Bf5 team balancing voting

remie1529
0 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
What do you think about the current state of the team balancing system in bf5 ?

In my opinion it's bad. I am sad that it is so bad.
I'm a real battlefield fan I've played every battlefield game. 

 But I'm curious what you think. Vote in the poll via the link. And leave behind what you think

https://www.strawpoll.me/18473547


Comments

  • dayglowfroggy
    448 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I have voted but it doesn't take genius to work out what the result will be.
  • X_Sunslayer_X
    679 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    "team balancer can't be bad if there is nothing like that implemented in the first place"- DICE logic
  • PrecisionWing
    620 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Team balance was super easy in bf3/4 times, private servers with some simple addons made it work pretty well.
    Simple solution when we encounter a unbalanced game:

    1. Last joined player will be switched.
    2. Last died player will be switched.
    3. Player at the bottom of the board will be switched.

    Didnt notice anyone complaining about unbalanced team during those good old days cuz server addons fixed it within seconds when one team got more than 2 players than the other.

    My guess is, dice just doesnt care about team balance. What they do is just throw some unfinished products to the customers and ask us, who paid hard earned cash, to deal with it.
  • SirTerrible
    1634 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    It's not bad, it's non-existent.
  • SirSpectacle
    756 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Team balance was super easy in bf3/4 times, private servers with some simple addons made it work pretty well.
    Simple solution when we encounter a unbalanced game:

    1. Last joined player will be switched.
    2. Last died player will be switched.
    3. Player at the bottom of the board will be switched.
    4. Player who is beating the admin's team will be switched.
  • Godmodegta
    167 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I believe they only have a mid game balance, so if player are leaving , it wont balance for that, but there should Vote or automatic balance.
  • Bolly_GB
    47 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    We see a major imbalance in the team numbers because half the losing team leaves when they have been annihilated.

    The real balance needs to be done at the start of each new map and based upon overall K/D. It is the players racking up high kill streaks that cause a one-sided game.

    Introduce that balancing and then you won't see a mass exodus of the losing team to cause a player-number imbalance. 

    This should be done whilst we're waiting for the round to start rather than mid-game.
  • Godmodegta
    167 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Bolly_GB said:
    We see a major imbalance in the team numbers because half the losing team leaves when they have been annihilated.

    The real balance needs to be done at the start of each new map and based upon overall K/D. It is the players racking up high kill streaks that cause a one-sided game.

    Introduce that balancing and then you won't see a mass exodus of the losing team to cause a player-number imbalance. 

    This should be done whilst we're waiting for the round to start rather than mid-game.

    I would like see Balance base ok K/D , but times for me, I could have great k/d cause of my squad, also camper would hold higher k/d and tank player camp in back along with Bomber plane.  Maybe balance player who have higher score on playing on Objected, instead of lone wolf going killing spree or camper siting in corner.
  • Bolly_GB
    47 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Nah, I played on BattleFront on a team that was smashing the other team. I walked on to every objective and captured them all without seeing an enemy player because high kill-streak players pushed them back to their spawn and killed them there. Next round I got balanced to losing team and was unable to cap because we all died again. It is high kill players that cause a steamrolling, not objective players.
  • olavafar
    1935 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    True 'in round' balancing is really really hard to solve, there are just too many restrictions on the problem so mostly in any single game it has no solution.

    Having said that, between round balancing should be improved. Rounds should preferably start with equal number of players in each team. New players shall not be added to winning team (if they join on a squad friend in winning team, they'll just have to wait.). Squads shall be scrambled between rounds (or systematically distributed based on score in previous game). Leaving should be counted as quits in stats.
  • disposalist
    8479 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 15
    Balancing is bad.  It wasn't good in BF1 and has apparently gotten worse for BF5 (like most things).

    It was bad in BF4 - many many one-sided matches - and probably before.

    I made a bit of a study of it in BF4 and BF1 and have 'given feedback' to DICE since BF1 beta and I don't think I've ever seen official comment on it.  Even as a DICE Friend for my positive contribution to the forums (in the very first bunch of DICE Friends) I've never had any reply.  They appear to not care or, at least, not be able to do anything, so don't want to comment.  I suppose it would be pointless if they aren't willing to try for whatever reason.

    I believe the new lobby system is fundamentally flawed and that's not something they can change without huge upheaval.  That they appear to have stuck with it or even made it worse for BF5 is incredible, but I've come to believe the incredible from DICE.

    Let's say our DICE Friend-ship is strained these days...

    They need to make changes even if they risk complaint because a balanced match is absolutely crucial to a good match.  The game itself could be the most awesome thing in history and bad balance still ruins it.  Some of the problem is with players, though, as many seem happy to win an unbalanced match and DICE relies on this, even, allegedly, developing balancing algorithms that work on win-loss sequences and player retention calculations and not worrying about providing a fair match at all.

    I was not given to believing the 'conspiracy theories' that popped up when the patent for that player retention system was applied for by EA, but I'm coming to believe such things when they appear to double down on balancing in BF5.

    They should: -

    Balance teams right up until the game starts - and even during the first minute or so. They appear currently to allocate according to the lobby as it was when the last game finished and stick with that.

    Split up random squads.  To be honest I'm confused over what happens with this now.  At know at one point all squads were held together making it impossible to balance.

    Allow only switching to the smaller, losing team.  They 'fixed' this in BF5 by stopping *all* switching.  Doh.  Now you can't try and fix a badly balanced match even if you were brave enough to try.

    Return mid-round balancing.  Yes it's unpopular, but it's better than a pointless one-sided match.  Yes it is.  Yes.  It is.

    Add other balancing measures.  Behemoths in BF1 were a good idea.  Yes they were.  A bad team didn't make good use of them, but then they shouldn't hand a win to a 'bad' team.  A team that isn't bad but happened to get left behind for no good reason (like bad balancing...) *could* make use of the behemoth and turn the game around.
    In BF5 they introduced the cap speed boost.  This was actually a good idea, though it was too effective and shouldn't have been a 'hidden' feature.
    They could also increase/decrease spawn timers and other things to balance matches that 'go bad'.

    Add a /votescramble option.  Seriously, sometimes games are so badly balanced and the players know it even if the game doesn't appear to.  Knowing the next game's teams will be scrambled and re-balanced might stop people quitting and confusing the balancing even more.

    Add a /votesurrender option.  Seriously, sometimes games are so badly balanced it would be better to just end them.  Obviously a surrender should be known to cause a team scramble, otherwise people will just quit and the balance gets even more confused.

    Add some kind of deterrent for quitters.  Not for irregular quitting - we all need to quit sometimes - but for persistent quitters.

    Stop equating 'skill' in the skill balancing with mostly kills.

    Make the skill balancing more intelligent.  DICE have a mass of stats but appear to just use very recent figures.

    ... I could go on.  There's stuff I've forgotten from the many times I've discussed this before.  There's any number of measures that we all know would improve the situation and others that are worth trying, but DICE appears to be quite content with saying "It's complicated" and "working as intended" and leaving it as it is because to fix it would require too much effort or too much courage in potentially upsetting some players.
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    1262 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Teams been very lopsided last couple days for me.  Either losing all the flags which is most the time now.  Short handed.  Very seldom joining a winning team.
Sign In or Register to comment.