played BF 1 is now completely and without question over and out, dead in the water

«1
Mutanga512
5 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
edited May 7
i played Bf 1 a couple of times this week and now all the matches end in 175-1000 or worse. Within 5 minutes all flags are lost and either tanks, planes or god forgive horses rule. Even at the end no stats are shown so nobody can complain to EA about anybody.

Nobody cares EA the least

Time for ?

Comments

  • Ronin9572
    846 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Mutanga512 wrote: »
    i played Bf 1 a couple of times this week and now all the matches end in 175-1000 or worse. Within 5 minutes all flags are lost and either tanks, planes or god forgive horses rule. Even at the end no stats are shown so nobody can complain to EA about anybody.

    Nobody cares EA the least

    Time for ?

    Well there are plenty of vets still in the game and noobs as well, so there's bound to be 1 sided matches.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5380 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Please leave BF1 and go to genderfield V 
    But that game has the same balance issues and even worse sometimes.
  • research-kitchen
    348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I hear BFV is better, and it's half off. 
  • TheXBOXFan
    114 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The games are one sided because one team is 70% jimmy-no-thumbs (noobs) who just want to shoot people and vehicles. The flags arn't their main focus.

    Then 90% of the other team plays like I do and storms flags like a tornado in a trailer park, and pushes the enemies into there spawn.

    It allows for 100+kill games with guns to be more frequent now.
  • disposalist
    8505 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    BFV is not better and the balance is as bad or worse.  Also, there have been no changes to BF1 balance, so there's no reason it would be *now* "over and out" any more than it was last year.
  • research-kitchen
    348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I didn't buy 5 either the alpha and the beta was enough more me to know that it's a bad game.  The ones that bought it are in denial that it's a good game.
  • MarxistDictator
    4875 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I didn't buy 5 either the alpha and the beta was enough more me to know that it's a bad game.  The ones that bought it are in denial that it's a good game.

    Nah I just regret giving them the benefit of the doubt. But I at least got some BF1 weapons for assuming they couldn't actually ruin such a solid formula. Too bad I was wrong.
  • SIy_Badger
    90 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
     BF1 to BFV is like beautiful girl to a sheep. Some prefer sheep, but I do not want to try it. 

    Back to balance - the only time games are not balanced, is when 32 players team has 22 snipers or so. They lose tragically and for a reason. Sniper class is just cancer of this game, with rare exceptions they almost always drag the team down and most matches with more than 5 snipers per team, end up badly for the team with more snipers.
  • EoG_Alchemist
    78 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    henbaoqian wrote: »
     BF1 to BFV is like beautiful girl to a sheep. Some prefer sheep, but I do not want to try it. 

    Back to balance - the only time games are not balanced, is when 32 players team has 22 snipers or so. They lose tragically and for a reason. Sniper class is just cancer of this game, with rare exceptions they almost always drag the team down and most matches with more than 5 snipers per team, end up badly for the team with more snipers.

    I actually just started playing as a scout after reaching lvl 50 with the other classes and can definitely see why the class hurts teams. I however use the SMLE Carbine and play extremely aggressively. Its actually pretty fun with this gun.
  • Mutanga512
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I only become sniper as planes get scores like 52-0 so that I can annoy picking them off one by one. The most annoying are the horses, really 250 direct hits from my lmg to down him

  • Rufusw5
    137 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    BF1 is a long way off dead, but I have to admit the team balancing can be pretty dire. I spent a few hours on it earlier, mostly server hopping trying to find a game that was at least somewhere near balanced. I've had many a full night with this problem in the past.

    By balanced, I mean one where the team it puts me on are capable of taking a couple of objectives and holding at least one - really struggling with that today!

    I hate the mid round team balance idea too, winning doesn't really mean anything if you swap players around mid march.

    BF1 is out of development now anyways, I just hope they figure it out before the next one, when it's not hopelessly one sided it really is a great game.
  • disposalist
    8505 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 said:
    BF1 is a long way off dead, but I have to admit the team balancing can be pretty dire. I spent a few hours on it earlier, mostly server hopping trying to find a game that was at least somewhere near balanced. I've had many a full night with this problem in the past.

    By balanced, I mean one where the team it puts me on are capable of taking a couple of objectives and holding at least one - really struggling with that today!

    I hate the mid round team balance idea too, winning doesn't really mean anything if you swap players around mid march.

    BF1 is out of development now anyways, I just hope they figure it out before the next one, when it's not hopelessly one sided it really is a great game.
    Unfortunately, the balancing in BF5 is just as bad, if not even worse.  People did think it was better, but then realised DICE had implemented a faked equalising mechanic that actually made things horribly unfair.  It wasn't a bad idea per se, just done badly.

    Also suspicions that they are utilising a balancing algorithm that biases toward win/loss patterns and some idea of 'player retention techniques' rather than simply trying to make the sides a fair match.

    Here's hoping they do what they know they need to do to make BF6 balancing better.

    - Make the balancing mechanic transparent so people don't leave just because they think balance is bad when it's not.
    - Improve the lobby and joining mechanics so balancing doesn't occur with players still leaving the game, etc. 
    - Allow switching, but only to the losing/smaller side.
    - Have some kind of negative reinforcement for repeat quitting.
    - Have some kind of positive reinforcement for switching to the losing/smaller side.
    - Have regular mid-round balancing (with 'reward' for those forced to switch so they don't quit).
    - Nothing too severe so that worse teams win, but have some kind of balancing mechanic other than switching (speeded up spawning, speeding up flag capture). BF1 behemoth was a good idea in this regard, but needed tweaking (and didn't get it).
    - Don't keep together random squads when balancing.
    - Put platoon squads in opposing teams.
    - etc

    I know it's a complicated issue, but there's a ton of improvements they could consider and just don't, I think because they don't want to put off some players, but players need to realise that the fundamental aspect that dictates the quality of any match is balance.
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Please leave BF1 and go to genderfield V 
    Please leave BF1 and go to Battlefield FIFA
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I just played two rounds where both were 1000-9xx
    (Very close matches!)
  • crimsonbomber
    79 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Rufusw5 said:
    BF1 is a long way off dead, but I have to admit the team balancing can be pretty dire. I spent a few hours on it earlier, mostly server hopping trying to find a game that was at least somewhere near balanced. I've had many a full night with this problem in the past.



    By balanced, I mean one where the team it puts me on are capable of taking a couple of objectives and holding at least one - really struggling with that today!



    I hate the mid round team balance idea too, winning doesn't really mean anything if you swap players around mid march.



    BF1 is out of development now anyways, I just hope they figure it out before the next one, when it's not hopelessly one sided it really is a great game.

    Unfortunately, the balancing in BF5 is just as bad, if not even worse.  People did think it was better, but then realised DICE had implemented a faked equalising mechanic that actually made things horribly unfair.  It wasn't a bad idea per se, just done badly.

    Also suspicions that they are utilising a balancing algorithm that biases toward win/loss patterns and some idea of 'player retention techniques' rather than simply trying to make the sides a fair match.

    Here's hoping they do what they know they need to do to make BF6 balancing better.

    - Make the balancing mechanic transparent so people don't leave just because they think balance is bad when it's not.
    - Improve the lobby and joining mechanics so balancing doesn't occur with players still leaving the game, etc. 
    - Allow switching, but only to the losing/smaller side.
    - Have some kind of negative reinforcement for repeat quitting.
    - Have some kind of positive reinforcement for switching to the losing/smaller side.
    - Have regular mid-round balancing (with 'reward' for those forced to switch so they don't quit).
    - Nothing too severe so that worse teams win, but have some kind of balancing mechanic other than switching (speeded up spawning, speeding up flag capture). BF1 behemoth was a good idea in this regard, but needed tweaking (and didn't get it).
    - Don't keep together random squads when balancing.
    - Put platoon squads in opposing teams.
    - etc

    I know it's a complicated issue, but there's a ton of improvements they could consider and just don't, I think because they don't want to put off some players, but players need to realise that the fundamental aspect that dictates the quality of any match is balance.

    You have some pretty good ideas.. Splitting the “platoons” is a good one.. That or make servers for only platoons that wish to play in full parties.. The argument about splitting the community could be made, but most people wind up leaving those games any way since they almost always are blowouts early on..

    As to the behemoth, I think they do more harm than good.. I also feel that they (Dice) allowed team balancing to be more on the unbalanced side so that the behemoths were used frequently.. They spent time and money to develop and implement them into the game, so it makes sense that they would want them to be used.. You’re one of the more reasonable and level headed people who post here so I’d like to know your thoughts on my little theory..
  • disposalist
    8505 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Rufusw5 said:
    BF1 is a long way off dead, but I have to admit the team balancing can be pretty dire. I spent a few hours on it earlier, mostly server hopping trying to find a game that was at least somewhere near balanced. I've had many a full night with this problem in the past.



    By balanced, I mean one where the team it puts me on are capable of taking a couple of objectives and holding at least one - really struggling with that today!



    I hate the mid round team balance idea too, winning doesn't really mean anything if you swap players around mid march.



    BF1 is out of development now anyways, I just hope they figure it out before the next one, when it's not hopelessly one sided it really is a great game.

    Unfortunately, the balancing in BF5 is just as bad, if not even worse.  People did think it was better, but then realised DICE had implemented a faked equalising mechanic that actually made things horribly unfair.  It wasn't a bad idea per se, just done badly.

    Also suspicions that they are utilising a balancing algorithm that biases toward win/loss patterns and some idea of 'player retention techniques' rather than simply trying to make the sides a fair match.

    Here's hoping they do what they know they need to do to make BF6 balancing better.

    - Make the balancing mechanic transparent so people don't leave just because they think balance is bad when it's not.
    - Improve the lobby and joining mechanics so balancing doesn't occur with players still leaving the game, etc. 
    - Allow switching, but only to the losing/smaller side.
    - Have some kind of negative reinforcement for repeat quitting.
    - Have some kind of positive reinforcement for switching to the losing/smaller side.
    - Have regular mid-round balancing (with 'reward' for those forced to switch so they don't quit).
    - Nothing too severe so that worse teams win, but have some kind of balancing mechanic other than switching (speeded up spawning, speeding up flag capture). BF1 behemoth was a good idea in this regard, but needed tweaking (and didn't get it).
    - Don't keep together random squads when balancing.
    - Put platoon squads in opposing teams.
    - etc

    I know it's a complicated issue, but there's a ton of improvements they could consider and just don't, I think because they don't want to put off some players, but players need to realise that the fundamental aspect that dictates the quality of any match is balance.

    You have some pretty good ideas.. Splitting the “platoons” is a good one.. That or make servers for only platoons that wish to play in full parties.. The argument about splitting the community could be made, but most people wind up leaving those games any way since they almost always are blowouts early on..

    As to the behemoth, I think they do more harm than good.. I also feel that they (Dice) allowed team balancing to be more on the unbalanced side so that the behemoths were used frequently.. They spent time and money to develop and implement them into the game, so it makes sense that they would want them to be used.. You’re one of the more reasonable and level headed people who post here so I’d like to know your thoughts on my little theory..
    I'm not sure DICE let balancing be bad so that the behemoths get used (balancing is just as bad in BF5 and was just as bad in BF4 and no behemoths), I just think they recognised that balance does go bad sometimes, so why not have something cool happen when it does.  At least the losing team has some fun or maybe, if the teams were actually close in ability, but the game got imbalanced for no good reason, they might even have a chance to come back using the behemoth.

    I do think the behemoths needed to be tweaked to work better (for instance, they should have had spawn-only non-gunning positions to encourage their use as transport).
  • crimsonbomber
    79 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    crimsonbomber said:


    disposalist wrote: »
    Rufusw5 said:

    BF1 is a long way off dead, but I have to admit the team balancing can be pretty dire. I spent a few hours on it earlier, mostly server hopping trying to find a game that was at least somewhere near balanced. I've had many a full night with this problem in the past.







    By balanced, I mean one where the team it puts me on are capable of taking a couple of objectives and holding at least one - really struggling with that today!







    I hate the mid round team balance idea too, winning doesn't really mean anything if you swap players around mid march.







    BF1 is out of development now anyways, I just hope they figure it out before the next one, when it's not hopelessly one sided it really is a great game.



    Unfortunately, the balancing in BF5 is just as bad, if not even worse.  People did think it was better, but then realised DICE had implemented a faked equalising mechanic that actually made things horribly unfair.  It wasn't a bad idea per se, just done badly.



    Also suspicions that they are utilising a balancing algorithm that biases toward win/loss patterns and some idea of 'player retention techniques' rather than simply trying to make the sides a fair match.



    Here's hoping they do what they know they need to do to make BF6 balancing better.



    - Make the balancing mechanic transparent so people don't leave just because they think balance is bad when it's not.

    - Improve the lobby and joining mechanics so balancing doesn't occur with players still leaving the game, etc. 

    - Allow switching, but only to the losing/smaller side.

    - Have some kind of negative reinforcement for repeat quitting.

    - Have some kind of positive reinforcement for switching to the losing/smaller side.

    - Have regular mid-round balancing (with 'reward' for those forced to switch so they don't quit).

    - Nothing too severe so that worse teams win, but have some kind of balancing mechanic other than switching (speeded up spawning, speeding up flag capture). BF1 behemoth was a good idea in this regard, but needed tweaking (and didn't get it).

    - Don't keep together random squads when balancing.

    - Put platoon squads in opposing teams.

    - etc



    I know it's a complicated issue, but there's a ton of improvements they could consider and just don't, I think because they don't want to put off some players, but players need to realise that the fundamental aspect that dictates the quality of any match is balance.



    You have some pretty good ideas.. Splitting the “platoons” is a good one.. That or make servers for only platoons that wish to play in full parties.. The argument about splitting the community could be made, but most people wind up leaving those games any way since they almost always are blowouts early on..



    As to the behemoth, I think they do more harm than good.. I also feel that they (Dice) allowed team balancing to be more on the unbalanced side so that the behemoths were used frequently.. They spent time and money to develop and implement them into the game, so it makes sense that they would want them to be used.. You’re one of the more reasonable and level headed people who post here so I’d like to know your thoughts on my little theory..

    I'm not sure DICE let balancing be bad so that the behemoths get used (balancing is just as bad in BF5 and was just as bad in BF4 and no behemoths), I just think they recognised that balance does go bad sometimes, so why not have something cool happen when it does.  At least the losing team has some fun or maybe, if the teams were actually close in ability, but the game got imbalanced for no good reason, they might even have a chance to come back using the behemoth.

    I do think the behemoths needed to be tweaked to work better (for instance, they should have had spawn-only non-gunning positions to encourage their use as transport).

    That’s fair enough.. It very well may have just been something for when things do get out of hand.. And if so then at least they made an effort to keep people on the losing side engaged instead of just leaving.. However in my experience, and I’m on XB1, games are always so far out of balance that it at least gives the impression that it almost has to be done on purpose, or at least allowed to happen.. I know there are many things that factor in to really one sided games, though..
Sign In or Register to comment.