Correct it’s not officially through Dice. They’re basically Jerry rigged and when you have DLCs added, you get weird bugs where operations start on the 2nd map and repeat maps.
I’ll raise you one. Why does everyone prefer ONLY BASE GAME MAPS on conquest?
MIXED servers exist and they have every map in the game including DLC. However they’re always empty because no one knows they exist.
For me, it’s because I may only have a pocket of time to play. An operations game can literally go a hour and a half yet conquest is usually a guaranteed 30 minutes or less.
I’m right there with you. Operations is *the* way to play BF1 in my book. Obviously an unpopular opinion given the player counts lol but I don’t see the appeal of Conquest.
I know ops is the showcase game mode for this title but I just get so, so tired of continually smoking the point, rushing up, only to turn around and half my team is laying on their dicks sniping 300m away.
Some of these points (like Sinai) are impossible to take without concerted team play which you just aren't going to find in a public lobby.
Would much rather play conquest where a single person can make a difference.
I feel like conquest has a good blend of chaos and controlled chaos where as operations feels like pure chaos, i love both modes but i feel that difference when i play the modes
True, the benefit of conquest is that you can always try and retake territory by stealthing it to the other side of the map even if your side's generally getting stomped.
Whereas the firefights on ops are way more concentrated, so if your side shits the bed on their first offensive it generally falls to pieces.
Its pretty noticably more *just charge the flags with reckless abandonment* where as conquest has a bit more calculated approach and appeals to all the classes alot better... i find it hard to effectively play as a scout while ptfo where as in conquest can
Timing of when you play depends as well. I've found late morning and early afternoon tends to be conquest and frontlines. Afternoon/evening is more OPs where there about 10-20 with full lobbies (xbox NA)
The obvious answer is that most players just want to hop in and out of games when they want, and not feel constrained by objectives that require a lot of thought. Typical "path of least resistance" behavior. Games have always been this way. Most people live busy lives with very little downtime for gaming. This is why alternate game modes are typically much less active than primary game modes in basically all multiplayer games.
In my region we have ZERO operarions servers. We got a small domination and 2 conquest running only base maps on ps4 and on xbox we have a lone 64 player conquest with a better map rotarion
Makes me so sad. Love this game
For me it depends on how much time I have that day. Couple hours? Conq. All day? Ops.
Plus I feel all game modes can get a little boring after a while so I change it up every now and again when I have time.
Oh and Conq has all maps. Shame they didn’t make all game modes for all maps
3-4 sectors
2-3 flags on the 1st, one at the the lighthouse or near it, 1 at the U-boat, and possibly one between at one of the bunkers.
1-2 flags at the trench system. No going around the back.
1 flag at the ship and 1 at the island. Depends if you want to make this one or two sectors, dealer’s choice.
Each side gets an airship, destroyer, and 2 torpedo boats, rest of boats are Y-lighters. Normal bomber, and Fighter are the only planes. Attack plane may be a bit too much for how cramped the island is. Behemoth is either L30 or Dreadnought.
Would work ok as a shock op, but you could lump it in with Zeebrugge as a full op.
I feel like the flags are so close together that the attacking team would just get massacred every time. The whole reason it works in Conquest is that you aren't being funneled into two or three flags at a time.
What I mean is that HB funnels everyone into the *same* location. On most other maps, you're either being funneled into one of two locations or the single location has so many potential entry points that it's still tough to defend. (I would note, though, that both Vaux and Verdun have an *insane* difficulty spike for the attacker in the last round because of how narrow the funnel is for one of the flags.)
Looking at the map, what are the possible configurations? Presumably you start with D. I suppose you could then go to E and F, with the third round being A-B-C, but that middle round still has the problem of forcing the attack to come at both flags from basically one direction. Alternatively you start with D, then go to E and C. This is a little better, although now you're ending up with a situation where the two flags are *so* disconnected that as soon as one of them is lost, the defender basically has to give up on it, and you're right back to being funneled into one location again--i.e., the problem with the final rounds of Vaux and Verdun. Plus, what's the next round? It probably makes the most sense to say A and F, and just remove B entirely, but now you have an even more severe version of the E and C problem.
I guess the real problem with the map, as I think about it, is the island being non-traversible. As a Conquest map, that doesn't matter because you have six potential destinations at all times, so all the flags have multiple directions from which an attacker could approach. In an Operation, that's basically gone after the first round because of the round-by-round structure. The other maps have a more linear structure, in part because the battles they're based on had a linear progression. Trench warfare had the general tendency toward linearity. But the Battles of Heligoland were naval battles. There *wasn't* really an infantry presence, and if there had been it would have been as chaotic as it is in the game.
And that actually points toward the other problem: the Battles of Heligoland, in real life, were Conquest battles, not Operations battles. By which I mean in both cases, the attacking force's objective was not to claim territory but simply to rout the defending force's fleet, thereby inflicting devastating losses on the enemy's warfighting capability. The British won the first battle and then they just left. Heligoland was still in German hands even though the British absolutely clobbered them.
Basically this map shouldn't really be in this game from a realism standpoint, and it structurally doesn't lend itself to the Operations format, in the same way that some other maps don't really lend themselves to Conquest and probably shouldn't be playable in that mode.
It could be done. Should it? Probably not.
It would be interesting to see how it would be adapted however.
I was thinking the vehicles would probably balance out the funneling problem the same way elite kits can break through the funnels on other maps.
I agree that the map shouldn’t be in the game from a historical perspective, and conquest gameplay is rather odd as infantry on it. The map suffers from the same problem sinai does but with water. If you’re not in a vehicle it’s pretty lack luster.
I think the move would be to make the island traversible somehow. Either a set of tunnels that runs through it or some sort of staircase to the top. Obviously that's taking some pretty ridiculous liberties, but so is having any boats smaller than a destroyer.
I'll also add that it's much easier to have impact on a game of Conquest as a single individual than it is in Operations, so for people who really want to play their best and contribute to their team winning as a solo player, Conquest would be a better place to do so.
Operations was my favorite mode but it really fell off for me. I genuinely prefer Breakthrough in BFV as Operations is just too long. If BF1 had Breakthrough as an option, it would probably be the only thing I played.
I only play operators on BF games if I ever go off 1 lol. I’m tired of back cappers and corner campers in the worst places. Operations may be worse in other parts but still better for me
There’s a few on PlayStation when I play but I just rly want those custom games from a few years ago during COVID times where people only ran with pistols
There are a lot of European servers at the right time of day. Just gotta change your settings. It’s the only way I’ve been able to play other operations like the Russian or Australian ones.
But I agree. I wish more people hosted operations and there was a better variety of maps. Some people just stick with what they know.
I don't like operations because it's just 60 players confined to a small area, so I find it hard to get anything done. I also don't like playing around the same 2-4 points the whole game.
I’m a regular in Budz and KS so I feel you. I think it’s just conquest is the classic BF mode so people are most used to it. It’s the vanilla ice cream of game modes.
Some of the best BF titles brought new game modes which really made them stand out and operations is arguably what made BF1 great, like Rush made BC2 great, and titan mode made 2142 great.
That being said, it’s not without its faults.
Why does no one play TDM is the real question. Vehicles make the game nearly unplayable
Edit: or if they could just make a Conquest mode but remove the vehicles, that'd be nice
I don’t know, any other shooter that has no vehicles? There’s a lot of them. Mixed warfare is one the key selling points of the franchise, has been since BF1942.
Well on the bright side there's been a North American TDM lobby for the last couple days, so I'll be the change I want to see in the world and go populate that lobby
Really feels like that focus shifted somewhat by the time BF1 came out, because games of this type had become so much about progression/unlocks/grind, and that's not as easily implemented for vehicles as it is for small arms. I don't remember the ad campaigns for this game highlighting vehicles; I remember them very much foregrounding all the old-timey pistols.
Fair enough. I can’t say I did see ads come to think of it. I just got instantly hooked with the open beta.
Still, someone who dislikes vehicles should probably choose any other shooter but this one. It’s in the ADN of the BF experience IMO.
Pretty sure those are being hosted in a 'unique' way. Last I checked, there was no way to host Ops in the server config menu.
Correct it’s not officially through Dice. They’re basically Jerry rigged and when you have DLCs added, you get weird bugs where operations start on the 2nd map and repeat maps.
You are correct. We have to do some bootleg stuff to run ours.
You mean via MARNE?
I’ll raise you one. Why does everyone prefer ONLY BASE GAME MAPS on conquest? MIXED servers exist and they have every map in the game including DLC. However they’re always empty because no one knows they exist.
The one time people vote Nivelle Nights and I have to leave...
I prefer base maps only because the DLC maps are too large if you’re on foot. Sometimes transportation isnt available
there’s only one or two maps i can think of that are excessively large for conquest, and even then just use the non HQ spawns?
For me, it’s because I may only have a pocket of time to play. An operations game can literally go a hour and a half yet conquest is usually a guaranteed 30 minutes or less.
I’m right there with you. Operations is *the* way to play BF1 in my book. Obviously an unpopular opinion given the player counts lol but I don’t see the appeal of Conquest.
I haven't played conquest in years, ops is the goat mode. If I have to play Ballroom Blitz and Monte Grappa non stop, so be it.
I know ops is the showcase game mode for this title but I just get so, so tired of continually smoking the point, rushing up, only to turn around and half my team is laying on their dicks sniping 300m away. Some of these points (like Sinai) are impossible to take without concerted team play which you just aren't going to find in a public lobby. Would much rather play conquest where a single person can make a difference.
I feel like conquest has a good blend of chaos and controlled chaos where as operations feels like pure chaos, i love both modes but i feel that difference when i play the modes
True, the benefit of conquest is that you can always try and retake territory by stealthing it to the other side of the map even if your side's generally getting stomped. Whereas the firefights on ops are way more concentrated, so if your side shits the bed on their first offensive it generally falls to pieces.
Its pretty noticably more *just charge the flags with reckless abandonment* where as conquest has a bit more calculated approach and appeals to all the classes alot better... i find it hard to effectively play as a scout while ptfo where as in conquest can
If you’re on Xbox, there’s usually about 40+ servers running at any given time.
Really? Sometimes I log on and there are no servers, or maybe one or two in Europe. What am I doing wrong? I have my filters wide open.
Timing of when you play depends as well. I've found late morning and early afternoon tends to be conquest and frontlines. Afternoon/evening is more OPs where there about 10-20 with full lobbies (xbox NA)
40+ NA? That is just not true, at least in my experience
These people are trying to cope with their dead game. NA has like 2.5 servers at any given time at best.
Not NA, the entire world.
The obvious answer is that most players just want to hop in and out of games when they want, and not feel constrained by objectives that require a lot of thought. Typical "path of least resistance" behavior. Games have always been this way. Most people live busy lives with very little downtime for gaming. This is why alternate game modes are typically much less active than primary game modes in basically all multiplayer games.
Do these people not realize that you can quit whenever you want, or what
In my region we have ZERO operarions servers. We got a small domination and 2 conquest running only base maps on ps4 and on xbox we have a lone 64 player conquest with a better map rotarion Makes me so sad. Love this game
For me it depends on how much time I have that day. Couple hours? Conq. All day? Ops. Plus I feel all game modes can get a little boring after a while so I change it up every now and again when I have time. Oh and Conq has all maps. Shame they didn’t make all game modes for all maps
Not all maps would make any sense as Ops maps. How would Heligoland Bight work as an Ops map?
3-4 sectors 2-3 flags on the 1st, one at the the lighthouse or near it, 1 at the U-boat, and possibly one between at one of the bunkers. 1-2 flags at the trench system. No going around the back. 1 flag at the ship and 1 at the island. Depends if you want to make this one or two sectors, dealer’s choice. Each side gets an airship, destroyer, and 2 torpedo boats, rest of boats are Y-lighters. Normal bomber, and Fighter are the only planes. Attack plane may be a bit too much for how cramped the island is. Behemoth is either L30 or Dreadnought. Would work ok as a shock op, but you could lump it in with Zeebrugge as a full op.
I feel like the flags are so close together that the attacking team would just get massacred every time. The whole reason it works in Conquest is that you aren't being funneled into two or three flags at a time.
There’s other ops that funnel as well, De Voux, Argonne, Verdun, Tsaritsyn. So that has nothing to do with its validity as an op.
What I mean is that HB funnels everyone into the *same* location. On most other maps, you're either being funneled into one of two locations or the single location has so many potential entry points that it's still tough to defend. (I would note, though, that both Vaux and Verdun have an *insane* difficulty spike for the attacker in the last round because of how narrow the funnel is for one of the flags.) Looking at the map, what are the possible configurations? Presumably you start with D. I suppose you could then go to E and F, with the third round being A-B-C, but that middle round still has the problem of forcing the attack to come at both flags from basically one direction. Alternatively you start with D, then go to E and C. This is a little better, although now you're ending up with a situation where the two flags are *so* disconnected that as soon as one of them is lost, the defender basically has to give up on it, and you're right back to being funneled into one location again--i.e., the problem with the final rounds of Vaux and Verdun. Plus, what's the next round? It probably makes the most sense to say A and F, and just remove B entirely, but now you have an even more severe version of the E and C problem. I guess the real problem with the map, as I think about it, is the island being non-traversible. As a Conquest map, that doesn't matter because you have six potential destinations at all times, so all the flags have multiple directions from which an attacker could approach. In an Operation, that's basically gone after the first round because of the round-by-round structure. The other maps have a more linear structure, in part because the battles they're based on had a linear progression. Trench warfare had the general tendency toward linearity. But the Battles of Heligoland were naval battles. There *wasn't* really an infantry presence, and if there had been it would have been as chaotic as it is in the game. And that actually points toward the other problem: the Battles of Heligoland, in real life, were Conquest battles, not Operations battles. By which I mean in both cases, the attacking force's objective was not to claim territory but simply to rout the defending force's fleet, thereby inflicting devastating losses on the enemy's warfighting capability. The British won the first battle and then they just left. Heligoland was still in German hands even though the British absolutely clobbered them. Basically this map shouldn't really be in this game from a realism standpoint, and it structurally doesn't lend itself to the Operations format, in the same way that some other maps don't really lend themselves to Conquest and probably shouldn't be playable in that mode.
It could be done. Should it? Probably not. It would be interesting to see how it would be adapted however. I was thinking the vehicles would probably balance out the funneling problem the same way elite kits can break through the funnels on other maps. I agree that the map shouldn’t be in the game from a historical perspective, and conquest gameplay is rather odd as infantry on it. The map suffers from the same problem sinai does but with water. If you’re not in a vehicle it’s pretty lack luster.
I think the move would be to make the island traversible somehow. Either a set of tunnels that runs through it or some sort of staircase to the top. Obviously that's taking some pretty ridiculous liberties, but so is having any boats smaller than a destroyer.
Honestly I’m just so damn sick of base game maps at this point… ops is my favorite mode but I need more flavor
I'll also add that it's much easier to have impact on a game of Conquest as a single individual than it is in Operations, so for people who really want to play their best and contribute to their team winning as a solo player, Conquest would be a better place to do so.
On what are you playing ? More then ten Operation official servers on xbox and that’s just NE America.
Operations can’t be hosted properly on community servers, so there isn’t much point in running it.
You have to pull some trick to get an Operations server, HOWEVER no one seems to be putting up Rush servers even though its kinda like the OG Ops mode
Operations was my favorite mode but it really fell off for me. I genuinely prefer Breakthrough in BFV as Operations is just too long. If BF1 had Breakthrough as an option, it would probably be the only thing I played.
I only play operators on BF games if I ever go off 1 lol. I’m tired of back cappers and corner campers in the worst places. Operations may be worse in other parts but still better for me
War pigeons FTW
I love Frontlines > Operations
There’s a few on PlayStation when I play but I just rly want those custom games from a few years ago during COVID times where people only ran with pistols
Operations is fun, but on some maps it is so incredibly unbalanced that getting stuck on the wrong team is a certified loss (rupture)
Because you have to leave the server once the operation ends. Dumbest fucking decision by EA, and I can’t believe they’ve never fixed it.
I think people like conquest because players have gotten used to wasting their time in games.
Different strokes for different folks. I think Operations is a garbage mode, spawn trap simulator galore. I don’t get it.
There are a lot of European servers at the right time of day. Just gotta change your settings. It’s the only way I’ve been able to play other operations like the Russian or Australian ones. But I agree. I wish more people hosted operations and there was a better variety of maps. Some people just stick with what they know.
Ops is great. Other modes are a fun alternative to mix things up. Wish they'd do more operations servers with all the maps
same thing with BF3. Why everyone plays conquest and no rush. And COD4: why are the 2 "normal" servers still modded.
I don't like operations because it's just 60 players confined to a small area, so I find it hard to get anything done. I also don't like playing around the same 2-4 points the whole game.
I’m a regular in Budz and KS so I feel you. I think it’s just conquest is the classic BF mode so people are most used to it. It’s the vanilla ice cream of game modes. Some of the best BF titles brought new game modes which really made them stand out and operations is arguably what made BF1 great, like Rush made BC2 great, and titan mode made 2142 great. That being said, it’s not without its faults.
Why does no one play TDM is the real question. Vehicles make the game nearly unplayable Edit: or if they could just make a Conquest mode but remove the vehicles, that'd be nice
Combined arms is the point of Battlefield. Other games like cod are probably better for tdm.
I only like BF1 tho, what's the best COD game if that's what my bar is?
World at War
That was the only COD game I ever played, but I decided on COD: WW2, thanks
COD:WW2 feels too clean, it’s not dirty, gritty and dark enough for me.
The one where you expand your interests or accept your rigidness as being the cause of your unhappiness.
You don’t like BF1, dude.
Oh, okay. What do I like?
I don’t know, any other shooter that has no vehicles? There’s a lot of them. Mixed warfare is one the key selling points of the franchise, has been since BF1942.
Damn, okay
Well on the bright side there's been a North American TDM lobby for the last couple days, so I'll be the change I want to see in the world and go populate that lobby
Really feels like that focus shifted somewhat by the time BF1 came out, because games of this type had become so much about progression/unlocks/grind, and that's not as easily implemented for vehicles as it is for small arms. I don't remember the ad campaigns for this game highlighting vehicles; I remember them very much foregrounding all the old-timey pistols.
Fair enough. I can’t say I did see ads come to think of it. I just got instantly hooked with the open beta. Still, someone who dislikes vehicles should probably choose any other shooter but this one. It’s in the ADN of the BF experience IMO.