Being put in trash team is getting worse by day

13»

Comments

  • Rok73
    216 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.
    By the way, this comment is illogical trash.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    A Bad team makes everyone play worse. Because good players like me will be alone on flags and trying to get past enemy team alone and more.

    If you're on a Team and they lose 6 out of 7 Flags that Team is just awful and should Uninstall the game.

    Uninstalled!
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Rok73 wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.
    By the way, this comment is illogical trash.

    Absolutely not. If you call your team trash, then you are missing that you are part of it as well. Players have that funny tendency to always exclude themselves when something bad happens to them: "Oh, I only lost because I have an SMG.", "Where is my team? I am always alone at the flag!", "Anybody can kill with a bomber, that is just so cheap." Nobody ever says: "Man I should not have taken that engagement.", "I shouldn't really walk all the way to F flag, I can not be supported there." , "That bomber pilot is really good, I need to get in a fighter and try to take him down." This thread is an awesome showcase of this behaviour. You are on the team for a reason, if you team loses it is your darn responsibility, too.
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Rok73 wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.
    By the way, this comment is illogical trash.

    Absolutely not. If you call your team trash, then you are missing that you are part of it as well. Players have that funny tendency to always exclude themselves when something bad happens to them: "Oh, I only lost because I have an SMG.", "Where is my team? I am always alone at the flag!", "Anybody can kill with a bomber, that is just so cheap." Nobody ever says: "Man I should not have taken that engagement.", "I shouldn't really walk all the way to F flag, I can not be supported there." , "That bomber pilot is really good, I need to get in a fighter and try to take him down." This thread is an awesome showcase of this behaviour. You are on the team for a reason, if you team loses it is your darn responsibility, too.

    I get what you're saying but it isn't quite accurate.

    One player shouldn't have to do everything you just listed. If they do have to it means their team is trash.

    In any game anywhere the entire team relying on one crutch player means the team is trash.

    Even if what you're saying is 100% the fact the game doesn't mix up the teams after constant 350-0 scores shows poor team balance.
  • Ploodovic
    1642 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The team balance felt great at launch, and for the first 3-4 weeks or so.

    Now it's reached Battlefield 1 levels of bad.

    Like I said in another thread, either you dominate or end up with teammates who eat paint chips. Rarely is it ever anything in between.

    People complained about the catch up mechanic being too aggressive (it was), so DICE changed it to uselessness. Instead of the close games, we had at the launch, we now have what we have.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Even if teams were scrambled and balanced (numbers-wise) before every match, it's still nonsense imo to expect a truly balanced experience from a 64p pub lobby that people of any skill level and experience with BF games can join randomly through the server browser, and when most of the team is comprised of completely random players who don't communicate, against an enemy team with a communicating full squad of guys in a party who have been playing together for 5 years, or even more than one whole squad.

    Sorry to break to any doubters, but this is just not the pub match environment designed for balance and competition. Hell, I can hop on Overwatch right now as a solo bronze tier player who hasn't played in a month, and I guarantee my first match will be against at least a group of 3 or 4 with several gold and platinum tier players that will run over my team in less than 2 minutes. And that game is 6v6 and you can only find matches via matchmaking.

    I stopped expecting balanced matches from BF long ago. That's not to say they couldn't definitely work on thier scrambling of teams and balancing the number of players before every match, but I doubt it'd help very much in terms of getting a truly balanced experience in a random, public 64p server.

    I mean, come on, there were rented server admins who would hand pick and choose thier server team balance and manually move players from one side to the other to enforce that environment, and sometimes players were even kicked for doing too well and throwing the server balance off. Something tells me that server experience wouldn't translate well to a public environment.
  • blarrgy
    89 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2019
    I have no idea how this works, but I wonder if it's as simple as over time a team gains a critical mass of decent players that team is likely to stay together cuz people are winning. The opposing team keeps losing because their decent players dont want to wait around and lose so they quit, not allowing that team time to gain enough better players to compete. Which means there are always more open slots on losing teams.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I have some simple rules for myself for that:

    if one team wins with a large difference, I quit the server, since I know there is no rebalance at the end of the round and next round will be the same and I prefer balanced games.

    if I join a server and see multiple Platoons with level 50 players on one side and non on the other side, I instantly leave the server.
    The advantage of Platoons with voice com is insane (even more than in BF1) and that advantage should be divided on both teams.

    These rules I also applied in BF1 and I will keep on using them until squads get mixed at the end of a round/start of the next round if a game was really unbalanced.
  • MrCamp121
    1168 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Well you jsut demonstrated nicely why DICE decided to not have rental servers. By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    Your logic is astounding. You are one of those quoted as being "too uneducated" to play
  • greyyetigreyyeti
    39 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    blarrgy wrote: »
    I have no idea how this works, but I wonder if it's as simple as over time a team gains a critical mass of decent players that team is likely to stay together cuz people are winning. The opposing team keeps losing because their decent players dont want to wait around and lose so they quit, not allowing that team time to gain enough better players to compete. Which means there are always more open slots on losing teams.

    I think you are right. When i am lucky enough to get a good team i stay around for 3 or more rounds which normaly lead to decisive victories, but when i am in a losing team i stay till the end of the round at best or quit even earlier. I guess that many people act the same.
  • TheGM86
    917 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    TheGM86 wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
    Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
    But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the "bad team", which happens to lose. Just look at everybody's stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP's case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls "trash teams". He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
    Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren't exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds.
    @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin' reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.

    I said earlier, I don't mind loosing. My problem is that most games that I join, my team is getting utterly destroyed on every level. I'm fine playing a round and loosing by 50-100 points when alteast my and enemy team are taking flags and having a fight. But in today's reality, my team will always be loosing by 300-400 points while being spawn locked. Thats why I leave most of the time. Don't believe me? Cool, add me on Origin and lets do social experiment. Randomly join 10-20 different servers via match making with intervals of 3-4 hours, and see how many times our team will be getting completely wrecked.

    I do not need bloody proof, your BF3 quitrate is 35%, while your win rate has been 80% over the course of three games. You hate losing, you quit the game when you see a tendency. For comparison's sake look at StodehTV's or DRUNKKZ3's winrate, that is around 60ish, and they have a tendency to break games. Mine is around 60ish. Parkingbrakes winrate is at 48%, I could look up anyone else in here and we would be moving around the 40-60% mark. This means that the darn matchmaking is working decently enough.

    i dont think quit ratios hold much weight since mine is due to this .....

    https://1drv.ms/v/s!AmjSl2amw1Q0ggf9Eyrs3PuPboiF

    along with blackscreens. So I have to dashboard once or twice an hour currently. I'd be curious what mine is but it wouldnt change much. Also, team switching is being abused and any algorithm DICE uses is pretty inconsistent if they dont address it.

    Lastly, isnt there a diff "advantage tickrate" for a losing side to help balance different from previous titles? I assume bleedrate, respawn times, and cap speed all play a role but unsure exactly or at what point does it trigger for the losing side? I'd wager this is bugged and is also throwing off games by a ton.

    I actually did it, I gathered all the data from players in this thread, and guess what: The lowest winrate is 45%. 3/4 are sitting between 45-60%. Another four or so in the 70s.
    IllegalColorlessKoala-size_restricted.gif
    what is my quit rate oh wise number wizard?

    17% for BF3, obviously I can not say anything about the rest, as the stat sadly was not present in recent games.
    BF3? You couldn't even get back to main menu without quitting in that game since there was no in between round exit.
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Even if teams were scrambled and balanced (numbers-wise) before every match, it's still nonsense imo to expect a truly balanced experience from a 64p pub lobby that people of any skill level and experience with BF games can join randomly through the server browser, and when most of the team is comprised of completely random players who don't communicate, against an enemy team with a communicating full squad of guys in a party who have been playing together for 5 years, or even more than one whole squad.

    Sorry to break to any doubters, but this is just not the pub match environment designed for balance and competition. Hell, I can hop on Overwatch right now as a solo bronze tier player who hasn't played in a month, and I guarantee my first match will be against at least a group of 3 or 4 with several gold and platinum tier players that will run over my team in less than 2 minutes. And that game is 6v6 and you can only find matches via matchmaking.

    I stopped expecting balanced matches from BF long ago. That's not to say they couldn't definitely work on thier scrambling of teams and balancing the number of players before every match, but I doubt it'd help very much in terms of getting a truly balanced experience in a random, public 64p server.

    I mean, come on, there were rented server admins who would hand pick and choose thier server team balance and manually move players from one side to the other to enforce that environment, and sometimes players were even kicked for doing too well and throwing the server balance off. Something tells me that server experience wouldn't translate well to a public environment.

    Again I agree and understand but when the end round screen gives the top squad to the same 3 squads on the same side for 4 rounds in a row you KNOW the game could mix it up by switching squads around.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2019
    Kayback wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Even if teams were scrambled and balanced (numbers-wise) before every match, it's still nonsense imo to expect a truly balanced experience from a 64p pub lobby that people of any skill level and experience with BF games can join randomly through the server browser, and when most of the team is comprised of completely random players who don't communicate, against an enemy team with a communicating full squad of guys in a party who have been playing together for 5 years, or even more than one whole squad.

    Sorry to break to any doubters, but this is just not the pub match environment designed for balance and competition. Hell, I can hop on Overwatch right now as a solo bronze tier player who hasn't played in a month, and I guarantee my first match will be against at least a group of 3 or 4 with several gold and platinum tier players that will run over my team in less than 2 minutes. And that game is 6v6 and you can only find matches via matchmaking.

    I stopped expecting balanced matches from BF long ago. That's not to say they couldn't definitely work on thier scrambling of teams and balancing the number of players before every match, but I doubt it'd help very much in terms of getting a truly balanced experience in a random, public 64p server.

    I mean, come on, there were rented server admins who would hand pick and choose thier server team balance and manually move players from one side to the other to enforce that environment, and sometimes players were even kicked for doing too well and throwing the server balance off. Something tells me that server experience wouldn't translate well to a public environment.

    Again I agree and understand but when the end round screen gives the top squad to the same 3 squads on the same side for 4 rounds in a row you KNOW the game could mix it up by switching squads around.

    I don't see the your point when the same squad would be top squad on the opposite team. If teams are switched around, how is the top squad from the past 3 matches being on the other team going to balance things out? It won't. A skilled full squad who communicate in party chat are already inherently imbalancing a server if they're the only full, communicating squad in the server. The server will be unbalanced no matter which side said squad is playing on. That's aside from the fact that inbetween these hypothetical matches, a myriad of players could have been quitting and joining any team that has an open slot, again further imbalancing the game regardless of what team the stacked squad is in.

    Again, BF pub matches don't seem like a place balance is achievable. On top of team balance being thrown out the window when a decent squad joins a server, people of all skill levels join random servers via matchmaking and the server browser. Imo the server browser makes the already impossible task of balancing 64 random players in squads even moreso impossible. How can you possibly balance matches when at any given time completely random players are quitting and joining 32-man teams that are already made up of 32 random, non-communicating players?

    Like I said before, games like CoD, Overwatch, Rainbow Six, etc can't even consistently provide balanced matchmaking in games with a max player count of 12 or less. When matchmaking is the sole way to get into a match. How could this supposed team balance happen in random BF servers when random people join via the browser all the time, when full communicating squads can join the match of thier choosing?

    Imo it's not possible. Not in a random pub environment. The only time I've ever seen team balance in BF was in a rented server where some hyper-comp server admin meticulously looks through the stats and performance of everyone who joins the server, and picks and chooses who can or can't play in thier server and which team they will play on, in order to ENFORCE a more balanced competitive environment, and even then it wasn't perfect, even then admins would kick players who were too good or better than them because they supposedly "ruin it for everyone". Again, that wouldn't translate well to randon pub servers.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Well you jsut demonstrated nicely why DICE decided to not have rental servers. By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    Your logic is astounding. You are one of those quoted as being "too uneducated" to play

    Excuse me? I provided numbers, stats and arguments to refute OP's points. I fear I am a bit too educated for this thread and forum. Most other guys just bring a biased opinion and/or a flawed perception here while calling it a fact.
  • MrCamp121
    1168 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Your "facts" are nonesense. 1 player cannot win a game. Your team may be garbage but that does not equate to everyone on it being garbage. Small gloves dont fit large hands
Sign In or Register to comment.