@TickTack121 wrote:a lot of randoms are useless anyways. You don't even need to communicate, just stick together as a squad and follow the orders from the squad leader. It really hurts seeing randoms in my squad, when me and my 2 mates or all Top 5 on the scoreboard, but the random is doing his own thing instead of just playing with us.
Thank you for saying this. Every single Battlefield game gets the same complaints about team balance, but it seems like very few people want to talk about how player attitudes and behavior during matches is one of the main reasons why games are one sided. The only thing stopping solo players from being good teammates even with no verbal communication is that they don't want to do it. All of the tools are in the game to give and execute orders while sticking with a squad without saying a word.
Breaking up platoons in matches is wrong. What the devs should be doing is encouraging solo players to do better against platoons by placing bounties on their heads. If a team with 8 or more players in the same platoon lose. The other team gets big rewards for defeating them. There is so much that should be done to improve the platoon system in this game. Only breaking up platoons for the sake of team balance discourages coordinated play and team work. I can't accept that.
@VOLBANKER_PC wrote:
Should clans wanting to play together on the same team have priority over everyone else on that server? Because a server wrecked by clan play is no fun - not for the losing team certainly, but not even for the winning side either.
I usually quit those steamrolled / steamrolling matches because they’re either frustrating (if you’re getting steamrolled) or boring (if you’re steamrolling)
I played a game of Shock Ops in Battlefield 1 last night where there were no platoons on the 40 person server but the game was full from the beginning. I was playing solo on the defending team as I would assume most players in the game were as I didn't see any identical clan tags. Do you know that the attacking team was stopped three times on the beginning map at the very first set of objectives? Three battalions wiped out on two objectives. This can't be blamed on a lack of team balance but rather more than half of the attacking team choosing to camp in their spawn watching their teammates try to capture objectives and fail as they were always outnumbered.
Even when the attacking team would successfully capture one of the objectives. Those same people that captured it would have to try and get the second one too because their teammates would not move forward and support. I see more servers being wrecked by a bunch of people on teams that don't seem to be trying than I do by clans/platoons. It is almost as if we have accepted that just being on the servers doing whatever even though there is a game mode with a score and a match in progress with teams is the normal way to play Battlefield now, and the people that are actually trying to use teamwork to win are messing it up for everybody. Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else but me?
@DingoKillr wrote:
@TickTack121just stick together. 555.
OMG players are between flags so they are bad. What is wrong with you.
LOL. Look, man. If players are between flags for an extended period of time as they usually are in maps like Amiens in Battlefield 1 and those flags are always controlled by the enemy. Yes they are bad players. This is usually why that top squad has so many points because while their teammates aren't defending or capturing anything because they are playing TDM in between objectives. That squad is running all over the map trying to maintain objective control because they have to in order to keep their team in the game.
