Weekly BF

Team Balance Issues Ruining Games.

«13
Sed1Tion
341 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
So a new game starts and the other team has more players than you. It may be one or two players or as much as five or six. Which in Frontlines can be thirty percent more players on the opposing team. I've even seen a game where one team is two players short, two players join and get put one on each team!

Yes, the teams do eventually become equal in numbers. But only after the game has started and often its to late to turn the tide.

The disparity in team numbers cant be put down to player skill differences. Would it be that hard to have some proper team balancing before the game starts?

Comments

  • Phthinein
    3643 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    The only way to solve it is to break up squads and friends.
    They fixed that BF4 complaint in BF1.
    Now everyone is complaining about team balance.
    You cant have it both ways people.
  • Private_UMPalot
    4234 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Last nighr four conquest servers i joined looked at the map, then quit out without jumping in.

    Soissons all capped twice. Amiens all capped twice.

    I actually think the masses are getting worse instead of better.
  • Sed1Tion
    341 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    @SodiumChlorideiy This is my first Battlefield title, so I can't comment on issues with BF4. Breaking up Squads for a new game that are not "friends" to balance team numbers, why not?

    @Private_UMPalot Conquest seems like a FFA, I've noticed a lot of players leaving games the minute it doesn't go their way. This can lead to a "face roll". Plus there are a large number of "selfish" players doing what they want and not whats best for the team. But they payed for it so they can play it the way they want.
  • Phthinein
    3643 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Sed1Tion wrote: »
    @SodiumChlorideiy This is my first Battlefield title, so I can't comment on issues with BF4. Breaking up Squads for a new game that are not "friends" to balance team numbers, why not?

    @Private_UMPalot Conquest seems like a FFA, I've noticed a lot of players leaving games the minute it doesn't go their way. This can lead to a "face roll". Plus there are a large number of "selfish" players doing what they want and not whats best for the team. But they payed for it so they can play it the way they want.

    Heres the thing, it's not uncommon for me to go into a match and fill up most of a team with a party, this is what people complained about because of the clan base and it got fixed in here.
    The game tries to not separate squads for many reasons.
    I leave CQ matches super early sometimes myself because I dont feel like having to deal with getting spawn camped and doing poorly which just will make me rage. I do it for my sanity.
    Suez is easy. First to capture C normally wins. If I see all the tanks and horses capture the first flag and I see them capping two while we're at the first, I know they will be capturing our next flag very shortly so I leave.
    Argonne forest, rare to see the second team to cap C win.
    Happened last night while we had a 500 ticket lead.
    We were at 900~ and they were at 400~. Granted a ESP hack joined in that caused everyone to get spawn camped instantly, but it I still count it.
  • Private_UMPalot
    4234 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I have never seen Amiens all capped before, but to see it twice on different servers on the same game session. Well I don't know what the heck is going on anymore.
  • Phthinein
    3643 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I have never seen Amiens all capped before, but to see it twice on different servers on the same game session. Well I don't know what the heck is going on anymore.

    You've never played with me before then.
  • The_DoctorsWife1
    129 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2017
    This bugs me a lot. Sometimes I feel like I'm always put on the losing team (it's hard to do well on a personal level when your team sucks as a whole).
    What I like to do is this:

    At the beginning of each match, I'll look at the scoreboard, paying attention to the levels of the players on each team. If the other team has more people that are around level 70, 80, 90, 100, etc, I'll switch to that team. Not a complete guarantee that you'll win, since more people join as the match goes on, but it will definitely increase your chances.
  • VolatileShifty
    101 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 2017
    @Sed1Tion

    This is coming from someone who sees the same issues but I hate to break it to you but they are never going o fix the balancing issue even though they can. And here's why.

    Dice/EA dumped a ton of money into marketing behemoths to "turn the tide" in battle. And unfortunately these ridiculous gimmick kill factories only trigger when the game is lopsided.

    If the game is balanced behemoths won't trigger, gimmick marketing point is moot, causal gamers who bought the game because of these easy kill factories will go back to their basic arcade shooter, money lost.

    I've only seen twice where a behemoth actually "turned the tide" and that was because they were being controlled by the group I was playing with and was coordinated with others on the map.

    Highly doubt Dice will ever release the stat with regards to behemoths deployed and matches won after their deployment.
  • SaintBrandon88
    1320 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I never played BF4, but I played a lot of BF3, and have been playing it over the weekend. I don't know what the difference is exactly, but the matches seem to be more competitive, and are at least able to turn at any point. In BF1, you rarely ever see a comeback, even if the losing team starts holding the majority of flags. I'm not so sure it's strictly a team balancing problem than it is with the ticket system in general. Maybe a combination of both.
  • Trokey66
    8522 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @Sed1Tion

    This is coming from someone who sees the same issues but I hate to break it to you but they are never going o fix the balancing issue even though they can. And here's why.

    Dice/EA dumped a ton of money into marketing behemoths to "turn the tide" in battle. And unfortunately these ridiculous gimmick kill factories only trigger when the game is lopsided.

    If the game is balanced behemoths won't trigger, gimmick marketing point is moot, causal gamers who bought the game because of these easy kill factories will go back to their basic arcade shooter, money lost.

    I've only seen twice where a behemoth actually "turned the tide" and that was because they were being controlled by the group I was playing with and was coordinated with others on the map.

    Highly doubt Dice will ever release the stat with regards to behemoths deployed and matches won after their deployment.

    I read this and couldn't get an image of 2 badly plucked turkeys hanging by their necks in a butchers window.

    Although a lot better, the quit function is still a bit slow. As a result, many players quit as the next round starts AFTER Team Balarcing has occurred.

    The Team Balancer is not perfect but player actions can exacerbate it apparant issues.
  • Matty101yttam
    1048 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Think the big issue is the DLC maps, the team balance doesn't take into account those without DLC maps and next round into one of those will dump 1/3 of the server regardless of if you have more DLC or non DLC players on your team.
  • BigWoofWoof
    678 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Played a game of Fort de Vaux at the weekend, game mode Conquest, the other team had 3 x 110 ranked players and others in the high 90's...it started 28 v 32 - we took an absolute beating, losing 113 - 1000, it feels really bad in TSNP at the moment
  • Press-2-Continue
    353 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Th problem is that some people don't understand how the team balancer works and thinks because x team has x number of lvl 100+ players and y team has x number of lvl 50-90 players that the teams are unbalanced. Dice use's the skill balancer which is not the best anyway and 3rd party plugin's from bf4 was always better as they could balance the teams during a match where as Dice's default balancer only does it when joining or between new rounds. It also refuse's to break up parties. It does break up squads but not all the time. So people need to stop thinking that a player's level means anything because it doesn't when it comes to the players ability.
  • DingoKillr
    3637 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The best solution I have seen is slowing the deploy time of a team with greater numbers.

    Example 32v30 might increase team1 deploy time by 2s. If it is 32v16 team1 could take 1 minute to deploy.

    A message like deploy times delayed, for quicker deploy time switch to the other team.
  • Skipp3rUA
    408 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Sed1Tion wrote: »
    So a new game starts and the other team has more players than you. It may be one or two players or as much as five or six. Which in Frontlines can be thirty percent more players on the opposing team. I've even seen a game where one team is two players short, two players join and get put one on each team!

    Yes, the teams do eventually become equal in numbers. But only after the game has started and often its to late to turn the tide.

    The disparity in team numbers cant be put down to player skill differences. Would it be that hard to have some proper team balancing before the game starts?

    BF is just for fun game (No pro/semi-pro, no esport support). In game no are matchmaking, like for example in CS:GO. Defacto all Battlefield servers - is public servers, like in CS:GO, no are any reason to add perfect team balance, because great percent players of Battlefield is just for fun players, who plays game with beer/cup of tea in one hand, and mouse in another.
  • BenzenForReal
    434 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 2017
    What would solve part of the problem is, at round begining, the team with lots of players short just dont hit that damn Deploy button. Just look at the scoreboard and wait for more players to balance... Starting with 10+ guys short is asking for quick domination and no matter when teams get even, damage is already done.

    So, long story short, as players we can be part of the solution by just not hitting that Deploy button when outnumbered. For myself, I always did that and I am always silently raging when I see 14/15 ready teammates when our team has 10+ guys short....

    Off-topic but in the same dumb average players logic: No need to be 32 guys and all vehics at the very first flag you encounter when leaving uncap...
  • SaintBrandon88
    1320 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Skipp3rUA wrote: »
    Sed1Tion wrote: »
    So a new game starts and the other team has more players than you. It may be one or two players or as much as five or six. Which in Frontlines can be thirty percent more players on the opposing team. I've even seen a game where one team is two players short, two players join and get put one on each team!

    Yes, the teams do eventually become equal in numbers. But only after the game has started and often its to late to turn the tide.

    The disparity in team numbers cant be put down to player skill differences. Would it be that hard to have some proper team balancing before the game starts?

    BF is just for fun game (No pro/semi-pro, no esport support). In game no are matchmaking, like for example in CS:GO. Defacto all Battlefield servers - is public servers, like in CS:GO, no are any reason to add perfect team balance, because great percent players of Battlefield is just for fun players, who plays game with beer/cup of tea in one hand, and mouse in another.

    How many people find those constant blowouts fun, though? In every game, there's a pretty large number of people playing to win. No matter what, it's a game, and the point of a game is to win. I think by now most people know that when you're down by over a hundred points, a comeback is almost impossible, so they just quit trying, back out, or switch teams. All of this is problematic. Of course, these things happen in every multiplayer game, but in BF1 it is much more noticeable. I do think team balancing can be further improved, but I also think the ticket system could be looked at. We need to see more hard-fought games going back and forth. That's what makes a game fun.
  • VolatileShifty
    101 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 2017
    @Trokey66

    I respect your opinion but say what you will but the balancer on this game is terrible and the reason players quit so often is because of it. Your viewpoint seems similar to "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?"

    BF3 and BF4 end of round balances were way better and I didn't see/hear of people trying to switch teams as often.

    As stated this game was pitched on major element factors as Behemoths and as I stated before balanced matches never trigger them because there is no point to. And honesty those matches are the most enjoyable because you don't have to deal with this ridiculous vehicle that roams around that map that's more annoying than effective.

    Dice could have avoided this all together and left the more successful and PROVEN balancers in from previous games and the behemoths would trigger less often making them have their initial wow factor. Now when I hear that one has deploying I just know it's a cue from the game letting me know my team has the round in the bag.

    Honestly I wish they would just throw a voice cue from CP30 once it's deployed to give me the "calculated odds of failure" for my team losing the game.
  • Trokey66
    8522 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So the game 'unbalances' on purpose so the Behemoth will appear?

    Of course you are entitled to your opinion but really?
  • VolatileShifty
    101 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    @Trokey66

    Well let's take a logical look at this. If the game is balanced and close a Behemoth would upset and over power one side in an unjust manner.

    When a game is balanced and close there is no need for a Behemoth. Only way to make those over hyped marketed kill factories spawn is to have unbalanced servers.

    You can not have behemoths and balanced teams.

    It's one or the other. Not both.
Sign In or Register to comment.