[Question] Is There A Point To Doing Conflicts As Attackers?

[Gigaus]

Honest question. Some of my friends in another clan were *@##$ing up a storm about Conflicts after their alliance launched an attack, about how there's nothing for attacks to gain a foothold in. I hadn't played Conflicts since they came out because they were S#&$ to me, and resultant of taking to my friends I went to play as both sides. I...I really need to ask, unless you're playing specific frames, what's the point of playing as Attackers?

 

As far as I can see, there's nothing but negatives and disadvantages as playing as Attackers:

 

- Limited number of lives

- Required to start up consoles and prevent anyone else from interacting with them

- Universally no energy for both sides

- Universally no bleedout timer for both sides when downed

- No Specter support

- Unprotected Spawns

- Killing enemy players secondary to Mission Success

 

Where as the Defenders have many positives:

 

+ Infinite lives

+ No repercussions for dying

+ No Objective Object to interact with normally

+ Mission success reliant on getting kills, not objectives

+ Protected Spawns

+ Specter Support, even when there are no human players

+ Turret Support, which are immune to damage unless attacking

 

This leaves me to ask, what am I missing here? 

[Rukkhadevata.]

specters are on attackers maybe its just the alliance/clan your with

 

spawn tickets m8

Edited November 23, 2014 by VyralVanKill

[Halser]

you can attack without defenders, but not defend without attackers. That's one thing, I guess, but it's pretty stupid.

 

But you're not missing anything. Dark Sector Conflicts are probably the worst mode in the game by far. I only played them for the fat battle pays, but that seems to have dried out so I have absolutely no reason to care.

[Phyrosite]

You can TRY to take over a high tax node and get a lower tax... (I dunno though Orion has a pretty tight hold on Sechura)

[Implodingbanana]

you can attack without defenders, but not defend without attackers. That's one thing, I guess, but it's pretty stupid.

 

But you're not missing anything. Dark Sector Conflicts are probably the worst mode in the game by far. I only played them for the fat battle pays, but that seems to have dried out so I have absolutely no reason to care.

there fun to do when you have nothing else to do but yea it could use some improvements for the attackers such as a protected spawn

[jscar]

is there a point to doing conflicts at all?

[AXCrusnik]

I prefer playing as attackers than defenders because I like having objectives to complete.

 

I never do it though because the conflicts in general are underplayed so if I join attackers I'll likely just be killed by sheer numbers.

[Ops1-Jatzu]

You attack to lower the integrity of the defending rail. If done well, the attacking clan/alliance can win over the node, therefore being able to set taxes on players entering the node. These taxes will be attributed to your clan/alliance vault ... It's a lot of fun really, if you have the time, skill, people, and credits to do so.

For a solo player, conflicts can easily be the greatest form of credit income when the timing is just right. Or a fun place to break from the norm, and help some other players during their fight.

[Rakshal]

Attackers can start the game without defenders making it so they can have more mods before the defenders get in. If that happens the defenders usually get roflstomped.

[REDHOOOD]

Attackers can start the game without defenders making it so they can have more mods before the defenders get in. If that happens the defenders usually get roflstomped.

 

I believe when the first defenders join the game, they equal the level of the attackers. However what you are illuminating to is an actual issue. If for instance a defender who is lower level leaves, new defenders joining will be equal to the defender who just left - then they get stomped. 

[Gigaus]

I believe when the first defenders join the game, they equal the level of the attackers. However what you are illuminating to is an actual issue. If for instance a defender who is lower level leaves, new defenders joining will be equal to the defender who just left - then they get stomped. 

 

Yes, when the first defender joins the game, they are the same level as the attackers. And the Attackers can start the match, which seems to be their only advantage. But last I remember Defenders are always the same level as the highest Attacker when they join...Has this changed? 

[REDHOOOD]

Yes, when the first defender joins the game, they are the same level as the attackers. And the Attackers can start the match, which seems to be their only advantage. But last I remember Defenders are always the same level as the highest Attacker when they join...Has this changed? 

 

No it hasn't changed, However keep in mind the below scenario: 

 

Bob the defender is fighting a full team of attackers, He gets angry and leaves at level 3 - while the attackers are level 7. When a new defender joins, he will inherit Bob's level (level 3). 

 

If no defenders were in the game before, new defenders will take the highest level of the attackers. 

 

These same rules of joining are the same for attackers.