Bigger Squads - Conversations
Does anyone else wish Squads were bigger than 4 people?
Especially considering the size of teams in this game, finding any friends who couldn't fit into your squad will be a nightmare.
I neve...
Forum Discussion
Battlefield REALLY need better squads size , in 128 players match squads of 4 is way to low and does not allow for good and organized group to make a difference . We NEED at least 8 players squads and Lobby so we can have more friends and have better chance to do any difference into a match ..
A solution if Dice want to keep squads respawn manageable with 4 they could do 2 fireteam of 4 insde a squad of 8 and 2 squads of 8 to make a platoon of 16 and 4 platoons per team ... Fireteam have the BF respawn capability inside their own fireteam yet they are part of a squad of 8 that can create lobby and join games toghueter
Also Team Leaders need tools to communicate similar to planetside 2 command chanels where squads leaders can speak to each others and organise better , this structure is deeply lacking
in previous BF games and problem will be exacerbate with the increased players count things are to randoms and there is no real team work happening unless you play private servers with the control over the team composition etc..
So We NEED 8 players Squads and lobby to invite 7 friends or team mates willing to play
We need command chanels for squads leaders and maybe even a platoons structure of 16 players per plattoon so 4 platoon per team of 64
Also We need an option to kick out undesirable peoples from 2 seat vehicules like tanks
a SIMILAR Platoon structure is needed for BF 2042 128 players modes
For a game that is set to move forward with 128 man games I think it is laughable to assume 4 man squads are acceptable. 6 man squads are the roots of battlefield and at the very least should be considered as an option for the future game(s). If anything a game like this should let you put together 8 or 10 man squads for maximum coordination and fun. On top of that a functional commander role that can communicate directly to certain squads and vice versa(Squad leaders to commander). In these larger squads it isn't necessary to be in a full squad, as a matter of fact in previous games there were many scenarios where it was beneficial to have smaller squads, however that was more or less isolated situations like Tank squads, Jet/Chopper/gunship squads, transport squads. At the core of BF this level of teamplay mixed with the all-out action and fast paced war gameplay always made for amazing experiences, and even though my profile may not look it this BF veteran has been very disappointed in the lack of these essential elements for functional gameplay beyond a basic run and gun shooter. More on that these systems demand a level of communication to create amazing, thoughtful games that the past few iterations have routinely fallen short on.
I may seem like a cynic but I am actually a believer. I believe that battlefield can be, and has always been, a game with deep gameplay opportunities as well as basic fun opportunities. So even if an ea forum cant get through to dice totally I still hope there will be opportunities to customize battlefield games to include deeper gameplay, better voip, larger squads, and functional commanders. No everyone has to play that way, but I believe that when you give them the opportunity they will take it and create something special. Just like we all did at the very beginning.
Thank you,
Brigadier General FragRaptor8 man squads mate its what is needed for 128 players as asked in my OP
Given dice has ignored us for a decade now I think that even though you are right its best to ask for the simpler compromise.
Hell even an optional size for squad would be frck awesome. having the ability to assign a squad between 3 - 8 players by the squad leader would be neat.
@Bluehydrax wrote:Hell even an optional size for squad would be frck awesome. having the ability to assign a squad between 3 - 8 players by the squad leader would be neat.
THAT @Bluehydrax, would be really cool and awesome!
A great idea, which could be fairly simple to implement and used in practice also.
The squad lead could then decide to set a fixed limit if they wanted or simply just leave his/her squad open for others to join if any player wanted to, to add further to the total number in the squad.
- @afa20f13a0993a51ebc53e7cf97ebfba Yes, as BF2
- Needed !
- @Stew360 Yes, as BF2
Planetside 2 , or MAG on Ps3 had really good platoon and squads system , 8 players squad and 16 players platoon with 4 platoon per team and 1 commander would be good or at least 8 squads of 8 with communication tool between squads leads would be needed to bring some order into a 128 players match mayhem
I love scales game like MAG or Planetside 2 but there is a need for structure tool to help and yes BF2 was better than many others BF that came after it for structure and all
We need this addressed and devs needs to take this into consideration asap... 4-man squads in a 64-player team is simply not acceptable...
Indeed , anyones having experiences with BF2 unofficial servers 128 player or ant MAG players or Planetside players knows that its insanely frustrating to have to many randoms in a team doing whatever not focused on teamplay and win having lobbys of 8 to 16 players is a must . The problems of abusive squads spawn is easily solved by making " fireteams " of 4 whithing a squad and 2 squads of 8 form a platoon . Also squads leaders should be able to talk to each other with a dedicated push to talk command chanel
In a game like battlefield where there so many players, having squads made of only 4 people makes you feel isolated.
Yep Dice really need to wake up fast on this ....
All others games with scales and 128 players + had much better Team options and bigger lobby and squads like MAG on PS3 wich had 8 players squad 32 players platoon and 128and mode with 64 , 128 , and 256 players but they had thinked about how to make it work in large scale Dice treat it as if its a 12 vs 12 player game
Agree with the majority sentiment here, gotta have bigger squad sizes... echoing another point I saw a few make, planetside 2 has an entire command structure random groups of people follow pretty well without voice even. If they can have it work with thousands of players in one match BF should be capable of doing the same with 128.
I don't have any faith the Dice has any interest in building a structured strategic game. everything indicates they've gone full arcade action-packed Hollywood blockbuster.
You cannot just throw 128 players and just increase the size of the maps and say "here you go" The average player is a lemming who will go to where there's the most action. it needs things that the current playbase (former COD players) will revolt against.
Squad leader spawn ONLY
Commander
Limited Sprint
Squad leader - squad leader communication
No points for unfollowed orders
Squad leader ranking system (vote to kick SL)
For most of these things, the current player base will throw a tantrum over and say "it's not a mil-sim" and I haven't seen anything that indicates they are working on the TEAM aspect of the game.
I agree wholeheartedly with this and wish they would've implemented it sooner. In BF5 for example, with the wide open maps and hardcore-lite approach I think 8 man squads would've been much better. Better organization, better communication, better teamwork, etc. And that's what they were hoping for in that game! Didn't happen....
And it makes for lousy experience when you're constantly getting squad wiped.
So many "are they going to do this" questions right now between rental servers, squad sizes, crossplay, etc. No way I'm pre buying. I'll wait and see how certain things are worked out.
- @BtheReaper49 Like i said if Dice fear squad spawn abuse they just need to make fireteams of 4 that can only spawn on fireteam leader or members and 2 fireteam per squad of 8 and allow Lobbys of at least 8 players to start a matchmaking process so we can have a decent number of friends or players you know will cooperate to make any difference in a 128 player battle ... MAG on PS3 was allowing us to get up to 32players in a lobby to matchmake into a game and the matchmaking were lightning fast so yeah
Squad of four is too small fix this !
Hi! I feel we will get more info in EA play in July 22. Isn't that big event? Hopefully we will be able to get better understanding what they're going to do with unit structures & cohesion, communication and chain of command after that event. I am quite comfortable that they have considered players who want more organized experience :3
I think they are doing squads of 4 for accessibility. I get it, but I think they are drastically underestimating their player base. I played Planetside 2 a lot on PS4. There are a lot of young kids in the game, running with squads, even leading squads, using waypoints. If they can do it in a game like Planetside 2 on much larger continents with vehicle and player counts far exceeding BF2042, they can do it in Battlefield.
I think they should just leave it at 8 man squads, with 4 squads per platoon Squad leaders report to platoon leaders who themselves report to the commander. I think this is enough to start with. Let the community get used to that, then maybe add Fireteams later.
The problem with large squads its hard to get 4 to play together, 8 would take an act of congess.
- @DDouble_Tap02 I think its because Battlefield has been doing a poor job promoting squad play. For most, it's just a place they get dumped to play the game. There's no discernable structure for players to lean in to.
In games like MAG and Planetside 2, the command structure is an obvious and integral part of the game. Players know they are part of something bigger, and gravitate towards playing that way. Squad leaders, Platoon leaders, and commanders are typically active and on the mics.I prefer to stick with my squad. You die less for certain and it's really the only way to truly dominate. Situation awareness is important, the small talk is what frustrates me about some squads. If people are made aware of squad etiquette, I think it would be a better experience for everyone.
@ArchAngeL-PCX wrote:
@DDouble_Tap02I think its because Battlefield has been doing a poor job promoting squad play. For most, it's just a place they get dumped to play the game. There's no discernable structure for players to lean in to.
In games like MAG and Planetside 2, the command structure is an obvious and integral part of the game. Players know they are part of something bigger, and gravitate towards playing that way. Squad leaders, Platoon leaders, and commanders are typically active and on the mics.
