[2019] Focused Feedback - Fortress

Originally posted by MoreDotsOkStopDots

200 tickets seems to go by alittle fast imo. Maybe 250-300. Maybe, only because its an absolute meat grinder. 2nd suggestion would maybe be to have an automatic smoke barrage for the attacking team at the beginning of the round. I think that could help tremendously instead of running into a clear line of sight of 15+mmgs. Yes I get "equip smoke then " but out of all my games on Fortress I may have seen 5 people total throwing them. That baffles me. Im only suggesting this at the beginning of the round at the frontline like the barrage you can call in with reinforcements. Id think any attacking force would utilize something to "soften" the area before an attack. This could be that.

Ps. Plz bring back the whistle from bf1 when attacking on operation for attackers on this. .plz I'm begging lol

Originally posted by VoxxHimm

This mode is really good in my opinion. It delivers really well the feels of a great close quarter battle. But there is a problem with height in hamada the fact that defender have the height advantage is not great.

Originally posted by zub_platinum

Increased tickets and maybe something like the more times a buildable is destroyed, it takes longer to build it next time?

Originally posted by MoreDotsOkStopDots

I know there used to be gas launchers on I think the River Somme map of bf1. Perhaps introduce something of that nature but with smoke that every player can use that has a timer of 90seconds or whatever you'd deem long enough. Again, definitely doesn't need to be a huge barrage, but something

Originally posted by GeeDeeF

Look, I'll be honest, this was the worst LTM mode yet and I hope it doesn't make a return.

In regards to the specified points: * Fantasy shouldn't be placed above gameplay ever. While it might be atmospheric its frustrating to play. Like I'm sure Hamada had a concept of a massive incoming assault with various squads as well as tanks of the horizon but as an infantry player it means being in full view of MG turrets, Pak 40s and a significant amount of small arms with no cover. I quickly learned to not even spawn in at the beginning of the round so that I could spawn both closer to the action and in cover.

• Fortifications and map changes were pretty good and made them feel fresher. Makes me think that more modes (standard as well as LTM) would be better if they were tweaked to be more suitable for the type of gameplay offered (linear vs non linear etc).

• Neither map included enough lanes for attackers to flank and defenders had significantly better sightlines into attacker spawns (due to elevation on Hamada and a generous in-bounds area on Devastation). This meant the majority of the action was steered towards A and so the rest of the map was underutilised.

In terms of random feedback: * Attackers may have had too few tickets as games were quite quick but at the same time most games were very one sided so I don't think it would've changed much.

• Planes/Tanks should have been left off Hamada. I understand the idea is that they're there to provide the power to break through and take the objective but that's not how it played out. I'd mostly see tanks taking potshots from fairly far back and bombers farming kills via strafing runs on A - in both cases people would rather pad their KD ahead of helping the team and actually winning. Slightly interrelated but it's also not fun to be playing the objective, holding off soldiers like you're supposed to then be killed by some bombs or a tank shell and then have that happen in multiple respawns with no way to practically stop that. The majority of the server will always be infantry and there should be a change in mentality to ensure that an enjoyable experience for them is placed above anything else.

• 2 maps was way too little when so much of the action occured in such a condensed area and made the mode grow stale extremely quickly. By comparison Grind had an extra map as well as more lanes to get around and flank so you would see more of the map more often and have a wide variety of engagements. Additionally since Grind was a Conquest variant it meant that you'd have to move around and control more of the map rather than how Fortress was extremely focused on A.

I know my feedback is quite critical but I really do hope that it helps in some way to make future gamemodes better

Originally posted by legmek

Stunned by all of the super informative comments! Thank you all! I’ll reply to all of them when I’m no longer on a boat!

Originally posted by Cremefraichey

But not too many more tickets, I felt 200 was close to being right. You don’t want to encourage people to hang back by having so many tickets they don’t worry about rushing, need to have some urgency. Also if it’s a roll by defenders don’t want the game to last for super long.

Originally posted by ThibiiX

About ticket counts, could you make it so that if you actually get to the end of the timer before Attackers tickets run out, it counts as a win for the Defenders instead of a draw?

Happened twice to me on half empty servers... in any given mode it's way harder to defend when the server is not full, and playing a full 15-20 minutes of small skirmish only to get a draw is under whelming.

Originally posted by ecffg2010

Definitely can agree on all points. The planes are just too much for Hamada. Devastation needs some more cover or another way.

This is the first game mode I’ve really enjoyed since they added time-limited Rush.

Originally posted by ItsTritium

Great game mode.

On Hamada, remove planes, and add trenches for the attackers to move up slowly but without getting shredded.

Devastation could use some other routs of attack, the train is too open. But the edited fortifications are great and should be imported to conquest.

(Also, rotate Grind, Fortress, and Rush every 3-4 days so that we can play them without having to wait long, and without watering down servers)

Originally posted by Oncorhyncus_Mykiss

100% agree that the tank is ineffectual at aiding the capture of objectives B and C. I find that I am able to really turn the tides for the attackers heading toward A at the beginning before heading to resupply, next I move to the far right still in the safe zone and I'm able to help control the defenders trying to slow our right flank toward B/C, finally I can reload again and either push hard (and likely die) towards B/C or regroup in the safe zone if we've somehow lost A.

As soon as you enter the defender's zone, the tank is met with overwhelming fire from defender assaults. Normally I'm not one to hold back and stay in the safe zone hill-humping, I'm a PTFO ride-or-die tanker... usually. For this game mode with this tight of a linearly constricted map, moving a tank into enemy territory is almost impossible without heavily coordinated support from fellow attackers (pfft. and good luck getting that effort from 31 other blueberries). I think that what I'm describing is another symptom of my perceived vehicle imbalance on this map.

Originally posted by Hayt_

Firstly, thanks for coming here to chat! It's really nice to feel part of the process.

Personally I think Fortress is a much better outlet for the "everything exploding 24/7" urge than Grind (for a few reasons) and think it would be a great rotating mode in the future.

Things I love:

• The initial charge. Even though big wave charges are more of a WW1 thing it's something I had missed a bit since BF1. The moment all the MMG players open up on you in Hamada had me think "this would make a good practice for a Normandy map." In that way the fantasy totally works.

• The option for flanks. One issue I had with Grind was that the maps were VERY narrow. Fortress has some interesting maps where you can get break outs down the side and really break up the enemy line. I found this was a winning strategy almost every time I happened.

• A fresher use of existing maps. We all want new maps, you might have been told this before. But the way the new boundaries of Fortress are used makes them feel a bit more fresh. Particularly Hamada.

Things that could change

• More maps. Fortress is good, but is exhausting and is made more so when the rotation is only two maps. The core concept of a 'Fortress' does limit the maps you can use I suppose but I'm no level designer. Perhaps more sandbags on various towns and points on other maps? Even other parts of Hamada?

• This is a tough one to solve but I feel like it should have a different win/scoring system than Breakthrough. In Fortress sometimes you're lucky if you even get a single point of theirs so it'd be nice for the game to somehow reflect that even that is something. I am aware that seeing as it's based on breakthrough thats quite a big change. Failing that I would consider having points lock as captured for the attackers although I suspect that might have been tested internally.

• Slightly more forgiving flanks or at least a method to teach (I know easier said than done) the attacking team that throwing everyone at A all game might not be the winning move.

Overall I liked Fortress and I'm not usually a fan of the Metro/Locker 24/7 Shellshock servers but it was a nice break from normal play.

Originally posted by TheSausageFattener

The fortification additions to Devastation were fantastic. I really enjoyed the depth they felt they had and wouldnt mind some sections for the cathedral interior appearing in conquest (especially scaffolding). Hamada was fun, but I cant say adding any fortifications to that section of the map in CQ would change anything (theres not a lot of combat there).

Overall I found the game mode fun, but I wouldnt say it was balanced. As it should, it inherently favors defense. In order to overcome the defense the attackers need to work together. This means maintaining a good balance of medics throwing smoke, assaults knocking down fortifications, and recons putting up spawn beacons and flares. Not once did I see attackers win, and I think its because the teams just never could work together to hold all 3 points.

The only other nitpick is Hamada with the aircraft. As a defender I should have used a fighter plane, but running a bomber is just so much more effective given how the attackers tend to push up in a line along the walls. Given the streaks I was getting I dont think it was fun or balanced for the attackers. Perhaps the attackers should get one plane, defenders none, but defense gets two AA guns.

Originally posted by The_James_Spader

Well said on the fortifications. We need more of it and in creative ways. Would really add to the map and make it more diverse.

Originally posted by eutonachama

The only problems I had: impossible to win as an attacker in Hamada. And spawn points in Devastation at least are messed up - no matter where you decide to spawn, you go all the way back to the base. Good points: fortifications, and it is very dynamic. Would love to see in other maps. Church on Arras seems a good fit, and flags C-B in Panzerstorm too.

Originally posted by StonedSectoid

It feels like a small conquest assault. In my case i like or dislike the mode depending on the specific players each round because you get different results according to how they play (beyond winning or losing). When its balanced in that way it feels good, fast action and relatively close to spawns which means you can try risky stuff without having to walk million miles to an objective if you die. The resupply stations are well placed i guess and the buildable stuff too.

I would like more buildable things like foxholes for the attackers. Lets say you capture A and you fortify something between A and B or C as sometimes its very easy to recapture points that just got captured cause the forces left are not enough to effectively defend it till other people get there unless you wipe the defenders and get there with more than 1 or 2 squads which also is situational as a lot of people tend to just lay down and try shoot stuff instead of advancing.

I like the verticality in Hamada when you look to the attacking spawn and the risks of facing it and getting sniped, bombed or whatever. If you change the desert for a beach you could have a nice amphibious landing map.

Its also very difficult for attackers to reach C in Hamada, at least in all the games i played (both balanced and unbalanced).

I would like to see the mode implemented in Arras which is my favorite map in any mode (specially squad conquest and conquest) and also why not more than one layout for each map. For example in Hamada doing the same thing but at B D, E F or G.

Anyway, overall it was a good experience. Keep up the good work.

Originally posted by ViscousViscount

Not really my type of mode, however what did get frustrating the most for me was keeping an eye on people sneaking around. Just due to the nature of public games you can see people getting by, with your team unaware, then you are 1 vs 4 on C flag in Hamada.

I'd love to see them as three seperate 'sectors', so it felt like you were making headway, instead of a sneaky group being able to retake all around you when pushing on offense. This would then allow me to properly play as part of the defense and experience that 'fantasy', rather than being the castle guard that gets stabbed in the back by the heroes trying to stop a flank all the time.

If I don't try, then we just lose it anyway.

It felt a lot like Battlefield 1 operations.

I think making it based on time rather than tickets might be an idea too, perhaps 5-6 minutes per point, but any time you have left is added to the next flag.

Absolutely loved the fortifications, though having a lot of action on the scattered 'rubble' in Hamada was somewhat aggravating as you slide down it or bobble on it weirdly. This is same in other modes though, but normally not quite as intense.

Originally posted by feedbackforblueballs

I personally had a lovely time with it.

The most fun thing to me was how Devastation flowed as an attacker. Every time I attacked I would start as Recon, popping flares and shooting from the left of the overturned train. That angle that can peek both Vickers and everything else if you just keep strafing into the open and it was amazing how each round played so similarly. The outside fortifications on that map are such a trap for the defenders, it's incredible. It's a shooting gallery at the start.

I seriously haven't had that much fun donking heads with my Enfield in a long time. And my point here isn't just the fun sniping, but after I (and my team) break the spirits of the defenders, they stop returning to the Vickers, and they stop holding the first points outside the church, falling back to safety when they realize that they aren't going to counter snipe me. And at that point C is almost always open to attack due to how you closed off that side door with the truck outside, which is my FAVORITE thing about Devastation Fortress.

Pushing past the first side opening to get to C is just great stuff. And once I get past, I plop down a Respawn Beacon in the B-C connector that you left in the play area, an area that very very few defenders ever bothered looking.

And then that flows into attacking into the church by C, that part is just crazy fun. I stop sniping the first time I die (I try to grab someone's 50 round SMG or something off the ground first) and then I switched to a Suomi or 12g. The respawn beacon right by the entrance to C just lets me get in there and have a great time.

I will say that I think it should be a 2 round mode like Halo's assault. There should be ties like if both teams only capture 2/3 of the objectives or if both attackers win. I didn't really care though so much about actually winning/losing, because I was having such a blast either way.

Thanks for your contribution to the game legmek, DICE is lucky to have you.

Originally posted by PSGUNITED

It's amazing overall. But it hurts when you take it away :(

Originally posted by haste57

More fortification ladders/ramps are probably the right call for this mode. This way defenders can actively blow them up and stop the advance of the position and give more of a fortress style fight than just standard breakthrough imo.

Originally posted by lameo_handayes

I think there should possibly be some more really small fortifications that the attackers can build, like foxholes or trenches. But other than that, love this mode.

It needs more maps though, Arras would be good.

Originally posted by Beastabuelos

64 players was perfect

Are you f**king high?

Originally posted by chrisking345

Would you think about moving the tank spawn further back? With it appearing first with the bulk of the attackers, it usually was met with immediate destruction. If the tank spawns further back, that allows the attacking infantry more time to push up and establish a foothold for the tank to be able to help its team when it arrives

Originally posted by TheLastStark2019

Played 17 minutes of fortress and will never play it again . Glad it’s gone . Mmg campfest . Limited flanking opportunities because of pre made fortifications that can’t be blown up or taken down . Hamada I spawned in and was sniped by the 6 pounder in my own spawn . The added fortifications were cool like the wooden bridge connecting the ruins up top as well as the fortress down where f flag is in conquest . End of the day it was something new but nothing I’ll miss . Maps over game modes , not sure why that’s hard to grasp at dice

Originally posted by PSGUNITED

It's ok :)

Originally posted by TheLastStark2019

Some of the flanking opportunities from modes like conquest were blocked off ( side entrances to the cathedral ) and the large wooden doors on Hamada

Originally posted by lameo_handayes

Wow thanks for your reply. I’ve though about it and the ones I think would work are

*The church, it has a nice surrounding area that can be used for fortifications. There could possibly be an added structure next to it just for this game mode so it’s bigger. Could possibly include some of the town.

*Objective D - this one works great with the last phase on normal breakthrough. It’s slightly raised so it’s good for defending and there’s a few large structures that can be used for capture points.

Originally posted by JackStillAlive

It is very badly balanced on Hamada, that is for sure. Played many matches, and I am yet to win as the attackers on Hamada, it is too easy to defend. Most of the time, Attackers manage to capture A, rarely B too, but they always run out of tickets before capturing the third flag, while defending the other 2.

I think Fortress on Hamada would need 2 changes:

• Increased tickets for attackers(250-300)

• Make it 2 stage. Stage 1 is capturing A, after that, defenders will need to fall back(before timer runs out), and then in Stage 2 the attackers will need to capture B and C. If attackers run out of tickets during Stage 2, they can fall back to A, and get 5 minutes to defend it from the defenders(now sorta playing attackers), if they defend it, they get another try at capturing B and C with very limited amount of tickets(50-100 at max), if they fail, the Defenders win the match.

Originally posted by zVulture

Hamada was the map I ended up on the two games I played. Both were overwhelmingly one-sided to the defenders. Just straight up frustrating for the attacking side and quite boring for the defending side. It was the reason I didn't play the game mode after getting my first weekly done. So take all this with a grain of salt from low play numbers but hopefully helps in further design on maps.

The height difference gave an advantage to the defenders in that they became hard to hit while attackers needed to go out in the open in choke points to advance. Even with smoke grenades the MMG fire and explosives were spammed in those areas picking off attackers.

The weakness here isn't the height specifically, if anything that can make for an interesting attack (attacking a castle). The issue comes in the vectors for attack instead due to the choke points and the out of bounds zoning. As well as the volume of re-supply points available to the defenders.

One of the main mechanics I can see working to fix this is Building. There was close to no building that could be done to help give more cover on the advance. Using smoke, pushing up and building out a stage of defense would help increase the vectors people can attack. Yet these are still vulnerable to damage from explosives.

This brings in a second issue with the high availability of full supply stations from the defenders. Having so many packed close together leaves the attackers with an endless supply of rockets and ammo for spamming. With no real counter to spam other than reload times it becomes less a factor of skill than just positioning. This also defeats the aid of smoke if people just spam into chokepoints.

You could aid by allowing more vectors of attack by building ramps (destructable) or digging trenches (non-destructabe) to reduce the zones of focused fire. Otherwise expanding the out of bounds sector for attackers to allow a wider area of attack even if later reduced to focus would at least let them get a foothold on the first point.

• [AOD] zVulture

Originally posted by breaktimehero

Just to start out u/legmek amazing job on the game type! When I played this mode I actually enjoyed it the most out of any game mode so far! clear front lines had been established (really gave that battle immersion I was looking for) and it really took a good amount of team work to push the defenders back! I know many have said it's a defenders dream but smoke and arty really do work on the entrenched defenders as long as you coordinate well! At least with my buddies that I play with if you get one communicating squad in the lines things start to unravel for the defenders. Hamada had an almost D-Day feel to it and I absolutely loved it!

Fortress Positives:

• Gave a front line combat immersion (the calm before the storm feeling in most WWII movies at the start)
  • Saving Private Ryan (D-day scene and bridge defense at Ramelle)
  • Enemy at the Gates ( Red Square opening scene)
  • Battle of the Bulge (German attack scene)
• Established front lines was a very nice feeling for once in a BF game (Didn't feel super chaotic because you know which direction the enemy is!!)
• Limited vehicles in support roles (Made me feel more needed and wanting to survive to assist infantry)
• Air support spawn time seemed perfect
• Platoon size combat with 64 players was perfect any smaller and I feel it would get boring or stagnate

Fortress Suggested Changes:

• Equal out air support (Germans had two vs Brit one) one v one seems perfect.
• Add one additional AT gun to defenders (or put in a German block house bunker to reinforce)
  • I was one shotting the AT guns with the Brits armor and Germans had a hard time recovering it seemed for most games.
  • ADD THE GERMAN 8,8 cm FLAK 36!!! It is such an iconic defensive piece! (It's already modeled on Hamada as well!
• Add some more trenches and foxholes!
• Bunkers and Pillboxes! add some concrete bunker defenses! (more variance than the simpleton square boxes on Twisted Steel)
  • The Germans were literally engineering masters and built some really unique defense structures!! It would be great to see in game!
• Increase attackers tickets by maybe 50 or 75
• At the end maybe give the defenders a 50 ticket counter attack if attackers get all post fairly quick?
• Defensive mortars would be cool! (unlikely though)
• Maybe a few minutes before the start of the official round make it so defenders have to build the defenses up and defenders can get into position to attack. Once the timer hits zero it starts.
  • This way defenders wont be super OP with impregnable fortress of doom and attackers are not bunched up.
  • Would add cool immersion layer to defenders frantically trying to set up defenses before the attack.
• Possible maps this mode would work great on:
  • Russian defense at the tractor factory
  • Normandy D-day
  • German defense in Stalingrad square
  • Japanese defense at any Pacific Island
  • German Falschirmjager Monte Casino
  • German Siegfried Line defense
  • etc. etc.

OVER ALL AMAZING MODE AND KEEP THIS STUFF UP!!!!!!! We may not have the content we want yet but this is a great change in the stagnate pool of DLC at the moment!

Originally posted by LoZz27

1. Fantasy = I'd say it didn't feel like that. I think the problem is that it was the same maps with some extra sandbags and it was hard to see past that. I think if the fortifications were done to a bit more of an "overkill" with even more steps/barriers/wire etc it would help. Less fixed weapon in-placements. more barriers that the attacks need to blow up.
2. The small scale, large player base around very clear attack/defending roles i really liked. I think devastation was the far better map then hamada. I think it works better in an environment with more cover, hamada was to open for the attackers. Lots of cover for both on devastation made it work
3. Hamada didn't work. the attacks should never have spawned infront of of fix gun in placements. The attackers did not have enough cover to get to the A flag and the cliff was again to much of a hindrance
4. as a side note. no aircraft. the bombers ruined it for both sides imho. A tank for the attackers works and is a good idea. but no aircraft and i would also do away with giving the defenders fix gun placements
5. could do with a higher ticket count as well, but only say an extra 50 or so

Originally posted by Billxgates

Absolutely loved this mode and would love to see more of it. Having to build up and defend a static location like this really had that WW2 feeling for me. It reminded me of reading about the stories such as Hill 400 and fort style pushes.

Would love to see something like the assault of Castle Itter.

I enjoyed having planes and tanks available on Hamada. I really thought that they were manageable from a defense standpoint but I accept that maybe an extra AA spot wouldn’t hurt for the defenders.

I really can’t wait to see what comes next if you choose to develop this mode more in the future.

Originally posted by bozzeak

I absolutely loved the experience of fortress and really hope it returns! The focus on infantry and the constant, intense fighting really felt like a war. The only things I could suggest is maybe some more possible flanking routes? For most of my games, on the winning or losing side, if the defenders are good the entire match is just the attackers running up the same path and getting mowed down, especially on the devastation map..I know there are flanking paths already but they seem hard to access at points and the boundaries on the map are very restrictive..and also, as other people have noted, maybe a slight increase in tickets to make it last a bit more?

Originally posted by byfo1991

I so dig this idea - Fortress (much more heavily reinforced last objective) would be a great addition. But I would actually more prefer it in Grand Ops.

Originally posted by KingGeo_WTF

Overall I loved it. But I think Hamada needed slightly better design for the attackers flanking options. Either a second option to the left or a bit more environmental protection on the right.

Originally posted by Garbear119

-More tickets. Tickets go by so fast that the games are done in 5 minutes if the attackers can't get an objective.

-More cover at spawn in Hamada. Getting mowed down by MMGs and Snipers right at spawn isn't all that fun.

-More routes for attacking or flanking. Everyone has a tendency to try and zerg rush A, which just results in hemorrhaging tickets and no progress being made unless your team is really good or the other team is bad.

Originally posted by The_James_Spader

It felt like I could build sandbag fortifications anywhere, I like that, kinda of like playing company of heroes. I like the ability to build more trenches though probably not everywhere due to technical limitations. The scaffolding on the church was very nice, need more of that on conquest. The ramps being built is also very nice and we should be able to build those mostly anywhere. Is that what you are looking for?

Originally posted by Hayt_

I know Mercury is still fresh out the oven but that currently underused ruin area on the British side looks a little fortress-y to me.