squad conquest not enjoyable.

«1
viper63x
71 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield V Member
edited 1:24PM
i made a similar thread already, but wanted to just make another one, that was cleaner and points out exactly why i dont like squad conquest as a replacement for domination.

1. if players leave on eitherside the game becomes unbalanced, and the side with less players usually loose so badly.

2. platoons joining squad conquest really ruins the fun, eg locked squads, and usually they will be completly obliterating the other side, because they are all talking to each other using headsets taking it seriously, eg protecting their friend in the tank, and all reviving each other.

3. this is usually all down to being only 16v16, most of the time it isn't even 16vs16.

you need to just bring back domination, this wil fix all these lame issues, that squad conquest has.


With such a small player count it only takes one clan squad to unbalance the game to the point of spawn trapping. Infuriating to play against and I can't imagine how it is fun for the clan except for stat boosting 🙁



Post edited by viper63x at

Comments

  • BeastofBourbon84
    150 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Agreed dom is vastly superior and I still miss it every day.
  • yamurbina
    10 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I agree. When first launched it was nice lots action and everything, but now if feels boring and kind of pointless because as you mentioned most of the time it isn’t 16v16
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1446 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Enjoyed it when it was Rotterdam, Hamada and Arras but these new maps are lazy and not thought out. The games are stacked with clans and rarely are the games balanced when it comes to player numbers. I dread loading it
  • viper63x
    71 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield V Member
    Enjoyed it when it was Rotterdam, Hamada and Arras but these new maps are lazy and not thought out. The games are stacked with clans and rarely are the games balanced when it comes to player numbers. I dread loading it
    yeah, its annoying.
  • ZykZeNoFutur
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 4
    I agree. DICE PLAY WITH YOUR GAME PLEASE !!!! OR BUY A GAMEPLAY .....
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    784 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I think Squad Conquest is a great idea, it's just that like almost everything in BFV it's been poorly implemented.

    Instead of 2 teams of 4, why not make SC 1 team of 8. It might help with V's poor matchmaking? If you can work with just one other half decent player you can usually at least make a fight out of the match. A larger pool of potential teammates would help.

    Take away the ability to lock squads in SC. For a game that is so dependent on team mates I don't get why this is a feature in any mode, but in SC it's a match killer, no locked squads and no lone wolf off on their own in a 1 man squad. 

    Hold matches until sides are at least roughly equal.
    It's not uncommon to start a match 2 v 8 and many of these maps are incredibly easy to spawn trap the other team, a pre round balancer would be ideal but until Dice can get round to it just wait until the sides fill evenly. I don't mind waiting a minute if it means I'll get an even competitive match. 
  • viper63x
    71 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 13
    I think Squad Conquest is a great idea, it's just that like almost everything in BFV it's been poorly implemented.

    Instead of 2 teams of 4, why not make SC 1 team of 8. It might help with V's poor matchmaking? If you can work with just one other half decent player you can usually at least make a fight out of the match. A larger pool of potential teammates would help.

    Take away the ability to lock squads in SC. For a game that is so dependent on team mates I don't get why this is a feature in any mode, but in SC it's a match killer, no locked squads and no lone wolf off on their own in a 1 man squad. 

    Hold matches until sides are at least roughly equal.
    It's not uncommon to start a match 2 v 8 and many of these maps are incredibly easy to spawn trap the other team, a pre round balancer would be ideal but until Dice can get round to it just wait until the sides fill evenly. I don't mind waiting a minute if it means I'll get an even competitive match. 
    one squad of 8 seems pretty reasonable, i like that idea. atlast you got a chance of having some medics with you.
  • MrCamp121
    508 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Mercury is bad for squad conquest too. Its the aerodome of SC. Camps sitting on the hills just camping firing into obj. Not well thought out.

    SC can be fun. Lately its glorified TDM however
  • MrCamp121
    508 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    MrCamp121 wrote: »
    Mercury is bad for squad conquest too. Its the aerodome of SC. Camps sitting on the hills just camping firing into obj. Not well thought out.

    SC can be fun. Lately its glorified TDM however

    BUT. I prefer it over conquest. Less proners and 1ohk rifles laying around
  • viper63x
    71 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield V Member
    MrCamp121 said:
    MrCamp121 wrote: »
    Mercury is bad for squad conquest too. Its the aerodome of SC. Camps sitting on the hills just camping firing into obj. Not well thought out.

    SC can be fun. Lately its glorified TDM however

    BUT. I prefer it over conquest. Less proners and 1ohk rifles laying around
    i bet you do mr  camp.
  • MrCamp121
    508 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    viper63x wrote: »
    (Quote)
    i bet you do mr  camp.

    Whats your point? What a useless reply
  • bigiain
    261 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah, the newer maps are putting me right off the mode. 8 v 8 isn't a good fit with this population, being one player down or having someone avoid the flags just sinks a team too often.
  • TFBisquit
    1506 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    1:  still proners and 1hk weapons because - less chance of being hunted and or discovered.
    2: If only it was 16x16, because it's 8x8 which imo is not enough.
    3: Yes, played some matches that were 8 versus 5, not good for this mode.
    4: I play solo but can understand squads teaming up, one just have to keep in mind your victim could be talking to team mate giving your position away.
    5: several maps in sqc are poor to play, especially when on the loosing team.
  • PeaceWeaver
    26 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Squad Conquest is alright if you have competent people who are actually playing the objective, or if you have balanced numbers. The moment your team is full of camping recons or the moment the game fails to properly balance the teams, however, it’s a hugely frustrating experience.

    Example here of a typical SQ match:

    sQxLSWr.jpg

    Almost everyone on the opposing team had atrocious situational awareness and were extremely easy to outplay. But because there were simply more of them available to push objectives, they won. I was solo the entire match, despite having my squad set to public. I find it extremely hard to believe that no one else was in the matchmaking window looking for SQ games at that time, given that it’s the current mode in the playlist rotation for this week.

  • viper63x
    71 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield V Member
    Squad Conquest is alright if you have competent people who are actually playing the objective, or if you have balanced numbers. The moment your team is full of camping recons or the moment the game fails to properly balance the teams, however, it’s a hugely frustrating experience.

    Example here of a typical SQ match:

    sQxLSWrjpg

    Almost everyone on the opposing team had atrocious situational awareness and were extremely easy to outplay. But because there were simply more of them available to push objectives, they won. I was solo the entire match, despite having my squad set to public. I find it extremely hard to believe that no one else was in the matchmaking window looking for SQ games at that time, given that it’s the current mode in the playlist rotation for this week.

    "The moment your team is full of camping recons or the moment the game fails to properly balance the teams"

    yep its pretty annoying.  good post thanks.
  • BrianLocal1
    467 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I like SQ, but I'm a small mode fan from way back, though I agree it's not battlefield.   For some reason on the playlist all I get is Marita, havn't gotten lofoton or provence once.
  • aquadude79
    15 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    SQ is a bad mode. To be fair, part of that is due to how bad at the game most of the player base is.

    DICE should limit modes to CQ, TDM, DOM, and a breakthrough/operations mode in BF6. There are too many modes, and too many maps designed around trying to handle them all.


  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    281 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Squad conquest is really fun when it plays out as intended. The reason I like it is that there are far less deaths that are seemingly out of your control (i.e. planes) and the fighting is more condensed compared to conquest large.

    Balance is a problem especially when people start leaving the server when they get beat enough times 1-on-1or it's looking like their side is going to lose and they want to protect their precious stats.

    I enjoy it playing it with clan members while communicating through discord as well as squading up with randoms - honestly, I tend to lonewolf even when playing with clan members.

    It can be great fun when sides stay the same (full) from map to map and actual rivalries start to form between sides and players.

    Using the server browser is a good way to join a full server rather than a 3v8 server. I never use the matchmaking feature.
  • VincentNZ
    2666 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It is a good mode, and offers a certain niche, since it is small, player density is average, team or squadplay is enforced, yet personal performance can turn rounds. Also defending is worthwhile in this mode, there are no planes etc.. Would work in a competitive setting as well, if we get RSP and someone actually bothers to set something up.
    However the faults of this game are obvious. With only 8 players per team, every person that drops for whatever reason means there is a 12.5% loss in team effectiveness. That is huge. For comparison a whole squad would need to drop in Conquest to achieve the same.
    As personal performance matters more, people will also be more frustrated and more incentivized to leave early. Loading times for this game are long, while rounds are short, and matchmaking can be bugged for some servers so you might not get back to full strength at all.
    On the game mechanic side, the problem is that mobile play wins the game, stationary kills it, contrary to objective based modes like BT, GO or Rush. Hence every recon or MMG user is a waste of slot. Not using your gadgets or playing your class to full effectiveness hurts your team directly.
    .
    Possible fixes would include increasing the player count to 24, so one more squad for each side. Also punishing leaving is certainly a good idea. Adding private servers would also keep retention rates up, I suppose, as well as treating it as a real competitive mode, by adding events, tournaments, a ladder etc..
  • Draxonfly
    145 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah, im not a fan, but im not a fan of any of the 'smaller modes (except rush). Normal conquest is fun, but in this game, i think Breakthrough/grand ops is where the most fun is at.
Sign In or Register to comment.