Or those “squads” of 2 people that are locked.
Like, five of them.
Really guys?
@disposalist
I am not very proficient in multi-quoting so I will address each point individually.
- Yes every kill or death counted/counts, and they are quite numerous however the amount is not as relevant as the difference between the two teams. Say the winning team has 200 tickets through kills and the losing 150, then the effect is actually almost negligible in a round that went 1000-850. The kills/deaths contributing to the bleed mostly shortens rounds, but have little effect on the actual outcome. Also it might swing both ways during the round or be pretty equal. Player density and playercount have a big influence here though.
- No I think sector control is not the quintessence of conquest, because it is undynamic and we have that in Frontlines, Breakthrough or GO. Conquest to me is closer to the actual semantic meaning of conquering a territory by creating a decisive victory through the use of defense, counterattacks, flanking and other tactical maneuvers. Conquest in BF4 is a vastly more tactical gamemode than conquest in BF1, which is much more straihtforward.
- I agree that the complexity of the ticket bleed system is a clear downside, since the actual outcome is open to interpretation and certainly not representative.I have no idea how to address this issue, so I just let go of the endscore and evaluate the game via personal fun factor. In BF1 the visual presentation was accurate, it showed how much control you had over the round in a quantity sense. Quitters were still a huge issue, because the possibility of a comeback was much lower.
- Here the intransparency of BF4 really helped. As long as it was not a spawntrap (and sometimes even then) the opportunity to turn the game was there, that is a ig psychological boost. A similar effect was seen when the catch-up mechanic was “bugged”. Rarely anybody leaves a game where the ticket difference is held artificially below 50 or so. Also with many maps only having 3-5 flags turning the bleed was relatively easy.
The ridiculousness of the stomps continues, months later.
Lol its always fun when you join a game..to find the other team has 5/6 flags
Well, naturally, you join a game alone that another guy has just left. Why do people leave? Out of frustration. So two people have the experience of a stomp, although it was only one round played.
BF needs “knockout” conditions for Conquest so there is something more for teams to play for.
rough example/idea of an alternative Conquest mode. Let’s call it Knockout Conquest.
Objective: Team that holds majority flags in Conquest for 200 seconds wins.
Rules:
- A timer counts down from 200 to 0 when a team holds majority flags. Each team has a 200 second timer. The time remaining for each is the score. The lower the better. Max length of round is 15 minutes.
- If the timer reaches 0 then your team wins. The enemy team is knocked out and immediately loses the round. If the round goes the full 15 minutes then team with lowest score wins.
- If a team (team A) loses control of majority before 200 seconds and the other team (team B) gains control of majority then team A receives a “penalty clock.” The “penalty clock” must be worked through before team A’s timer countdown can continue. “Penalty clock” would be something like 3/4ths of the difference between the time a team capped majority to the time the enemy team took over majority.
- Overtime: if a team has majority flags and is behind at the 15 minute mark the game will continue until that team wins or loses majority hold.
What does this have to do with balance? Matches that are really unbalanced in skill and/or number will be over relatively quickly under Knockout Conquest. Rounds wouldn’t drag on for so long. Less reason to leave. New round will start sooner. Teams will be shuffled. A round could be as short as 200 seconds. It lessens the pain of the really unbalanced matches. Matches that are close can last the full 15 minutes.
Also you always have a chance to comeback. That’s what the penalty clock helps with. If you teams stops the enemy at a countdown of 1 and gains majority flags then the enemy gets that penalty clock that they would have to work through before their timer can countdown from 1 to 0.
And then the whole concept of the Knockout Condition creates excitement because it gives teams something else to play for. The better team can go for the Knockout and get bonus xp points and add to their Knockout stat. The losing team can try to prevent the Knockout and still has a chance to win until the end.
Yep. And its more annoying sitting in queue for a few minutes just to experience it. Then the following several rounds continue it lol the lack of team scrambling is absurd
As long as DICE does not divide clanplayers over the 2 teams that are always in the same squad to farm the common players, we are stuck with stomping.
Agreed 100%. Love when my friends join me just to be put on the other team too. Happened the last 3 times AND the other teams were clan stacked
I just got out of solo-queueing for a Conquest match on Fjell 652…it ended up 532-0 and we had all five points for the other side’s last 500 tickets. It was as bad as some of the old BF4 Operation Locker curbstomps I’ve been in. And this game wasn’t a clan stack on the team I was on. It was just…I don’t know what it was, honestly.
Close games are very rare its mostly stomps.
It does have a very BF4 vibe at times, just stuck in a spawn trap.
There’s one clan that is Singapore based, mainly on Asian servers. You only see them when they have 25-30 players… suspiciously they always have one guy on the other team. I’m convinced he’s telling them where every one is and what they are doing.