Are players really content with how Conquest normally plays out?

2

Comments

  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1303 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    yeah in with the new out with the old.  

    but something bf3...i seem to remember more maps where you had to fight through each other to get flags.  Not so much ring around the rosie.   And bf3 was one of the better selling Bf games.  probalby 2nd after bf1?  

    to me when they started to make the maps for Ops/Breakthrough  it screwed with how Conquest worked in the past.
    Being forced to 'fight your way to get to other flags' would suggest the maps were somewhat linear, which I think wasn't the case for most good BF3 maps (no, Metro is definitely not a good map, mostly because it's a linear grenade and camping festival for Russians).

    Zerging is a problem, but there was actually a different problem in BF4's conquest that not many people talk about ... overextending. We only need the majority of flags to have the enemy bleed tickets, but many BF4 players didn't understand this. They wanted to get all of the flags, not just the majority; I suspect they wanted to spawncamp the enemy team. However, this almost never worked out. My team would get to the enemy's base flag, whilst I would be (uselessly, because I didn't have any ways to verbally communicate with my team back then) complaining about how we've left ourselves vulnerable to an enemy flank. Nobody wanted to defend objectives back then either.

    What would happen the vast majority of the time? An enemy squad flanks us, takes our base flag, which leads to more enemies spawning behind us and taking more flags. By the time my still-attacking team realises that we're about to lose almost every flag, the enemy is right on us. We have to start fighting enemies coming from the rest of the flags as well as from their own spawn. Of course, we get overwhelmed from having to fight on two fronts (just like in Stalingrad now that I think about it), and we end up losing every flag. This happened so often that I got tired of predicting that it would happen in a match ... pretty much every time I thought my team was overextending, I was right, and we ended up losing the match.

    This all happened on the PS3/4 version of the game, so I'm not sure if it was like this on PC. I personally haven't noticed it happening whenever I play BF4 on PC, so maybe this ridiculous mentality is console exclusive.

    Either way, making people understand that defending and holding objectives is important would prevent issues like zerging and overextending. People would actually think about ways to hold objectives instead of rushing to another objective in non-linear maps, and they would try to hold on to objectives rather than capture bloody everything in linear maps. How would DICE do this? I don't know, because funnily enough, this game rewards defending quite a bit, yet on Conquest, you don't see too many defenders ... you will, however, see people camping in spots that aren't close to objectives.
    I think it's a twofold problem. One being that players feel like they're doing more/playing well when they CAPTURE flags. And the second problem is that flags are usually captured quickly, so if you're alive at a different flag there's no way to get back in time to contest once you hear the VO announcer telling you the enemy is capturing. Also, if you're dead you have to be A) observant of all the flags to see which one you need to defend, B) act quickly, because you only have a few seconds before you can't spawn on contested flags at all, and C) have to be comfortable being 1 defender vs and unknown number of enemies. A lot of players prefer not to take that risk and just stick to the safety of the herd. The herd too creates a disadvantage for defense in that you're more likely to be revived and stay alive longer when in a group, which limits your options for defending far away flags.

    Lastly, BFV has a unique problem causing even fewer defends, and that's the stupid squad spawn screen it defaults to instead of the overview map. Battlefield is not a game that favors defensive play, and in fact hinders it at almost every turn.
  • MemesterChief
    96 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:


    I wasn't fond of Operations either tho.    For one, the ZErg was alive and well in Operations  too.  So many times you go cap the 2nd flag only to find  the enemy caps the 1st flag  and then your team goes to get the 1st flag again  only to find  the 2nd one is capped by the enemy.    Back and forth it goes.     That happened quite a bit in Ops.  

    And then in OPs you're limited to how you can attack.  You don't have great flanking options in OPerations.  You can't  really attack a flag from behind.  And then one team has to be pure defenders.  You can't push the enemy back more than ~50m on whatever sector you're on.    and  then the map is much smaller.   it's 64 players on a small chunk of the Conquest map at a time which makes it way more of a clusterfudgecookie.     It just feels like a dumbed version of Conquest.  LIke they  recognize the player base is mentally handicapped and so they created a mode for them.    All the fun downtime of driving around to flank or traveling between flags is gone.  IT's a very static mode.  

    And if operations isn't Zerging then it's just a campfest.  The times where you aren't bouncing back between the 2 flags, you are rushing into flag zones begging at least 2 other teammates to come wtih you to cap a flag inside of sniping from out of bounds.  But no you look at the map and you see 15 blue icons 75m from the flag zone without  so much an urge to move forward. 
    I agree that Operations did see an issue with the defending team just rushing the objective the attackers already took to take back rather than defend their other objective, though it wasn't nearly as often as the zerg meta of CQ atm and was more a cheese tactic than anything. A solution could have been a lock timer on a recently captured Ops obj. to give the attackers a few minutes of guranteed ability to commit to a full-on assault. I disagree on flanking objectives though. Yes, you couldn't flank from 180 degrees but there were plenty of 90 degree flanks available on most maps, and the trenchlines facilitated that a bit better than the open maps we have in BFV. Attackers sniping from spawn rather than assaulting was a unique issue tied to it though. 
  • DigitalHype
    735 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I agree that Operations did see an issue with the defending team just rushing the objective the attackers already took to take back rather than defend their other objective, though it wasn't nearly as often as the zerg meta of CQ atm and was more a cheese tactic than anything. A solution could have been a lock timer on a recently captured Ops obj. to give the attackers a few minutes of guranteed ability to commit to a full-on assault. I disagree on flanking objectives though. Yes, you couldn't flank from 180 degrees but there were plenty of 90 degree flanks available on most maps, and the trenchlines facilitated that a bit better than the open maps we have in BFV. Attackers sniping from spawn rather than assaulting was a unique issue tied to it though. 
    The incentives for defending a flag are all wrong. People don't stay and defend (even when order is placed by SL). Because, they don't perceive enough incentive, as an individual, to remain in place. The defend flag order only gives you the same amount of points as the capture. In the meantime, they lose out on score because they don't get as many kills, unless the enemy happens to swarm the flag.

    They should make completing a defend flag order 20x (or more) the score of a capture order. Then people would only attack when they have a flag deficit and needed to, in order to stop ticket bleed. This would prevent people from pushing, when they already have a flag majority.

    The conquest game meta should be cap to majority and hold. Instead it's just go in circles, and hope you're faster/better than the other guy.
  • trip1ex
    4655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I agree that Operations did see an issue with the defending team just rushing the objective the attackers already took to take back rather than defend their other objective, though it wasn't nearly as often as the zerg meta of CQ atm and was more a cheese tactic than anything. A solution could have been a lock timer on a recently captured Ops obj. to give the attackers a few minutes of guranteed ability to commit to a full-on assault. I disagree on flanking objectives though. Yes, you couldn't flank from 180 degrees but there were plenty of 90 degree flanks available on most maps, and the trenchlines facilitated that a bit better than the open maps we have in BFV. Attackers sniping from spawn rather than assaulting was a unique issue tied to it though. 


    The conquest game meta should be cap to majority and hold. Instead it's just go in circles, and hope you're faster/better than the other guy.
    Exactly that was Conquest before.  Cap and hold majority flags.  If you held majority then you would ease of the gas pedal.  If you didn't have majority you would put the pedal to the metal and break the bleed and try to regain majority.  So there was some strategy in the game because of that.  There were sacrifices that were worth it.  Killing an enemy to maintain the bleed or break the bleed.    That brought satisfaction that rote farming  can't touch.   
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3257 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    Exactly that was Conquest before.  Cap and hold majority flags.  If you held majority then you would ease of the gas pedal.  If you didn't have majority you would put the pedal to the metal and break the bleed and try to regain majority.  So there was some strategy in the game because of that.  There were sacrifices that were worth it.  Killing an enemy to maintain the bleed or break the bleed.    That brought satisfaction that rote farming  can't touch.   
    This is how CQ is supposed to be played out, but in reality, it rarely happens in public lobbies in BF3/4/Hardline/1/V ... I've often found myself as one of the only ones trying to defend a flag, which doesn't work out too well when the enemy zerg/herd, or one flanking enemy squad, makes it's way to my flag.

    Like I've said before, I don't know how this would be solved. I initially thought that a return to the old CQ format in BFV would solve things, but I had forgotten that defending flags wasn't much of a thing in my BF3/4 experience. Now, the problem is zerging instead of overextending, but the end result is about the same ... constant attacking, and no defending, even when it is more advantageous to hold on to the flags you already have.
  • bran1986
    5597 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The last Battlefield where capping and holding meant something was BF2. The playerbase was much smaller then and winning just seemed more important but the franchise has grown significantly and has attracted a wide range of players since the Bad Company games released.
  • VOLBANKER
    877 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I know it may be the smart thing to do for the team but defending a flag with no apparent attackers incoming is just sooooo boring. No action at all.
  • TropicPoison
    2320 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Not really, the last time I played and what I always usually play is CQ but it's just so damn boring and even campy in BFV.

    Probably going to uninstall BFV finally, or keep it around incase of special unlocks for the next Battlefield if DICE don't screw up the next one as well.
  • okiie_918
    128 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Been saying it since launch that no one plays defense! Needs to be more of an award for it! Like 500 bonus points per 5 defensive kills or something!
  • Dank_Jeezus
    97 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DJTN1 wrote: »
    If you want to survive or be successful you have 2 options:

    1) Run with the herd (aka merry go round) and hope medics and support actually support you.
    OR
    2) Camp a supply station (or near it). So when you've shot the 2 bullets you spawn with, you can re-up.

    Be careful with option 2 as smart players know this tactic so planes bomb the stations constantly for easy kills.

    Attrition sucks. It might work in Fartnite but not Battlefield.


    Most of my friend use option 2a.

    Hide between objectives and infantry farm the ptfo zergers with lazer SAR 3x glintless cod cheese guns.

    How do you think the game is down one KPM globally but there’s multiple 70 kill players every game...
  • X_Sunslayer_X
    679 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    i wouldn't say content more hopeless since DICE has as far as i know never acknowledged it as a core issue so most just abandoned the idea of ever getting actually decent balanced rounds....
  • MrCamp121
    469 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Steamroll after steamroll. Havent really had a balanced game in a while. Its getting a bit stupid
  • MintySSD
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NO not when auto team balance is a massive fail.

    Mercury 16-24 is not a good team balance
  • ShevermiN
    385 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Two zergs running around the map avoiding each other while capturing bases no one is defending. Namely because trying to defend solo against 20 players rushing enmasse results in a futile death. It becomes a merry-go-round of flag chasing for 20 minutes with lots of running and minimum excitement. BF1 Operations (esp 40 player maps) solved this issue by forcing players to fight over certain territory at a time, but BFV breakthrough is a shell of Operations' glory and is too chaotic and clustered on makes like Fjell for tactical gameplay. You would think you'd find that in conquest, with roaming squads intercepting one another en route to different defended objectives. But sadly mindless zerging is the meta.
    The meta is all about the XP. Nothing else matters. Didn't use to be this way.
    Then how do you explain 2000 ticket 24/7 Metro, Lockers ........  Grinding points since BF4 has been the only meta in this game. There was over a hundred weapons that you had to get 100 kills with to get the dog tag for. I did about 40.

    That is why Obliteration, Carrier Assault, CTF, Defuse, Pigeons, Rush have never been able to attract players because there are not enough points when your team loses, and not much more if you crush them for the win.
  • xeNizKing
    349 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 24
    Two zergs running around the map avoiding each other while capturing bases no one is defending. Namely because trying to defend solo against 20 players rushing enmasse results in a futile death. It becomes a merry-go-round of flag chasing for 20 minutes with lots of running and minimum excitement. BF1 Operations (esp 40 player maps) solved this issue by forcing players to fight over certain territory at a time, but BFV breakthrough is a shell of Operations' glory and is too chaotic and clustered on makes like Fjell for tactical gameplay. You would think you'd find that in conquest, with roaming squads intercepting one another en route to different defended objectives. But sadly mindless zerging is the meta.
    I really do not like how CQ is structured tbh didn't like it so much in BF1 either even though its the mode I play the most, the reason being is that the map design and flag placement by default forces confrontation. You may be thinking "dont you want people to fight eachother?" well the issue is - its always the same. Hamada people constantly fight over mostly D. Twisted steel, mostly E/B. C on Arras, C on Aerodrome. The list goes on, every single map has a focal point for conflict which bassically causes the rest of the map to be ignored which then pushes a very few people to just run around in circles going from flag to flag with no contest because everyones fighting eachother on one flag only. 

    When playing BF4/3 they had their focal points too but the way the maps were structured the way the flags were placed didn't make it feel so empty unless on those focal points because more people were willing to run around because there was more cover. Way more in a lot of instances. 

    Overall CQ feels utterly bland in BF5 and in BF1 there is a reason why I preferred Grand Ops. 

    They need to stop forcing conflict through map design in modes like conquest and let players decide in the match where to focus their efforts otherwise we just end up with more maps that feel 75% empty and dull. Contrary to popular believe, running around for 15 minutes seeing either nobody or getting sniped from a bridge with little or nothing to be done about it is not actually fun in CQ. Forced conflict by developers instead of conflict of opportunity is a really bad design philosophy for maps and flag placement IMO.
  • Matty101yttam
    796 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    Exactly that was Conquest before.  Cap and hold majority flags.  If you held majority then you would ease of the gas pedal.  If you didn't have majority you would put the pedal to the metal and break the bleed and try to regain majority.  So there was some strategy in the game because of that.  There were sacrifices that were worth it.  Killing an enemy to maintain the bleed or break the bleed.    That brought satisfaction that rote farming  can't touch.   
    This is how CQ is supposed to be played out, but in reality, it rarely happens in public lobbies in BF3/4/Hardline/1/V ... I've often found myself as one of the only ones trying to defend a flag, which doesn't work out too well when the enemy zerg/herd, or one flanking enemy squad, makes it's way to my flag.

    Like I've said before, I don't know how this would be solved. I initially thought that a return to the old CQ format in BFV would solve things, but I had forgotten that defending flags wasn't much of a thing in my BF3/4 experience. Now, the problem is zerging instead of overextending, but the end result is about the same ... constant attacking, and no defending, even when it is more advantageous to hold on to the flags you already have.
    I don't think its as simple as people trying to flag cap, while that gives the slightest motivation i personally think its a case of the rate of contact never being enough for people.
    I imagine it like being in an invincible car driving in oncoming traffic, you take out some cars..you feel more confident and want more success so you put your foot down, the faster you go towards the direction the vehicles/enemy come from the more contact you have.
    People will always head towards the enemy almost like a gravitational force, i find myself doing it while playing objectives..get a couple of kills, see some more easy targets further away and a few moments later i'm a mile away and i have to remind myself to get on the objective.
    This then also applies to defence, if that car was to stop totally the rate of contact is severely reduced.

    So there needs to be an equal incentive to remain behind that effects people personally or a way to engage enemy from those bases at a constant rate(case in point d flag on hamada which has visual on a large portion of the map so there is always people defending it compared to close range maps like devastation or fort de vaux where, when the enemy is cleared there's nothing to shoot so people move on). The older games also had stronger defensive weapons at bases to get people to remain, for instance fortress guns on empires edge and even bf2 the emplaced mg's on wake island were effective, since they are reduced though people use them less so the people manning them move on and that goes for the supports that needed to be used for repairs(bf2 repairs in some bases was a job on it's own).


  • bigiain
    240 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The BF1 bombers trained people not to stay on the flag, I'd imagine the artillery strike and the V1 are doing the same here.

    Returning to assets like tanks spawning on flags might make a difference as well, although there's a risk of it causing disaster as a team run off and leave their tank.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1769 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    maybe make it so you get some extra reinforcement if you hold a majority for x minutes straight, or perhaps on a 5 flag map you must hold 2 of the 5 for 5mins to auto gain an extra tank.
  • maskedocelot
    144 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I do think something needs changing with conquest, it used to be pretty much all I'd play in previous titles but with this 1 I keep getting the feeling of playing on my own and getting bored or frustrated and quitting out of matches part way through to go to breakthrough or whatever.

    Outpost and squad conquest have given me the greatest sense of playing with a team and doing something meaningful in the games. My experience with both those modes has been that people tend to play in squads more and play objectives and defend better. So i was wondering if things like speeding up the capture time of positions for a solo person, and taking away flag regen from the positions people seem to get obsessed with might make a differnce.


    There's very little incentive to break away from the group when the capture time is so slow for 1 person compared to 2 or 3 and if your squad won't come with you may just be inclined to stay with the group. Also if a solo player can capture faster it may be a better incentive to defend since you won't have as much time to just spawn as it's being captured.

    Taking away flag spawn from for example E on twisted steel and arras and C on devastation, may encourage people to play the outer flags more and be more defensive aswell as playing in smaller groups from different flags rather than sticking in one big lump.

    And ofc squad shuffle at round end and more defensive points may also help although the latter could cause people to stay in the position next to their regen.

    If grand ops lost it's massive spawn start time between rounds I'd play that a lot more too.
  • M_Rat13
    804 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bigiain said:
    The BF1 bombers trained people not to stay on the flag, I'd imagine the artillery strike and the V1 are doing the same here.

    Returning to assets like tanks spawning on flags might make a difference as well, although there's a risk of it causing disaster as a team run off and leave their tank.

    This reminded me of a game in squad conquest where an enemy left their tank and I stole it. When each team only gets 1 tank per side, and you rock up with 2, I can only imagine how annoyed the enemy were with that tank driver for leaving their tank.
Sign In or Register to comment.