Hot take: Bots are better then human players. Bots often get blamed for not contributing to the team but after playing many custom games with bots I can say the bots are typically the people on the team who are playing the objective, building rallies, even calling in artillery. Bots will never run away from the point while on defense. Bots will never run off to some building in the corner of the map to snipe the whole game. Bots will not build rallies in places bots get stuck or fall and die from like on rooftops. You can’t complain about bots spamming planes or grey zoning in tanks because they do not use vehicles at all.
This kind of goes to the OP post, I think in general having a primarily free-to-play game with a shared console audience makes for a very immature and cringe playerbase. Sadly it is trendy nowadays to hate on literally any company that makes a video game, there is a whole social media/youtube/tiktok economy off “gamer outrage”. I have heard the expression “don’t hate the player, hate the game” but with Enlisted I love the game and the gameplay but I can’t really like most of the players.
Maybe if they just charged $70 for the game it would filter out people, but they chose a different payment model for their game. When they tried to make a little money to fund development by putting the game on steam, some people in the community were OUTRAGED that the developers DARE try to make any money off what they declared must be a FREE GAME and then they bragged that they never spent even one dollar on the game to contribute to its development. Then they whine that the game is not updated enough or that the developers are not listening to the people who take it as a point of personal pride not to spend money on the game.
But thankfully the game is good and custom games with bots will always be good, so its easy enough just to ignore most of the players.