I keep running into teammates who barely help with the mission, won’t build or trap, and sometimes seem to AFK on purpose. It feels extra rough in harder missions where teamwork really matters. What’s the best way to handle players like that without just wasting time and materials?
How do you deal with teammates who won’t help at all?
Answers
The cleanest answer is usually to stop expecting random groups to behave like a coordinated squad. In tougher content, I’d treat matchmaking as a bonus, not the plan. Go in with a loadout that can carry more of the mission on its own, bring enough mats to set up the core defenses yourself, and only commit to a run if you can still finish when nobody else helps.
If someone is clearly not contributing, I’d focus on protecting the objective and finishing fast rather than trying to teach them mid-mission. Arguing or testing them by refusing to build usually just burns your own resources. If the game gives you a way to leave without losing much, that can be the better call. It is annoying, but saving your time is worth more than trying to fix random teammates.
Reply to this answer
I look at it from a practical angle. If the mission can be soloed or mostly soloed, fine, just do that and don't count on strangers. If it actually needs coordinated input, then premade groups are the answer, because random matchmaking is way too inconsistent for trust to be the default.
For AFK types, I’d report, block if the system allows it, and keep going. For the people who stand around but are technically present, there’s not much to do besides refuse to babysit them. The fewer resources you sink into proving a point, the better.
Bran Velvet:
Pretty much this. The game is a lot less frustrating once you treat randoms like unknown variables instead of teammates you can rely on.
Reply to this answer
The annoying part is that bad behavior gets multiplied in higher difficulty missions because one lazy player can wreck the whole pace. So I’d keep a few habits ready. Build only what is needed, trap the paths that matter, and don’t overinvest in fancy defense if the lobby already looks shaky. If the mission starts going sideways, cut losses early instead of sinking more mats into a bad run.
Also, when someone refuses to contribute, it helps to think in terms of mission outcome, not fairness. You are not there to win an argument about effort. You are there to get rewards. If that means doing the minimum group-wise and the maximum personally, then that is the reality of random matchmaking.
Paper Orbit:
The “minimum group-wise, maximum personally” line is exactly it. You can be right about them being useless and still end up poorer for staying mad about it.
Moss Relay:
And in some runs, the best move is just leaving before you’ve spent too much. Once the lobby is obviously dead weight, the sunk cost trap gets nasty.
Reply to this answer
One thing that can help is setting expectations early, but in a very short way. A quick note about trapping a lane, covering a side, or asking for mats can sometimes get one or two people to wake up. If they ignore it, you already have your answer and can stop worrying about the social part.
That said, I would not spend the mission chasing cooperation that is not there. Random lobbies are inconsistent by nature. So the real fix is a mix of selective queueing, strong self-sufficiency, and being willing to abandon hopeless matches before they drain you.
Juniper Vale:
Short callouts do work sometimes, but only once. After that I assume the lobby has already told me what kind of run it is going to be.
Reply to this answer
Add your answer
Answers are reviewed before publication.
Cinder Post:
Yeah, the moment I start playing “maybe they’ll help if I wait” I already lost time. Better to just build like they are decoration and move on.