Squad Conquest Feedback

postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
I found the new Squad Conquest game mode to be a really refreshing change of pace and the overall game play in the mode to be fantastic. I enjoy the face paced and concentrated engagements. The player count feels great, the maps feel great, and limited use of vehicles feels great.

My main critique at the moment is actually matchmaking. I had a full squad of buddies, but it was impossible to match make and get all 4 of us into the game. It would put some of us into a full server and leave 1 or 2 of us stuck in a loading loop until there was space on our team - an unofficial queue. This was really frustrating and there is not a lot of player turnover at the moment (especially on winning teams), so it took a long time to get all of us into a match. The matchmaking also does not always do a good job at keeping servers full. Eventually, our server died out and then we had to go back into the broken matchmaking system.

I'd also like to take the time to offer some further ideas on matchmaking.... A lot of players like myself are really interested in opportunities and support for playing with more than just 3 of our friends in a squad of 4. A very clear argument against being to coordinate with a larger group of friends is team stacking - the ability to have a strongly organized team vs an unorganized team is not very fair nor fun. I would like to offer up an idea I had on this that may also appeal to competitive players and see if there would be enough interested to support it. None of these are new or original ideas, its just a question of whether or not it would appeal to the BF community.


The implementation of an 8 v 8 game mode (i.e. Squad Conquest) encourages more competitive and more organized play. It seems natural that the team of 8 should be able to coordinate fully. I think this is an opportunity where allowing players to lobby as a party of 8 could work. Now, that organized party of 8 can, and should, stomp most unorganized teams of 8. To help circumnavigate that frustration of getting crushed by an elite team, I think both teams should remain lobbied together at the end of the round and immediately go back into matchmaking, but the winning team should be matched against another winning team and the losing team should be matched against another losing team.

This could be built upon to incorporate some form of ranking or leaderboards. It would also be exciting to see how many win streaks your team could get. If there is ranked play, the initial matchmaking can use player's "competitive" rank to place them in an appropriately balanced team, ideally against a near equal team.

The pros:

Encourages more organized and competitive play

Appeals to larger parties

Winning teams are challenged

Losing teams avoid getting stuck in a losing loop

Opportunity for ranked play

New opponents each match is refreshing

The cons:

There may not be enough interest in the core battlefield community to support the game type

Matchmaking procedure between rounds adds downtime

The nature of this system means having to accept that there will be very one sided matches

Not sure how map rotation would work - perhaps bring back map voting? Or simply select a random map that neither team just played.
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!