Constructive Feedback on Squad Conquest

2»

Comments

  • diagoro
    1530 postsMember, Battlefield 3, 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 found myself doing this. Like on Arras, it was going back and forth from A to B. I chose the flags that had the best covered route.

    The times I would mark a flag to defend, than wait while everyone else zerged (and no attackers would show, or I would face most the other team).
  • hans_kviatke_tv
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not against Conquest Small although for me the maps felt a bit too empty without adjusting the size to the amount of players (not sure if all maps were not adjusted, don't shoot me D: ) I would argue that the changes to maps, additional cover, fortification points, placement of cap points and the addition of tank changes the flow significantly. Spawn positions are fixed to points and the homebase which removes a lot of chaos and randomness from the equation. I think some more transport vehicles (say, two one-seaters) would be benefitial.
  • DALLAS-ak-PEIPER
    452 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    My only feedback is that we didn t need this stupid mode, it s basicly domination with tanks.... Wow, what a formidable idea.

    While we got that stupid mode, we lost Rush and Frontlines! GOOD JOB
  • BL4CK_W4LL_
    704 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It's a competitive mode without proper team balance or clan scrim capability. It's a lot of fun but at the same time frustrating because it has a lot more potential.
  • xBCxSEALxTEAMx6
    1435 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    My only feedback is that we didn t need this stupid mode, it s basicly domination with tanks.... Wow, what a formidable idea.

    While we got that stupid mode, we lost Rush and Frontlines! GOOD JOB

    I was on Frontlines last night it looked like it was fixed. What did they break it again?
  • FOG-Daheeee
    22 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    At least you guys found a server, I tried all sorts of combinations last night to find a server, but not one would show up in the server list. Gave up as usual!
  • ShadowofDeth17
    12 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    My regular squad and I played for about two hours last night, only winning one match. It was a little disheartening, but I know why we lost, lack of communication and constantly running trying to cap all 3.
    Ploodovic wrote: »
    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.
    ^^This was the first thought that came to mind when replaying the matches in my head this morning.


    As with any game type in this game, it is most fun when the match is close. Even if I lose, it got my heart racing. Steamrolling, from either end, bores me to death. Which is what happened almost every match.

    A few observations on my end:
    • Is there a way to talk to the other squad? or is communication limited to your squad only?
    • The minimap doesn't show the cap zones.
    • Rotterdam was a crapshoot. I'd be hard pressed to see an allied victory on that map with the axis spawn where it is. I didn't see A one time in all the matches I played. I think the spawn should be positioned with access to A only, not both A and B.
    • Tanks changed the dynamic entirely, if you aren't bombard from spawn (Arras near A). Instead of focusing on the objective, my attention has shifted to the tank that is rolling in and infantry can flank around and cap. Point is, armor can shift the match drastically with a good tanker.
    • Hamada is fun except for the people who camp out in the towers. Gotta take those down with tank or TNT right away.

    All that being said, this game mode is pure communication. If you aren't talking, your losing.
  • hans_kviatke_tv
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    As with any game type in this game, it is most fun when the match is close. Even if I lose, it got my heart racing. Steamrolling, from either end, bores me to death. Which is what happened almost every match.

    A few observations on my end:
    • Is there a way to talk to the other squad? or is communication limited to your squad only?
    • The minimap doesn't show the cap zones.
    • Rotterdam was a crapshoot. I'd be hard pressed to see an allied victory on that map with the axis spawn where it is. I didn't see A one time in all the matches I played. I think the spawn should be positioned with access to A only, not both A and B.
    • Tanks changed the dynamic entirely, if you aren't bombard from spawn (Arras near A). Instead of focusing on the objective, my attention has shifted to the tank that is rolling in and infantry can flank around and cap. Point is, armor can shift the match drastically with a good tanker.
    • Hamada is fun except for the people who camp out in the towers. Gotta take those down with tank or TNT right away.

    All that being said, this game mode is pure communication. If you aren't talking, your losing.

    Capzones are bugged and will be fixed according to one of the level designers on reddit. As for Hamada towers I'd even go as far as to block them out completely; similar to what was done to Rotterdam bridge, otherwise they are just beacons for campers. As for the Rotterdam, maybe it would be worth giving the Allies access to B via the middle bridge?

    Your point on comms is spot on, it is key to have team wide comms. MMR based matchmaking would also help this mode massively.
  • firechickenfan
    456 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V 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.

    That EXACT thing happened to me yesterday. I was in a locked squad, and my squadmate NEVER spawned.
  • Ploodovic
    1642 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    As with any game type in this game, it is most fun when the match is close. Even if I lose, it got my heart racing. Steamrolling, from either end, bores me to death. Which is what happened almost every match.
    Absolutely! I had a game on Hamada that was amazing! We were six players in our team. Great, we’ll have no chance, I thought. Later, another one left, so we were 5v8.

    Outnumbered, we had to outsmart them, splitting up in smaller groups, 2+2+1, basically. We used spawn beacons, flares, heals, reviving, back capping, all the tools in the box. We came back from like 40 tickets down, it was down to the wire. But then they got the majority, and they also had their tank on our only flag. We couldn’t hold on, and we lost 0–1! Unbelievable!

    It’s the most fun I’ve had in a Battlefield game in, I don’t know how long. This was all with randoms, by the way. I, at least, used no voice communication.

    Of course, the fact that it was even remotely close, should tell you something about the difference in tactics and “skill”, between the teams. On the next map, when our team filled up, so we where 8v8, we all capped them in two minutes, and it was a spawn trap for the rest of the round. Super boring.
  • FritzCT
    313 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Ploodovic wrote: »

    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…

    No no I think you misunderstand me. That's not how I like to play; I can't stand the merry go round and is why I don't play CQL that much either because as you say it also happens there.

    I've played many rounds (CQL) where we should have won but eventually lost because players have abandoned flags to take others when all they needed to do was hold those we had. It's almost like they think they need to spawn trap the enemy to win.

    And i find it really noticeable in SC, i think, because of the fewer number of players. As others have said if I stay and defend then it ends up as 8 vs 1 (or maybe 2) and that never ends well.

    If I could find a round where all 16 players understood tactically (and I've played more than 1 round since) then I'm sure it could be great fun but I haven't managed to find that yet and I'm not sure it's going to happen outside some kind of organised event.
  • Foamcow
    177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 19
    My observations so far are that you can tell which side will win within the first couple of minutes. Invariably one team seems to treat it like TDM - they lose.

    When you get people working together it's really quite fun and I guess the advantage of 8 per side is that there's more chance that those 8 players "get it". If you up the player count to 16 v 16 then you'd probably get 30% of the team playing their own private game and losing the match.

    What we could really do with is inter-squad comms. So the 2 squad leaders could coordinate to cap and hold 2 of the 3 flags rather than both squads going for the same point. In earlier BFs (certainly BF1) you could see how many squads had orders for a particular objective and so choose appropriately. But I haven't noticed the same thing in BFV
  • darbyofool
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Foamcow wrote: »
    My observations so far are that you can tell which side will win within the first couple of minutes. Invariably one team seems to treat it like TDM - they lose.

    When you get people working together it's really quite fun and I guess the advantage of 8 per side is that there's more chance that those 8 players "get it". If you up the player count to 16 v 16 then you'd probably get 30% of the team playing their own private game and losing the match.

    What we could really do with is inter-squad comms. So the 2 squad leaders could coordinate to cap and hold 2 of the 3 flags rather than both squads going for the same point. In earlier BFs (certainly BF1) you could see how many squads had orders for a particular objective and so choose appropriately. But I haven't noticed the same thing in BFV

    I like your intet-squad comms idea, and agree with you about how with bigger numbers they do their own thing
  • Ploodovic
    1642 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    FritzCT wrote: »
    Ploodovic wrote: »

    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…

    No no I think you misunderstand me. That's not how I like to play; I can't stand the merry go round and is why I don't play CQL that much either because as you say it also happens there.

    I've played many rounds (CQL) where we should have won but eventually lost because players have abandoned flags to take others when all they needed to do was hold those we had. It's almost like they think they need to spawn trap the enemy to win.

    And i find it really noticeable in SC, i think, because of the fewer number of players. As others have said if I stay and defend then it ends up as 8 vs 1 (or maybe 2) and that never ends well.

    If I could find a round where all 16 players understood tactically (and I've played more than 1 round since) then I'm sure it could be great fun but I haven't managed to find that yet and I'm not sure it's going to happen outside some kind of organised event.

    I hear you! It’s just that, in my experience, you don’t face 8 enemies, if you stay and defend a flag. You might face two or three. Most of the time, it’s not even a full squad, that’s attacking a flag. I’m not the greatest player, but with the proper position, I can handle two or three coming at me. If I have teammate as well, it’s no problem. Because the player number is only 8 in a team, you can actually defend flags, unlike in CQL, where you get half their team storming a flag, at the same time. Defending flags works as a strategy in Squad Conquest.
  • SirTerrible
    1693 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Rotterdam needs a complete rework for this mode, spawn and flag placement is completely unbalanced. It's basically broken.
  • klazaj
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    For me (ex CoD player) the best gamemode in BFV.
    I hope this mode will remain forever.
    DICE, great job. Thank you.
  • trip1ex
    4698 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Ploodovic wrote: »
    On the next map, when our team filled up, so we where 8v8, we all capped them in two minutes, and it was a spawn trap for the rest of the round. Super boring.

    There is where they need knock-out conditions so rounds don't drag on. should be a timer that starts when you cap majority flags or all flags and if they can't stop you and regain majority or 1 flag before the timer ends then you win.

    IF they do cap a flag or regain majority then your team gets a penalty timer that you have to work through before the main timer starts counting down again from where it left off.

    This sort of system would end matches early that are lopsided. It would also still give a team a fighting chance to comeback.
  • 0SiGHT0
    455 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    0SiGHT0 wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not against Conquest Small although for me the maps felt a bit too empty without adjusting the size to the amount of players (not sure if all maps were not adjusted, don't shoot me D: ) I would argue that the changes to maps, additional cover, fortification points, placement of cap points and the addition of tank changes the flow significantly. Spawn positions are fixed to points and the homebase which removes a lot of chaos and randomness from the equation. I think some more transport vehicles (say, two one-seaters) would be benefitial.

    The capture zones are a joke, they are far too small and that interaction plays identically to domination. Add on the quick capture times, and this game mode is not what people want in a variant of conquest with a vehicle on it. Look to Bad Company 2 CQ for the blueprint to this....
  • xtess3ractx
    6 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 26
    IMO the player count should be increased to 24, although I like the game mode it feels a little to barren. 12v12 I think would be perfect for this mode 1 additional squad per team would be perfect. It would increase the action and improve pacing.
Sign In or Register to comment.