People play every game mode like TDM because winning doesn't matter

[Lorem Ipsum]

TLDR:

There is no bonus for winning, so no incentive for playing objectives or playing each mode the way it is supposed to be played so most people ultimately end up doing what they think will get them the most kills: snipe, run around with an SMG, whatever. If the devs want to have other game modes played they need to make a bonus system for the winning team that incentivizes playing the modes the way they're supposed to be played.

Right now you get points if you do the server set objective (which is often a stupid objective based on the currently held / contested points) but that's about it. Lose an objective in conquest? Who cares, just shoot people. Lose a sector in frontline? Who cares, just shoot people. Lose another flag? Who cares, just keep shooting people.

This is why I switched to dom only - at least the maps are smaller, which usually means fewer opportunities for snipers and more close / mid quarters combat , plus no getting killed from across the map by a tank. And it doesn't matter if you lose an objective.

Right now frontline and CTF are basically dead game modes - 99% of the time conquest or dom wins. Because they are the simplest, most honest game modes where you don't have to get frustrated that you're constantly on the losing end because your teammates are playing the CTF or frontline just for kills.

[SinRiddenSoul]

While I can understand the frustration, even if there was more incentive I'm not sure it would make a difference. One cannot make people play objectives or engage in team play. "What's the point in playing objective games if you aren't going to play the objective?". I don't know. This has been an issue with many FPS games or otherwise for as long as I can remember. It's why you would see "PTFO" in lobby chat for some titles. This is very much a player mentality issue and as long as there is free will you're fighting an uphill battle. It will never change really. *shrug*

[EisenhowerShower]

I think if XP gained on guns was also regular XP gain that was gained alongside your regular XP instead of solely kills and counts as, you'd see a bit more objective play as well.

[Lorem Ipsum]

Originally posted by SinRiddenSoul:

While I can understand the frustration, even if there was more incentive I'm not sure it would make a difference. One cannot make people play objectives or engage in team play. "What's the point in playing objective games if you aren't going to play the objective?". I don't know. This has been an issue with many FPS games or otherwise for as long as I can remember. It's why you would see "PTFO" in lobby chat for some titles. This is very much a player mentality issue and as long as there is free will you're fighting an uphill battle. It will never change really. *shrug*

I was hoping frontline would be like operations in BF1 - forcing players to play objectives. But since they have this weird multi sector back and forth thing going on, people just run to whatever objective they think will get them the most kills.

[arti_llery]

Originally posted by Lorem Ipsum:

I was hoping frontline would be like operations in BF1 - forcing players to play objectives. But since they have this weird multi sector back and forth thing going on, people just run to whatever objective they think will get them the most kills.

This is pretty much every mode I've tried out. Not sure about Infantry Conquest tho, that has never been voted in.

[Sn4rkyPuppy]

Yea, players not really playing the game as it is supposed to be played is a real issue.
As you say: Objectives? Pfff, almost nobody cares.
Biggest joke of them all in my eyes is how ppl behave around reviving: Most of the time 5, 6 sometimes 10 players just run over a teammate on the ground, not reviving at all, even if it's safe to do so. Annoyes the hell out of me.
I think it could be nice to have teamplay/objectives points separate from Kill-points, bit like in BF2. And then allow servers to only accept players with a certain teamplay-to-kill-point ratio. This way maybe all those spray and pray CoD-Style Kiddies just play by themselves and leave others alone.
When I sometimes urge ppl to revive in ingame chat, answer often is: Aah, way too complicated, just shoot and run >.< . Insane.

[arti_llery]

I find it funny when 4-5 medics run by, all thinking the other medic is rezzing you, and you still die. Then again, I have name sizes turned down some, so maybe try calling out specific names?

[Lorem Ipsum]

And the funny thing is they try to play this off as "milsim" and say they won't add minimaps because it's too arcade-like. Meanwhile nobody is using milsim tactics and half the players are zipping around like gazelle / kangaroo hybrids with lean spam macros (which is the essence of milsim shooters, doncha know).

[Vivianite]

they need to add an incentive to win, otherwise, yes, you are mostly correct.

[Sn4rkyPuppy]

Originally posted by arti_llery:

I find it funny when 4-5 medics run by, all thinking the other medic is rezzing you, and you still die. Then again, I have name sizes turned down some, so maybe try calling out specific names?

I actually do that. When on the ground, I look around and call teammates around me by name, like "XYZ, could you revive me please? I am over here, behind xyz..." etc pp.
Doesn't help. Most players act like they're deaf. Maybe they are, playing with music or whatever, which would be even more weird.
Also a lot of players seriously still think only medics can revive. Explaining this almost once every match.
If there is a squad or group of players who communicate well, also call out enemy positions, mark them, revive and cover the squad, support as medic or support role (ammo packs etc) etc... the game gets onto a whole new level, really really fun. Like BF2 back in the day with proper Squad- and Teamplay. Just, that rarely happens.

[SinRiddenSoul]

Originally posted by Lorem Ipsum:

Originally posted by SinRiddenSoul:

While I can understand the frustration, even if there was more incentive I'm not sure it would make a difference. One cannot make people play objectives or engage in team play. "What's the point in playing objective games if you aren't going to play the objective?". I don't know. This has been an issue with many FPS games or otherwise for as long as I can remember. It's why you would see "PTFO" in lobby chat for some titles. This is very much a player mentality issue and as long as there is free will you're fighting an uphill battle. It will never change really. *shrug*

I was hoping frontline would be like operations in BF1 - forcing players to play objectives. But since they have this weird multi sector back and forth thing going on, people just run to whatever objective they think will get them the most kills.

I understand your frustration. I personally prefer to claim the objective, hold down position for a few to maintain the secured point and swap up positioning to avoid revenge kills by hard-camping. I often see people claim the point and then zerg to the next area, rinse and repeat. It's often why you see the objectives yo-yo between friendly and enemy ownership because people just cruise to one point, kill those along the way then hoof it to the next point if they don't get contested.

I like getting kills but I also like some semblance of tactics or comms. When it does occur it's very satisfying but more often than naught, that isn't the case.

Originally posted by Lorem Ipsum:

And the funny thing is they try to play this off as "milsim" and say they won't add minimaps because it's too arcade-like. Meanwhile nobody is using milsim tactics and half the players are zipping around like gazelle / kangaroo hybrids with lean spam macros (which is the essence of milsim shooters, doncha know).

Yeah, I believe it had milsim roots but, current movement definitely takes away from that immersion. People lean spam and while that's irritating it's mainly to avoid headshots. Headshots are optimal but I've found it's easier to just go for center mass. While I do not particularly enjoy that play-style I just try to adapt because I enjoy other aspects of the game. Just try to get what enjoyment you can out of it. The same people that say "oh you don't like the movement and lean spam? Sounds like a skill issue, so adapt" would be the same people dropping the title and complaining if the dev team were to introduce stamina or LOS aim punishment for lean spamming since there is little repercussions to aim when lean spamming.

That sorta Adderall induced play-style is not without it's own set skill level but, is just not my cup of tea personally. I've played that way a bit, but while the kills can be nice it rarely contributes towards a victory. People play FPS titles mainly like TDM and sadly there isn't much we can do about it when it comes to multi-player.

I believe they have a milsim mode on the dev tracker but, I wouldn't be too optimistic as there is little stopping people from continuing to not "PTFO". We'll have to see. We kinda just gotta grit our teeth and bear it or find another game. We might be in the age where it's better to just play solo player games as when it comes to multi-player your team is a mixed bag and if people choose to play a certain way, they will do so. I understand the allure of camaraderie and team cohesion being rewarding but sadly, that is not a majority mind-set in a lot of games minus a select few where the community sorta clamps down on that and have some sense of solidarity.

[Noodlesocks]

It's the same make the Battlefield devs have been making for years. The game has a lot of features that incentivise the way the game should be being played but that is not enough. As we have seen already, people will find the most opitmised way to gain points for themselves and that is the way the game will be played because it becomes the only way to make any real progress.

If the devs want people to play the objective. To take and hold objectives instead of merry-go-rounding in circles between flags, they need to force players into that kind of play. They need to make that the most optimal playstyle for players to succeed.

Earlier, PC exclusive Battlefield games understood this but it feels like Battlebit is taking inspiration from the multiplat Battlefields instead.

[Uncle Bunkle Beard]

Completely agree with the OP regarding TDM and will be one of many reasons people get bored of this game fast as it's a genre that's been done to death.

Simple solution would be to not give XP or Kills unless you're inside an objective. Then People would play them :D

But then sniping and farming kills in vehicles wouldn't be "fun" since you could no longer stroke your ego.

TBH there's so many things wrong with this game from a teamplay perspective (maps, game modes, squad layouts etc.) I doubt it could ever be fixed. You'd be best off playing another game like Hell Let Loose or Squad.

[TheOutwardRug44]

Originally posted by SinRiddenSoul:

While I can understand the frustration, even if there was more incentive I'm not sure it would make a difference. One cannot make people play objectives or engage in team play. "What's the point in playing objective games if you aren't going to play the objective?".

Overwatch, League of Legends, TF2. I dare someone to name one game that doesn't have this problem.

Honestly the best advice I can give you is run the riot shield. Yeah most teammates will look at you like you are dumb, but the smart and good players will follow you and that's how I create teamwork

But i do agree with OP though, these days I get revived by more non-medics then medics.

[Noodlesocks]

Originally posted by Uncle Bunkle Beard:

Completely agree with the OP regarding TDM and will be one of many reasons people get bored of this game fast as it's a genre that's been done to death.

Simple solution would be to not give XP or Kills unless you're inside an objective. Then People would play them :D

But then sniping and farming kills in vehicles wouldn't be "fun" since you could no longer stroke your ego.

TBH there's so many things wrong with this game from a teamplay perspective (maps, game modes, squad layouts etc.) I doubt it could ever be fixed. You'd be best off playing another game like Hell Let Loose or Squad.

I feel like two things in particular need to change.

Squad spawning needs to go. Should only be able to spawn on the squad leader and flags. If all 100+ players is a potential spawn point, there is no reason to try and hold objectives because there will always be a favourable spawn point somewhere on the map. The way it is now, it is more beneficial for random players to not play as a squad as splitting off from each other maximises spawn coverage. If they want players to play in squads they need to force reliance on the squad leader and their beacons if they want a forward spawn.

Second thing is that flags should require majority presence to trigger contention. At the moment, a single enemy on a flag will prevent your team from spawning on it. This combined with squad spawning gives attackers a massive advantage when really it should be the defenders that have the advantage. Defenders should always be able to spawn on the objectives they currently hold until it is properly neutralised by attackers.

These two changes would force a reliance on holding objectives and on squad leaders and help provide clearer frontlines instead of the current merry-go-round flag hopping we have right now.

[TheOutwardRug44]

Originally posted by Noodlesocks:

These two changes would force a reliance on holding objectives and on squad leaders and help provide clearer frontlines instead of the current merry-go-round flag hopping we have right now.

I wish this game was like isonzo where squad leaders can draw frontlines and arrows on the map. Yeah this is just going to cause some players to draw ♥♥♥♥♥ on the map, but having an easier way to look at the map and know where the giant clump of enemies are and what part of the map needs more teammates would go a long way for this game.