I am surprised they actually made Harkus worse by putting vehicle spawns and player spawns in range of the walls quad guns and heavy weapons.

I want to know how that concept even passed their planning session or was thought to be a good idea.

The vehicle terminal by the tunnel can at least spawn without being harassed while players and the closest vehicle terminal are basically under fire as soon as they load in.

Fortunately a single wall can fix that for attackers to at least load in without being shot at from your own spawn.

Sadly I liked it pre-change but I'm just trying to think of how many people will get stuck in there as attackers for their first match and never want to come back.

Edit: I guess I should've made the title more clear about just taking it out of rotation and not removing it, think they've done it before as they tweaked stuff

Attacking on most maps is such a frustrating experience it's not fun at all.

I've been doing the same as the OP, just leaving these maps as soon as they pop because the system for attacking is so bloody simplistic, so damned frustrating, and so damned easy to defend.

So laugh it up and criticize players making their opinions heard. In the end we all suffer if everyone stop playing because the Meta for attacking is so poor and so unimaginative.

The worst part is painful level design, only giving attacking vehicles one or two routes into the battle from their DZ. Those maps with more than one route in from the DZ, the darned routes are too close to each other. Even worse, turrets overlooking the attacker DZ. Turrets on tiny maps that are not needed(Pegasus). This makes defending and spawn camping attackers so easy it's unbelievable. Another fact that borders on insanity is allowing defenders the use of so many vehicles and turrets. Defenders win 95% of the time, do defenders really need all these tanks and turrets?

By the very nature of warfare defending is infinitely easier than attacking. Classic rules of warfare dictate an attacking force should have a substantial 3:1 minimum advantage over defenders in tanks, APCs, infantry, artillery and close air support. Attackers in EC have none of those advantages. Combined these missing truisms of warfare with attackers being forced to attack via pre made, channelized kill zones, attackers have little to no options. It's all out attack one location most of the time or lose. Attackers have little if any options.

Without Artillery, Close Air support, Aerial Insertion, Teleportation, superior numbers of vehicles and other appropriate options for attackers, the frustrations will continue.

Isn't a rhino classified as an APC?

What's skirmishes? This isn't going to be another thing like when someone told me you can push X to get the alternate firing thing on the plasma cannon is it?

With the current state of certain hefty weapons I'm dead before lock on

If you go to the map you can queue for skirmishes which omits you from harkus and such. Grand battle queues you for harkus and similar.

Why did no one tell me this!? Seems like this thread is completely unnecessary now(unless the good maps are omitted too)

Attackers need more "triggers" on every map. More tasks to complete that can effect the outcome of the match.

I'd say the current attacker meta is make or break for the game and right now attacking game mechanics are totally broken.

We cannot continue playing the way we are playing. This is no shit going to kill the game. Attacking is NOT fun at all. In other games I can run around with a small group of friends and even while losing, we have fun and feel like we did our part on the part of the battlefield we decided to stake out. With our current meta this is nearly impossible on most maps.