The Defend the Frontlines Mission rewards will be deployed on August 21st. Thanks for your patience.
Having trouble accessing the forums? Try logging out of the forums completely - clear cache, cookies, and temp files - then restart the browser and log in. Thanks!

Why quitting games in Conquest will save your life.

«13
Khronikos
697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
edited August 15
Okay here, I have started to play more and more of Conquest since the game has been patched a bazillion times, and I thought hey why not they must have fixed some of the problems.

No, they have not fixed anything about this game. Conquest 64 player is still the most laggy gameplay of any mode, and this coordinates with the most awful team balancing known to man. Add in a serious lack of anyone talking in pubs with the terrible allotment of tanks and vehicles and the game mode is enough to put me to sleep. Even scoring in the top 5 every game I feel I have accomplished nothing in this mode. It's just frankly boring.

Don't get me wrong, I have finally started using tanks, and branching out is not a problem for me. This was the first BF game I thought was even functional on consoles, and at heart I am an old school arena style TDM player that does enjoy a large mode battle now and then. But there are hardly any tanks or vehicles in this game. People fight over them all game and rarely will ever give the lone tank up. You might even have two tanks in some maps! OH JOY!

And hey, I am the first one to say I enjoy no vehicles even more. I am a TDM player remember. And maps like Verdun are some of the coolest maps out there in Conquest 64 player. Seriously, that map is amazingly immersive in Conquest. It also requires strategic planning and cooperation to win. It is also heavily affected by the terrible team balancing in this game. Anything can go wrong with the balancer. Usually by mid match you have wasted 15 minutes before you realize people on your team have left, are terrible, or are throwing the match in some way.

Instead of the heart of certain maps like in smaller modes, you have all kinds of other bases and pathways to take. And this means you need to keep your entire team engaged to have any chance at winning. Except of course when you have the terrible straight line maps, which require almost no forethought whatsoever. Even in good squads base camping becomes a necessity. And yes it does get boring seeing the same encounters over and over. The same fight happens quite often in such a big game mode in many of these maps. It does in smaller modes as well, you just aren't running over a mile of terrain at times to get to the battle.

In TDM I find high level matches tense and engaging. The only thing that is missing is large scale TDM, and I have no idea why they do not allow it. Half the time in Conquest I am trying to RANDOMLY FIND ONE GUY AT A BASE CAMPING IN A BUNKER or BUILDING AIMING AT THE ONLY DOORWAY. LOL. Other times you will be randomly getting shot from across the map. Hence, why you need medics and why pubs can be a big issue when you are alone.

I assume if you have an elite squad Conquest is probably a lot more fun, but since I usually only play with friends in TDM, I don't have a platoon or anything going all day for Conquest. In fact, I don't essentially play this game all that much, though, I have a few hundred hours in it.

The problem mostly lies in Team Balance I think. But there are some terrible maps in the larger mode. Suez is a terrible map in Conquest, yet is one of the best maps in the game in TDM and other smaller modes. This goes for many of the other modes. I find Ballroom Blitz to be a superior TDM map as well. Other maps have their plus and minus factors, but a few stand out as really bad large maps. A few like Verdun are far superior Conquest maps.

Conquest is a 30m mode. You are giving up a lot of your time to play this mode. And in the end I don't have the time to waste. If the game is close I will stay. But if I get even a hint of 'this game just matched us to specifically lose this game' I'm out. I ain't got time for it. No one should have time for such poor team balancing.

Single players cannot affect the outcome of games in 64 player battles. And your anchors will drown you. I'll look at the scoreboard sometimes and see 90% of my team with less points than than many of the other team's mediocre players. Other times 4 or 5 people on your team are just randomly gone and not replaced by the half way point, making winning almost impossible.

I understand if you are a tough guy and you play this game 10 hours a day that maybe you like to stay in every game. But for most people's sanity it is not worth it.

And this brings us to the ultimate question: why has team balancing not been addressed by this developer? Why is vehicle allotment so stingy? There are better ways to balance this game and make it more fun.

Do you find games balanced these days? Do you tear it up with good squads, fail alone, quit playing altogether? How do you feel about 30Hz vs 60Hz servers? What can be done about these problems in the future?

Comments

  • TKC-Muzzer
    11 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Unfortunately you are right, team balancing can be a mess, plus some people are just rubbish. It's made worse by the fact the rooms don't fill up either.
  • Khronikos
    697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Another thing I notice ALL THE TIME. Teams will get imbalanced half way through the match with additions and subtractions, making games that were balanced now imbalanced. This happens all the time in between games. Where just a few players being added or subtracted to the game will shift the balance ever so slightly.

    Honestly, I have tried to give Conquest a chance. I'm still playing a few matches to rank my tank to 1 lol, but I could never have the time for this stuff in general. I see 17 minutes pass and my team goes from being actually engaged to losing by a mile. You can do nothing to stop this.

    People like to hype up team work and STRATEGY in big game modes, but in reality all this boils down to is different strategies than smaller modes. Not better. Just different. As in taking a flag and then running to another is a different strategy. It is no more complex than outwitting the other team in TDM. There is nothing that divides these types of qualifications. In elite matches playing Conquest is no harder or easier than playing elites in TDM.

    On the macro scale if you were say commanding your 64 player team, like MAG or something, to take certain bases and were in charge of the whole team yes this would be involved in the so called deep strategy, but this game does not support any of that. Of course as a platoon you can manage deeper strategies and tactics, but I don't play with platoons or huge groups in Conquest. Most of the people I know don't play the mode specifically because it's so random. You have no control over anything unless you are running 5-8 people deep, and even then it's still RANDOM.

    There is absolutely no deep skill set involved in just running base to base and following the general team to wherever they go next. Stalemates almost always come down to the same couple of bases.
  • BEFLAR
    276 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Just try your best.
  • Khronikos
    697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Trying my best can equal a number of things. But lately I can enter any random 5 Conquest games and lose them all and be in the top 3-4 players. This mode means nothing. People talk about large game modes and how BF is supposed to be about these deep strategic and tactical choices when in reality the team balance is so bad that the game never even gets close to achieving what people claim this game is about.

    The only way you achieve that is by balanced teams with rank 60+ players for the most part. And that basically never happens in this game. Those 5 games could have taken me 2.5 hours to complete. For what? What gain? What is the point in staying in these absurdly horrible matches? I'm running around randomly not able to do anything. My squad even when they're good is only 3-4 people usually. We can only do so much. And you are stuck running SO MUCH IN THIS GAME in these large matches.

    Does anybody honestly think their infantry combat skills improve in random Conquest where most people do not even see the person that killed them LOL.

    Vehicles are so limited in this mode. For all the talk about vehicles you rarely get to drive a tank. Hell, you can barely find any motorcycles.

  • BEFLAR
    276 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited August 12
    All I play is conquest. I finish first all the time(Pro helps) and lose %50 of the time in Conquest. It doesn't seem to bother me thou. Maybe cause I come from a sports background and these things happen all the time. Play great and team loses.

    I looked at your stats and I think your TDM win ration is so good that your proud of it. So when you lose in conquest it is effecting your stats. Which is why they should keep different stats for each game mode and not mix them up.

  • Khronikos
    697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited August 12
    I come from a sports background as well. That doesn't really solve the problem of terrible team balance. Not to mention the low number of vehicles in game. At this point I don't even want to compete with the tank dorks because it's not useful. They always spawn out in their tank. You rarely can even be in tanks in this game in some servers if ever.

    I don't find fun in beating my head against a wall.

    And it has been said before how skillful and strategic these big game modes are. BS. COMPLETE BS. Over 70% of the times I am killed in Conquest I cannot even see my attacker or they have just spawned into the area to kill me randomly from any direction. TDM is way more skill-based than any of the combat I see in Conquest lol. Not to mention it is 60Hz which is just infinitely better in so many ways.
  • BEFLAR
    276 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited August 12
    TDM and conquest are two different things. As for strategic TDM is pretty basic, finish with a positive KD ratio and you helped your team basically sums it up. With conquest it is basically look at the map and figure out where are you going to spawn to help your team the most. Cap a flag or slow down the enemy, you choose.

    If tanks are what you want I will give you this tip. At the start of game don't hit ready and just wait, when the clock hit zero move over to the left and hit your X, don't give up on the first click thou. A lot of people grab it then let go. If you get the timing down your will get it a lot. Once you get a tank it the trick is not killing people the trick is staying alive, the killing people will come from you just staying alive. Don't lead the charge, hang back just a little.
  • BEFLAR
    276 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited August 12
    TDM and conquest are two different things. The strategy for TDM is basically finish with a positive KDR and you helped your team. The strategy for conquest is basically choosing where your going to spawn to help your team. Do you cap the flag or slow down the enemy, you choose.

    As for getting tanks I will give you a tip. At the start of the game don't hit ready, just wait. When the clock hit zero move to the left and hit X, and keep trying to get it for a few seconds if you don't get it right away. A lot of people get the tank at first then pick something else. Once you get the tank the goal is to stay alive, killing the people is more a product of staying alive over attacking. Don't lead the charge, always stay back just a little.

    Feel free to join me in conquest sometime. Don't be surprised if we finish first and second and still lose...
  • Khronikos
    697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I get tanks now and then. But it seems like certain people there is no way I can ever beat them to it. And then the whole match goes by with that person using it or maybe one other. Whatever you know I just wish the maps enabled a bit more tank gameplay. I understand you can't have too many of them, but they could have made them less powerful and more plentiful like say 4 of them on a map per team. Would have been cooler IMO.
  • HuwJarz
    776 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I think you spotted the benefit of conquest yourself.

    I run in a platoon and we have a tight knit squad. I am not a great player, and my W/L ratio was about 44% when we set the platoon up. We now win circa 70-75% of games, because a good well run squad can win a match for a team. My own W/L is now up to 60%.

    I much prefer conquest as I like the team dynamic and when we have 6-8 players running together, it rocks. The balancing is far from perfect (I think we win too easily now) but I still prefer the game mode and hate TDM which feels empty to me.

    Each to their own!
  • dcs500
    428 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Khronikos wrote: »
    I'm running around randomly not able to do anything.

    Well there's your problem, you can defend flags as well as take them.
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Vehicles are so limited in this mode. For all the talk about vehicles you rarely get to drive a tank. Hell, you can barely find any motorcycles.

    True, vehicle warfare isn't a patch on previous titles, the whole allocation system wasn't well thought out imo.

  • Prep768
    1879 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    After 2616 games of Conquest I must not be seeing this - each to their own though I guess, especially with my 1 game of TDM.

    I enjoy the flexibility of CQ with the larger maps and Fort de Vaux is only what I could imagine what TDM is like.

    Front lines & Ops don't do it for me due to a monotonous feeling of linear game play, again, each to their own.

    The issue of team balancing & moaning about it is beyond me. How on earth can DiCE balance open, public servers. Then with the team switching either with players wanting to play with friends or not being on the losing side makes balancing impossible,

    I can see it now.....
    DICE stops team switching to help solve balance issues
    Community demands to play with friends

    They really can't win
  • Khronikos
    697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited August 12
    I'm not quoting all that.

    At any rate spawns are just as predictable in Conquest. The fact is no person can keep track of 32 other players. There is no skill or strategy in just camping some random position on a map that no one could ever see.

    Snipers are everywhere in Conquest, and there is no way you can account for their deadly behavior while capping flags. Yes, it takes skill to avoid them, but this has NOTHING to do with combat skills with a gun. You are evading someone. You aren't shooting at them, and there is no actual gun skill involved because you never even see the guy or have any idea that person is there. Same rules apply for random edge of map snipers in TDM, but this is much less of a problem.

    I mean battling snipers and random guys across the map is one small area of skill-based infantry combat, but it has nothing to do with actual skill related to gun combat, which is what I was saying is where TDM shines.

    It doesn't matter that you can predict a spawn in a TDM match. It never has and it never will with balanced teams. Predicting a spawn means nothing if you can't handle the people spawning out.

    You seem to be under the impression that only Conquest is imbalanced, and then of course go on to apologize profusely for the inherent lack of ANY balancing whatsoever.

    The balance is terrible in all modes dude. It's no better in TDM. It's in fact terrible in TDM as well. Once you squad up with an elite group you can roll in TDM like no other. It's pathetic.

    But that has nothing to do with the inherent advantages that TDM offers to straight up gun combat. I didn't say Conquest offers nothing. I said in imbalanced matches it is pointless. And this remains true.

    And yes TDM is special because it operates on the old school Arena mode aesthetic. It's amazing stuff when you get good players into a match. There is no running for your tank or plane. There is no base camping inside a bunker. There is no useless back and forth running to the same bases over and over. Sure, the maps can get redundant, but this applies for all game modes. You will meet your adversary in mostly fair conditions, and snipers are much less effective. I love this combat.

    I do have some love for Conquest as well, but what I don't love, or have time for, is wasting 30m of my day in match after match on teams full of lower ranked players. Hell, even higher ranked players half the time do nothing in these games.

    Of course, as I said many times before, running with a squad or platoon is a lot more fun. Of course it is. Not everyone can do that though.

    To say they can't balance these servers better is preposterous! It's their job. It's like saying they can't improve their matchmaking algorithm. BS. They sure can improve it. What you are saying is not true. This algorithm literally cannot even balance a 6v6 TDM match lol.

    If you are arguing that this is okay then you are objectively WRONG IMO. This game has some of the worst FPS balance I have seen in 26 years of gaming.
  • Khronikos
    697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I appreciate the well-conceived posts. I am going to play more of Conquest. I have talked to some of the platoons I play with in TDM to match up with Conquest. But in the end I will still be quitting out of these terrible matches I get into. I simply don't have the time or need to play these long matches.

    It reminds me of bad games in Warhawk, which would go on for 30m. I just don't have the time anymore to spend playing with a bunch of low ranked or non-caring players.

    I do find Conquest to be fun. It certainly does not have the best gunplay when compared to TDM, but obviously it has sprawling maps with a realistic sense of a larger war being fought.

    I just wish DICE would do something to improve the mode.
  • Loqtrall
    7635 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Khronikos wrote: »
    I'm not quoting all that.

    At any rate spawns are just as predictable in Conquest. The fact is no person can keep track of 32 other players. There is no skill or strategy in just camping some random position on a map that no one could ever see.

    Snipers are everywhere in Conquest, and there is no way you can account for their deadly behavior while capping flags. Yes, it takes skill to avoid them, but this has NOTHING to do with combat skills with a gun. You are evading someone. You aren't shooting at them, and there is no actual gun skill involved because you never even see the guy or have any idea that person is there. Same rules apply for random edge of map snipers in TDM, but this is much less of a problem.

    I mean battling snipers and random guys across the map is one small area of skill-based infantry combat, but it has nothing to do with actual skill related to gun combat, which is what I was saying is where TDM shines.

    It doesn't matter that you can predict a spawn in a TDM match. It never has and it never will with balanced teams. Predicting a spawn means nothing if you can't handle the people spawning out.

    You seem to be under the impression that only Conquest is imbalanced, and then of course go on to apologize profusely for the inherent lack of ANY balancing whatsoever.

    The balance is terrible in all modes dude. It's no better in TDM. It's in fact terrible in TDM as well. Once you squad up with an elite group you can roll in TDM like no other. It's pathetic.

    But that has nothing to do with the inherent advantages that TDM offers to straight up gun combat. I didn't say Conquest offers nothing. I said in imbalanced matches it is pointless. And this remains true.

    And yes TDM is special because it operates on the old school Arena mode aesthetic. It's amazing stuff when you get good players into a match. There is no running for your tank or plane. There is no base camping inside a bunker. There is no useless back and forth running to the same bases over and over. Sure, the maps can get redundant, but this applies for all game modes. You will meet your adversary in mostly fair conditions, and snipers are much less effective. I love this combat.

    I do have some love for Conquest as well, but what I don't love, or have time for, is wasting 30m of my day in match after match on teams full of lower ranked players. Hell, even higher ranked players half the time do nothing in these games.

    Of course, as I said many times before, running with a squad or platoon is a lot more fun. Of course it is. Not everyone can do that though.

    To say they can't balance these servers better is preposterous! It's their job. It's like saying they can't improve their matchmaking algorithm. BS. They sure can improve it. What you are saying is not true. This algorithm literally cannot even balance a 6v6 TDM match lol.

    If you are arguing that this is okay then you are objectively WRONG IMO. This game has some of the worst FPS balance I have seen in 26 years of gaming.

    First off - evading snipers is the easiest thing in the world. If you simply serpentine randomly, that's enough to eliminate the majority of long-range snipers from hitting you.

    And, for the second time - why is it somehow relevant whether or not you can physically SEE the person shooting and killing you? If you didn't see someone killing you - that doesn't somehow equate to a lesser experience in the game. I play CoD and RS:S as well, both games with smaller modes and a smaller amount of players that can get hectic because of the mass of players in one specified area rather than dozens of players on a large map - and I STILL get killed by people I don't see in those games. I still get killed by people I don't see in TDM in this game.

    So why is it a problem in CQL? Firstly, if there's a long range sniper, in most situations the scope glint is going to allow you to see them. If they're using a carbine and killing you from a long range where you can't immediately see them - they deserve that kill.

    It sounds like you have an immense problem with campers - which are a reality in literally any game you play.

    Secondly, sure - spawns are somewhat predictable in CQL, but to the extent that you know if the enemy is going to be coming toward you, they're going to be coming from the nearest OBJ.

    But in TDM - spawns are literally predictable down to the exact location an enemy is going to be. The map isn't large, nor are there multiple objective points - so predicting where someone is going to spawn is literally child's play. The ENTIRE TIME I play TDM, it consists of me flanking around the outside perimeter of the map to the opposite end than my teammates are on - and killing enemies as they spawn out and try to push forward to ward my team. If my team completely occupies one side of a map - I can literally sit in a concealed position in the middle of said map looking in the opposite direction of my team, and it's guaranteed enemies are going to be coming from that direction - not just a prediction, it's a sure thing.

    And I never said TDM was "balanced" or that any mode wasn't inherently unbalanced in some way. But what you said about an "elite squad" is literally true in ANY mode.

    Do you know why? Because the vast majority of people playing this game in any given pub match are playing BY THEMSELVES. So of course, if you get a full squad of 5 guys that are working together and consistently and effectively communicating - you're by default going to beat out people that are playing by themselves in squads full of randoms who are also playing by themselves, and who aren't communicating at all.

    That's simple logic - a squad working together and communicating are going to beat multiple squads who are uncoordinated and not talking to each other at all.

    Again - that happens in literally EVERY MULTIPLAYER SHOOTER EVER MADE. Hell, it happens in life - if you have 5 random guys who had never met each other before, are all of different age groups, and you get them to try and build a wooden shed without directions - it's going to be an uncoordinated experience, some of the guys may not even have ANY experience with carpentry or building with wood at all.

    But if you have them competing against another group of 5 guys who are all on the same page, and all have similar experience building with wood and are all on common ground about what needs to be done build said shed and communicate thoroughly about it - of course they're going to blow the first group of guys out of the water.

    It's common knowledge that people who are experienced, working together, and communication to achieve a common goal are going to beat out a group that is uncoordinated, half-inexperienced, and not communicating at all.

    The fact of the matter is that you're just going to have to accept that in pub matches consisting majorly of random, non-communicating players - what you refer to as an "elite squad" (which can literally just be a squad of competent friends) is a part of the game and is something your'e going to have to deal with as a solo player in CQL or any other game mode - or any other game for that matter.

    And TDM is not special. Compared to TDM in literally any other game, it's just another team deathmatch game mode. It's the large game modes of BF scaled down and restricted to one small part of CQL maps. BF is an arcade shooter first and foremost and always has been - it's never been an Arena-centric shooter. If that's what you're PRIMARILY looking for, BF is not the franchise for you, and TDM is by far not the most played game mode.

    And even with an amazing team, TDM is not all you're cracking it up to be. There are still campers, there are still those that run to crutches like the elite classes or Model 10-A Hunter on Suez, or throwing gas on enemy spawn points, camping with bolt-actions on the square on Ballroom, etc.

    Lastly - again - what it seems like your problem is, is that you can't constantly get in matches of players that are equal in skill to you.

    But expecting that to happen in public matches full of random players is completely unrealistic thinking. That's something for try-hard ranked modes in games like RS:S, OW, League, etc - where people who feel similarly to you play.

    But in reality - what you're describing that you dislike is literally what BF has been since the beginning. You're complaining about conquest for being what it has essentially been since 2002. There's no way they can balance pub matches by skill when they consist of 64 random players, and are available for anyone to join from the browser, whether they're rank 1 or rank 110.
  • Loqtrall
    7635 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    And, really, rank doesn't mean anything. I've seen rank 110 players who suck something awful. You can be bad at the game and you'll still rank up from playing.

    I knew a guy on the Battlelog forums who had over SIX THOUSAND HOURS in BF4 - and his K/D was barely over 0.7
  • Khronikos
    697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited August 12
    I've seen many games balance matchmaking better than BF1 does. When I roll with a great squad in a 24 player mode I expect some competition. We play against each other because this game is inherently just broken a lot of the time. Broken as in the average rank on one side will be 90 and the other it will be 35. That stuff is not acceptable. They can do better.
  • Loqtrall
    7635 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 12
    Khronikos wrote: »
    I've seen many games balance matchmaking better than BF1 does. When I roll with a great squad in a 24 player mode I expect some competition. We play against each other because this game is inherently just broken a lot of the time. Broken as in the average rank on one side will be 90 and the other it will be 35. That stuff is not acceptable. They can do better.

    How can you expect competition when you roll with a full coordinated communicating squad in a game where you're more than likely playing with randoms?

    Do you know what people in that situation do to get true competition? They hit up someone else with a full squad of friends and 5v5 (which is how the BF Competitive scene was born) - they don't expect it to happen in pub matches full of randoms - that's why pub matches are called pub matches and not just "matches" by higher-tier players.

    And again - How does rank have anything to do with skill level? I've LITERALLY seen rank 3's and 4's top scoreboards in this game. I've seen max rank players go negative by 10+ deaths and barely get 8,000-9,000 points in CQL.

    Rank is just a number - it doesn't represent skill, you can rank up simply by playing and being on the winning team - and do so doubly as fast just by getting xp boosts or joining squads that have active xp boosts. I really don't understand why you're so hung up on a number beside a player's name, like it actually means something.

    Like I said - I knew a guy on BL who was max rank in BF4 with over 6,000 hours logged in the game and he was still terrible at it - and even admitted so. If you have him on your team, are you just going to be fine with it because the number beside his name is over 100 even though he's going 5-17?

    That's just another parameter that balancing people by would be redundant. A player's level does not represent their skill in the game as a whole, nor does their accumulative KD, SPM, KPM, or any other stat.

    There's nothing you can "balance" players by that would correlate to balancing teams by skill. There is no true "skill" stat the represents your experience with the game as a whole or how good you are at it.

    Please name me a Multiplayer FPS game where public (not competitive/ranked) matches consisting of random players are balanced via skill. I'll be waiting a while - because there isn't one. Maybe you played competitive/ranked in a game and thought it was pub matches, but that's a whole different ball game than true pubs, where you're literally just matched up with random people. Hell, in CoD you're simply matched with people who are simultaneously looking for the same game type you are and that you have a good connection to - same with Halo.

    There hasn't been an online FPS game I've ever played where I hopped in a pub match at Level 1 when I first bought the game and wasn't matched up against people of max rank or very near it (unless the game literally just came out)
  • Khronikos
    697 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited August 12
    You can keep apologizing for the terrible balance in this game. Meanwhile, I will ask for a better algorithm. I'm not gonna sit here and name games for you. Go play some other games. The balance in this game is absolutely terrible.

    Also, you have agenda with rank. You are taking things out of context. Rarely if ever will a normal level 3 ever top a game of Conquest. This is a laughable situation that will almost never happen.

    In my experience in all the modes the best players are rank 80-110. Period. You get the occasional 40-80 guy that is a great player. You can predict how a lot of matches will go down just by rank alone. Yes, it works. Experience does actually correlate to skill whether you want to believe that or not.

    Yes, you can make a better algorithm. Again, you are just apologizing at this point without even considering how algorithms are made, how they are improved, et cetera.

    Tracker already has stats like BTR that do a much better job at representing the overall value of a player. This is how you improve algorithms. You come up with a symbol that represents an amalgamation of skill factors. You then use this in your algorithm.

    Also, plenty of games have better balance than this game. I've never seen balance so bad, and that is because few games attempt to balance 64 player matches, but you totally forget balance is completely broken in TDM.

    TDM balance would be easy to attain. Basically, code into your game that you do not start matches without at least 20 players. That would fix a couple things right there. And rank levels that are SEVERELY imbalanced along with KDR and maybe accuracy and a couple other factors should represent how players are divided on teams.

    When you have an overall rank average of 50 vs 90 you are almost always going to lose hard. It's that simple. Rank is not a perfect indicator of general skill in many different areas, but it does indicate a lot of experience, and usually experience correlates with some level of skill. Most hardcore platoons are all 100s. Most great players in the game are above level 70 at this point. These are things that cannot be debated. Anyone can see this for themselves. You are offering your examples as normal policy when they are outliers to the norm in this game.

    The ideas are endless on how to implement a good algorithm. You act like you can't solve these problems with math, which is inanely ignorant.

    Counterstrike has way better balance than this game in pubs. Killzone 2 had better balance than this game in pubs and that wasn't even very good. COD generally has okay balance. Uncharted had better balance than this. A lot of games have better balance than this game. The team balance is completely broken, and don't act like I am the only one saying this. It's in the forums day in day out.

    And that doesn't excuse the horrid map design in a lot of Conquest maps either. Some of these maps are absolutely awful. I prefer the TDM and 24 player maps to the Conquest maps in about 75% of cases. Easily. A few of the maps are good in both modes. Some like Suez and Argonne are absolutely TERRIBLE in Conquest.

    When I say there is a lack of skill is the fact that 32 other people are shooting you from random directions when you spawn in. This is only much worse when playing alone. Dying from these bouts has nothing to do with skill whatsoever, and you die from this kind of event all the time in Conquest. In smaller modes you control your own fate to a much higher degree.

    Meaning your individual skill with guns controls your outcome. Whether you like this better or not is none of my business. It's a logical fact.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!