it. I think the primary issue is that this doesn't necessarily align with how the game modes are developed.

These suggestions fit well into a milsim game, but I don't think they fit well into the way that Battlebit is developed and played. The appeal for many players is the arcade action and chaos.

-Assets like barbed wire, emplaced machineguns, watch towers, are not things the devs have done for any other map. Some of this would likely require retooling assets, or making new once from scratch.

-Standardizing the map size is probably more difficult to balance than what they've done already, and even if they could balance it, it would risk making all maps feel "samey"

-defender tickets is realistic, but does not necessarily align well with the pace of the game. Getting people to play defense is already difficult, and even when people do stay back on defense, a good transport helo can usually wipe a point in 2-3 drops. Additionally, in the real world attacking forces get tired, scared, and don't respawn. In a game like battlebit, there is no tired or fear of death to slow down an assault.

-Vehicle balance has some nice ideas

Also, many of these ideas are based on an assumption that the invaded force is not a peer power, which is not the case for battlebit. It's two military super powers fighting.

I like a lot of these ideas, but I think that the concepts you have in here fit better in a title like Hell Let Loose or Squad.

[faint parrot]

Sorry for the late reply, I have just been busy and thinking about your feedback 🙂

I feel the vehicle counts may be a bit high however its still lower than what it is now and it would need testing before we can say for certain whether it is too high.

If it is too high we can always delay the spawner and not make the respawning ones available at game start, but rather let them respawn after their usual timer is reaching 0.

With the tickets it could be like squad, the defenders get a very high amount of tickets and the attackers get a quarter of them, however the defenders cant gain any tickets, where as, the attackers get more back for every zone taken

Interesting, if attackers are too strong I would prefer that each deaths reduces the timer by a second or half a second, depending on balance. Both teams having tickets is IMO too similar to Conquest. But we would have to see how it plays out.

i dont like the ending scenario where the defenders get no vehicles and have to defend their main base with no safe zone, where the attackers get alot of vehicles and would still have every advantage that they did before if not more so with the increased vehicles spawning.

I wanted to add something new to the mode. And it would fit the high moral/low moral theme of the scenario. I personally don't think that as of now, in a map like Kodiak it doesn't really matter that much if the teams played more for revives (as there are currently no tickets). But Stage 4 does not exist as of now on maps like Tensa, or Kodiak. So the game would be over by now. I thought that this stage would allow the defenders to make use of their tickets they have saved over from stage to stage through reviving, while also punishing the attackers that barely won. 5 Minutes is not a lot to breach through the base. And Spawn protection still exists. Idk, Stage 4 was just something I would like to see, where Vehicles are needed to burst through the last defense and take over the whole map.

I think the primary issue is that this doesn't necessarily align with how the game modes are developed.

That is by design. We have so many similar game modes. Invasion is just a combination of Frontline and Rush with Vehicles. It would add a bit more layers to an non-mirrored gamemode. Should the attackers hold the 2 points they have? Or can they use the fact that the defenders will try to prevent that and exploit the weakened 3rd objective to advance by capturing all objectives?. To me, the 2 point and hold condition also represents encircling of troops and closing cauldrons.

These suggestions fit well into a milsim game, but I don't think they fit well into the way that Battlebit is developed and played. The appeal for many players is the arcade action and chaos.

We already have many chaos modes, and I'd argue Invasion is already more chaotic than Conquest is, atleast on maps like Isle or Valley. Oki wants less chaos from what I can see. And Namak or Frontline is still chaos but with less vehicles for people that want to enjoy that part of the game. Gamemodes are designed to differentiate and present the game in new ways.

Assets like barbed wire, emplaced machineguns, watch towers, are not things the devs have done for any other map. Some of this would likely require retooling assets, or making new once from scratch.

A lot of assets of that already exist, the large fences in district along the rails, watch towers also exist at F point on Wakistan to the north. I don't think they mode would fail due to new assets being needed

Standardizing the map size is probably more difficult to balance than what they've done already, and even if they could balance it, it would risk making all maps feel "samey"

That, I must partially agree. On maps like Isle or Valley you could switch it up by rotating where attackers or defenders start. Hell, sometimes even from left to right. I would enjoy standardised Maps to keep the balance. But I see your point.

Part 1/2

Part 2/2

defender tickets is realistic, but does not necessarily align well with the pace of the game.

But if I don't like the pace of Invasion, then why would I not play Frontline instead? Yes, you will always have those that instantly give up, but the ticket numbers would reflect that. As usual, it would come down to team effort. I don't really see how making reviving viable would not allign well with the pace of the game, even more so because it just got recently buffed

Getting people to play defense is already difficult, and even when people do stay back on defense, a good transport helo can usually wipe a point in 2-3 drops

Well at the start yes, but later when both teams have the same amount of vehicles defenders can do the same. Spamming infantry down from heli is what I rarely see in this gamemode already. But if the defenders hold their ground or RPG/Tandem the Heli as it comes close to the ground that would also add to realism.

Also, many of these ideas are based on an assumption that the invaded force is not a peer power, which is not the case for battlebit. It's two military super powers fighting.

Should we really restrict us by who is fighting vs who? People already suggested renaming the 2 factions to something imaginary, but I guess thats no longer possible since the Air Force sponsor. Also Proxy wars also exist and who knows what might happen in the future. At least I wouldn't pay much attention to which power could invade who, as much as Rush does.

I like a lot of these ideas, but I think that the concepts you have in here fit better in a title like Hell Let Loose or Squad.

I don't really know what to add here. As I said previously, gamemodes are suppose to represent the game in different formats. Some more tactical than others.