Constructive Feedback on Squad Conquest

«1
hans_kviatke_tv
5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
edited January 19
Hi everyone!

After reading a couple of threads on reddit and here with different opinions on the matter I've decided to create this post to hopefully serve as a place to provide some structured feedback on how you feel about the new mode, but more importantly what do you like/dislike about it and why. I believe the metadata DICE is getting will still be one of the key metrics they use in making decisions, but maybe providing them with constructive and structured feedback instead of screeching will help steer them in the right direction.

Let's get into it!

To provide a little background, I've always been into shooters, (Enemy Territory, Quake, CoD, BF, Americas Army, Dirty Bomb, CS, Planetside 2, Overwatch, Tarkov) but never really had the time/skill/drive to go in heavy into competitive scene, instead I dabbled here and there for a few months, exploring different games. Even though I was always more or less a tryhard in these games, I've never really achieved anything competitively. However being exposed to so many different game design philosophies, mechanics, modes gives you a comprehensive perspective. I just hope some of my ramblings will help.

First off I gotta say that while I really enjoy it I can understand the frustration it can cause for casual players used to big game modes. It promotes teamplay and emphasizes individual skill and requires a lot of coordination making voice comms almost mandatory. I find it a better iteration of Incursions in terms of map sizes, map design and vehicle vs infantry balance. I think it's an important step for the team in a journey to create a fully fledged competitive mode. It vaguely reminds me Enemy Territory: Quake Wars due to call-ins and vehicles (I'd love to see Arty Barrage and Smoke screen added later on).

Couple of things I've noticed:

- Classes finally feel like they each have their niche and Assault no longer seems like a no-brainer, but more like a situational pick vs vehicles. Recon can change the tide of battle by a well placed Spawn Point or Flare. Because of the lower amount of players on the map scope glint is no longer a death sentence. Medics only gain value with the cover they are providing for each push with smokes and with recent smg tweaks they feel more deadly. I've also found a support with shotgun to be incredible for defending and objective; you're able to build up defences and lure everyone in your kill box and LMG's can easily compete with SAR's if you pick your angles right (especially in defense using a bipod).

- 8v8 is great for well coordinated squads and potentially clanwars. Pushing/Defending feels intense, there's always a chance for someone to sneak around to ninja cap a point while the rest of the enemy team is focused on a firefight. The flow of battle becomes manageable, for a change it's not one huge clusterfuck where nothing but following the zerg matters. I wonder if increasing the number of players for public up to 12 would negatively impact that, might be worth considering in order to introduce a bit more chaos for the casual players.

- The maps have sufficient routes to push and the only way you feel boxed in is when you get locked in your initial spawn which could have additional ways of getting out of (at least on Rotterdam). I really like the small adjustments on maps such as truck and barrels on Hamada that provides cover in an open space between B and A, fortifications on B point on Arras actually give you an advantage and the placement of Health/Ammo stations makes defending really easy (maybe too easy?)

- Vehicle balance - heavy vehicles are at a significant disadvantage right now, splash damage for tank cannons regardless of caliber seems slightly undertuned. It's very easy to juke any vehicle right now, however you need to cooperate with another assault to take it down (2 sometimes even 3 PIAT's are not enough)

- Due to poor matchmaking, casual players are getting absolutely destroyed (but that is also true for Domination) which is incredible frustrating, especially if you're being forced into playing a mode to progress the campaign. I realise that it's next to impossible to come up with a well adjusted MMR system. If you're playing solo, you will almost always screwed regardless of how good the system actually is. I actually think matchmaking is one of the worst features for player experience introduced to online shooters but that's a whole different rant :D An entirely separate "competitive" MMR must be introduced along with system punishing leavers or afk players. It would be a huge project though.

- Alternatively as a community, we could take it upon themselves to create a competitive discord for scrims/clanwars where everyone roughly knows what skill they are and they pair up accordingly. This used to be a thing back in the IRC days, but I fear matchmaking made it too convenient to just get into game and play.

That's it for now as I've just been playing for a few hours so far. I'll try to update the post with more thoughts over the next days.

What's your feedback?

Edited for swearing. - EA_Cian
Post edited by EA_Cian on

Comments

  • xBCxSEALxTEAMx6
    1276 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    8 v 8 is too small, and the maps too small for tanks. 32 player Conquest on the current conquest maps is what they need. 16 v 16 on those big maps will give you the same room to breathe and plan as that does, but much more room for vehicle play as past BF's on consoles had (we only had 24 players on these same sized maps).

    And it seems this is only out out for a limited time anyway. I mean if many people play it, i guess they'll keep it, but i'm guessing not in the way Incursions flopped.
  • KITTvsKARR
    133 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I dont like the small group games. I never played the BF(4?) squad gamemode that was in previous games so im biased in the "i dont like it" camp already.

    I think having so few players means that if you don't both have full teams and/or people on your team are just away or not trying (in the past couple of games played yesterday, one person seemed to be standing on a boat in Rotterdam trying to hammer the mast about - another had a player in his own locked squad who didn't spawn for the entire round) it REALLY puts a team at a disadvantage. One or a small handfull of players on 64-Conquest doesn't make MUCH difference, but in an 8x8 game it really does.

    Without it being a gamemode similar to CS:GO where if you don't spawn for the entire game, or leave early, etc you are penalised and can't join games where people stay the entire round, it's going to have a lot of one sided games. There isn't enough "dedicated" players in BF to have the smaller player games.
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    392 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Really well written post and I agree with you, team play and squad roles outside of basic killing are of far greater importance in so small a mode.
    And if nothing else I like having the variety of choice in game modes.

    Because of how much of the player base is struggling with BFV I think SC will need the RSP to get the best out of it though. Once it's up and running this will be phenomenal for the Platoons.
  • FritzCT
    281 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Nice post OP.

    I've only played one round so far (Arras) but it was like dropping in half way through a modern pentathlon competition.

    Run to first flag & shoot, run to second flag & shoot, run to third flag & shoot, run back to first flag & shoot - rinse & repeat. At least with CQL you get some distance to travel.

    It's really not for me but I can see how some may enjoy it.
  • Chubzdoomer
    1387 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    No one will touch it outside Tides of War.
  • hans_kviatke_tv
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    8 v 8 is too small, and the maps too small for tanks. 32 player Conquest on the current conquest maps is what they need. 16 v 16 on those big maps will give you the same room to breathe and plan as that does, but much more room for vehicle play as past BF's on consoles had (we only had 24 players on these same sized maps).

    And it seems this is only out out for a limited time anyway. I mean if many people play it, i guess they'll keep it, but i'm guessing not in the way Incursions flopped.

    I agree that 8v8 when playing with and vs randoms seems a bit too empty, however for a competitive mode it seems just enough, I think, anything more and the comms become too difficult to manage. I'd love to see this mode to be their labrat just as Incursions were but hopefully with some more traction from the community. I never played much vehicles but arguably with smaller maps comes smaller amount of angles that you can die from and especially a light tank or staghund can do a lot of damage as it is. Hopefully if they were to add more maps in the future they could look into making them a bit bigger or at least more vehicle friendly.
  • 0SiGHT0
    412 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I don't know why Battlefield has to emulate any other shooter when it comes to competitive play. Battlefield for years has had it's game mode of choice for it's more serious community, Conquest Small. For some reason, DICE refuses to add this staple game mode to it's latest titles, and it is no coincidence that they have just about killed off this aforementioned community. This is what you get when you remove the game mode that everyone likes to play on, any ability to play in private matches, and have a bug ridden game that provides little reason to continue playing it.

    DICE can start by adding back Conquest Small with thoughtful elements like proper map design and flag layouts/placements. When there is a good game mode with great replay value, there will be an outlet for it to grow. Unfortunately, Battlefield hasn't had that for a very long time.
  • trip1ex
    4066 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    KITTvsKARR wrote: »
    I dont like the small group games. I never played the BF(4?) squad gamemode that was in previous games so im biased in the "i dont like it" camp already.

    I think having so few players means that if you don't both have full teams and/or people on your team are just away or not trying (in the past couple of games played yesterday, one person seemed to be standing on a boat in Rotterdam trying to hammer the mast about - another had a player in his own locked squad who didn't spawn for the entire round) it REALLY puts a team at a disadvantage. One or a small handfull of players on 64-Conquest doesn't make MUCH difference, but in an 8x8 game it really does.

    Without it being a gamemode similar to CS:GO where if you don't spawn for the entire game, or leave early, etc you are penalised and can't join games where people stay the entire round, it's going to have a lot of one sided games. There isn't enough "dedicated" players in BF to have the smaller player games.


    Yep it's just total inattention to the user experience across the board in this game.
  • hans_kviatke_tv
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    FritzCT wrote: »
    Nice post OP.

    I've only played one round so far (Arras) but it was like dropping in half way through a modern pentathlon competition.

    Run to first flag & shoot, run to second flag & shoot, run to third flag & shoot, run back to first flag & shoot - rinse & repeat. At least with CQL you get some distance to travel.

    It's really not for me but I can see how some may enjoy it.

    Thanks! This is precisely how I feel when playing Conquest :) I'm never able to seize any vehicle at the beginning... Do you think adding transport vehicles (2 motorbikes or similar) would help alleviate that?
    Really well written post and I agree with you, team play and squad roles outside of basic killing are of far greater importance in so small a mode.
    And if nothing else I like having the variety of choice in game modes.

    Because of how much of the player base is struggling with BFV I think SC will need the RSP to get the best out of it though. Once it's up and running this will be phenomenal for the Platoons.

    Thank you! I'm really keen to see how other smaller modes will echo within the community as well. I think it's safe to say that DICE are experimenting on us whether we like it or not. While I did not particularly agree with getting rid of the CTE I think that live testing will elicit more opinions (and more whining) which hopefully will let them create a competitive mode that works after all these years.
    KITTvsKARR wrote: »
    Without it being a gamemode similar to CS:GO where if you don't spawn for the entire game, or leave early, etc you are penalised and can't join games where people stay the entire round, it's going to have a lot of one sided games. There isn't enough "dedicated" players in BF to have the smaller player games.

    You're right, I think it is critical to sell it as a competitive mode to the wider community with a MMR system on it's own, as for the dedicated players, I really can't tell but there seems to be a lot of clans on the Domination mode just waiting for something to come along and let them compete.
  • jimm0o
    130 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    after 3 week of stop. we are back with me friends and we love this gamemode. remember us old time bf2/4 clanwars. finally real small conquest is back.
    thanks Dice
  • SOULJ4R
    214 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I like a break from the normal conquest stomp and GO gets a bit boring after a while. The other modes never did it for me but squad conquest is decent, apart from the tanks being on there, I mean why have an A.A tank when there's no aircraft, not much thought seems to have gone into that tbh.

    Shame there's only a few maps to play.
  • hans_kviatke_tv
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    SOULJ4R wrote: »
    I like a break from the normal conquest stomp and GO gets a bit boring after a while. The other modes never did it for me but squad conquest is decent, apart from the tanks being on there, I mean why have an A.A tank when there's no aircraft, not much thought seems to have gone into that tbh.

    Shame there's only a few maps to play.

    British AA has a spec that shreds infantry as far as I know. Plus without the tanks it just becomes Domination with slightly shifted cap points. I never really played with vehicles but I can see potential in having a tank cooperate with a squad to push points.
  • Ploodovic
    1348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Good observations and thought out post.

    I don’t care for TDM or Domination, I prefer the bigger game modes, mostly Conquest. I’m not a “competetive” player, I played Incursions for the minimum amount you needed to, to unlock the Ararebo in BF1. It’s just not for me. When I heard about Squad Conquest, I thought it was going to be another one I wouldn’t care for.

    One thing that frustrates me with regular Conquest, is the apparent lack of tactical awareness, from big parts of my team. I refuse to follow the zerg, and I’m the one going back to defend the flags we actually need, when the rest are on the other side of the map, capping a flag they will immediately abandon. Defending a flag on your own, when 10 enemy players rush in often ends in, well, you probably can guess.

    My experience in Squad Conquest so far, is that it’s a much more tactical variant of Conquest, in practice. People actually defend flags. And you can too, even if you’re alone, because the enemy team usually only come two or three at a time. I see good teamwork, which is so much more effective here, because the player count is low. The result is a lovely, distilled version of Conquest, that has been quite enjoyable to play.
    FritzCT wrote: »
    Nice post OP.

    I've only played one round so far (Arras) but it was like dropping in half way through a modern pentathlon competition.

    Run to first flag & shoot, run to second flag & shoot, run to third flag & shoot, run back to first flag & shoot - rinse & repeat. At least with CQL you get some distance to travel.

    It's really not for me but I can see how some may enjoy it.

    But you need to stop, and think, why you are running towards the third flag, in your example. Your team only needs two flags, to win. Why are you going for the third? Fortify and defend the ones you already got. The B flag on Arras is on a hill, so it’s great fun to defend it, in my opinion. If you notice that the enemy team isn’t really pushing, then there is the opportunity to go for the all-cap. If the teams are balanced, though, an all-cap shouldn’t really be possible, and neither is it necessary to win, so it doesn’t really make sense to go for it.

    The same is true for regular Conquest, as well, but…
  • hiblake
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 18
    I didn’t mind what I played of it so far, if you work together as a team you can make a big impact. Like mentioned previously though if you have a few that are afk or just not doing anything you get a lot of one sided games.

    You can cover ground quick to the points and shouldn’t be running from flag to flag if you defend 2 points instead of rushing for a triple cap.

    Can see why some people wouldn’t like it and I don’t think it would be my preferred game type but I’d probably jump on it from time to time.
  • Shave_Ur_Dad
    60 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 18
    Lot's of good points in this thread.

    I just hate that it's simply a zerg the flags game. The team that run's back and forth the fastest and kills the most soldiers wins the game. There is no value in defending flags for more than a second or two. It's essentially team death match, but hey, that's what DICE has turned Conquest into in general.
  • SOULJ4R
    214 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Even with half a bad team, you can still make a game of it. The impact of having half useless players on your side doesn't effect the outcome as bad as having 16 useless players on a 64 slot conquest.
  • Ploodovic
    1348 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Lot's of good points in this thread.

    I just hate that it's simply a zerg the flags game. The team that run's back and forth the fastest and kills the most soldiers wins the game. There is no value in defending flags for more than a second or two. It's essentially team death match, but hey, that's what DICE has turned Conquest into in general.

    I don’t see this. And, I find the opposite to be true; the team that defend their flags, wins the game. While the zerging enemy team gets stuck between two flags, they’re vulnerable to a flank, risking to get all-capped. I’ve seen it several times.
  • 0SiGHT0
    412 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Lot's of good points in this thread.

    I just hate that it's simply a zerg the flags game. The team that run's back and forth the fastest and kills the most soldiers wins the game. There is no value in defending flags for more than a second or two. It's essentially team death match, but hey, that's what DICE has turned Conquest into in general.

    It's basically the same as domination with slightly different rules.They need to put in Conquest Small because that's what everyone wants. No planes, limited vehicles, on maps and flags that are large enough for decent gameplay.
  • darbyofool
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I rather enjoyed it, its nice not having people constantly sitting in tanks or planes. The group I played with worked together and helped each other out which was a nice change. Just wish it wasn't the same three maps though
  • diagoro
    1357 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I actually like the mode, it's less hectic.

    A few things I would like to see:

    1. Better defined flag cap zones. They aren't marked, and some are too small.
    2. More maps. The games are quick, and the rotation goes quick. Longer games would help a bit.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!