Team balancing

«1
MrSlip310
1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
Anyone else think it’s ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that we get switched to the other team even at the end of the round and can’t switch back!? Ending up on the losing team!? It says it’s too close to the end yet it does it automatically if we die! Dice needs to get rid of it! It’s ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ annoying!

Comments

  • disposalist
    8916 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I'd love to see more mid-round balancing. It hardly ever happens and games are so often unbalanced.

    Sure, it occasionally does something annoying, but balance is more important than infrequent mistakes.
  • Titan_Awaken
    1183 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    This is the thing about balancing: 

    1. People complain about one-sided matches and stomps being too common so they ask DICE to fix the balancing. Fair enough.
    2. DICE attempts to fix (or at least alleviate) the balancing issue by adding a mid-round autobalancer to the game.
    3. People complain when they get switched for seemingly no reason and ask for the balancer to be removed.
    4. Go back to 1.

    So pick your poison: Better balancing at the cost of a lower Win % or a higher Win % at the cost of more frequent stomps?
  • Ronin9572
    1215 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The one thing that really bugs me about the balancing is when it happens towards the end of the round. When I'm on the side winning and doing well. So when I try to go back to the side I was on I can't because it's too late in the round or teams are filled. Being on the side getting stomped is never fun I'll admit. I'll go a round or two like that than find another server if I can.
  • ElliotLH
    9349 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Can't say it's ever bothered me. The balancer will move people who have recently joined, aren't in a squad or are towards the bottom of the scoreboard before anyone else. It's quite rare to be moved otherwise.
  • PackersDK
    872 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    This is the thing about balancing: 

    1. People complain about one-sided matches and stomps being too common so they ask DICE to fix the balancing. Fair enough.
    2. DICE attempts to fix (or at least alleviate) the balancing issue by adding a mid-round autobalancer to the game.
    3. People complain when they get switched for seemingly no reason and ask for the balancer to be removed.
    4. Go back to 1.

    So pick your poison: Better balancing at the cost of a lower Win % or a higher Win % at the cost of more frequent stomps?

    I don’t see on your list the delight of being forced team-switched to the losing side on Campaign Ops, with 50 tickets left of the game. Thus missing the Victory multiplier and not getting the 25,000 points, and forcing you to join the Ops again. 

    This happens on a regular basis. If you try switching yourself at that point in the game it’s “too close to the end of round” but the game doesn’t mind screwing you over. 

    There’s no perfect solution, and Dice can’t avoid upsetting some, I agree with that. But the Campaign Ops switch irks me :-D 

    It is not “mid round” and it has some tiresome consequences.
  • disposalist
    8916 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Ronin9572 said:
    The one thing that really bugs me about the balancing is when it happens towards the end of the round. When I'm on the side winning and doing well. So when I try to go back to the side I was on I can't because it's too late in the round or teams are filled. Being on the side getting stomped is never fun I'll admit. I'll go a round or two like that than find another server if I can.
    Well, yeah, it's pointless balancing near the end. If it's become one-sided they may as well just let it end quickly.

    It's only worth balancing if the game is still close.

    What they *really* need(ed) to do is balance properly *at the start* not begin matches with 20 150s on one side and 1 on the other and/or with 30 players on one side and 20 on the other.

    And it is utterly *nuts* that you can ever swap to the winning side and that it often continues to bring new players in *on the winning/bigger side*.

    I *love* BF1 but there are some *glaring* problems and short-comings with the lobby and balancing system they never admit to never mind fixed.
  • Titan_Awaken
    1183 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    PackersDK said:
    This is the thing about balancing: 

    1. People complain about one-sided matches and stomps being too common so they ask DICE to fix the balancing. Fair enough.
    2. DICE attempts to fix (or at least alleviate) the balancing issue by adding a mid-round autobalancer to the game.
    3. People complain when they get switched for seemingly no reason and ask for the balancer to be removed.
    4. Go back to 1.

    So pick your poison: Better balancing at the cost of a lower Win % or a higher Win % at the cost of more frequent stomps?

    I don’t see on your list the delight of being forced team-switched to the losing side on Campaign Ops, with 50 tickets left of the game. Thus missing the Victory multiplier and not getting the 25,000 points, and forcing you to join the Ops again. 

    This happens on a regular basis. If you try switching yourself at that point in the game it’s “too close to the end of round” but the game doesn’t mind screwing you over. 

    There’s no perfect solution, and Dice can’t avoid upsetting some, I agree with that. But the Campaign Ops switch irks me :-D 

    It is not “mid round” and it has some tiresome consequences.
    I mentioned it implicitly. I said "DICE attempts to fix (or at least alleviate)" which means that the implementation isn't perfect, hence why I used the word "attempt" and "alleviate" instead of straight up saying "DICE fixed the balancing issue...". 

    Yes it's flawed. However, I genuinely believe that DICE was trying to fix the balancing problem with the resources they had.
  • PackersDK
    872 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited May 28
    PackersDK said:
    This is the thing about balancing: 

    1. People complain about one-sided matches and stomps being too common so they ask DICE to fix the balancing. Fair enough.
    2. DICE attempts to fix (or at least alleviate) the balancing issue by adding a mid-round autobalancer to the game.
    3. People complain when they get switched for seemingly no reason and ask for the balancer to be removed.
    4. Go back to 1.

    So pick your poison: Better balancing at the cost of a lower Win % or a higher Win % at the cost of more frequent stomps?

    I don’t see on your list the delight of being forced team-switched to the losing side on Campaign Ops, with 50 tickets left of the game. Thus missing the Victory multiplier and not getting the 25,000 points, and forcing you to join the Ops again. 

    This happens on a regular basis. If you try switching yourself at that point in the game it’s “too close to the end of round” but the game doesn’t mind screwing you over. 

    There’s no perfect solution, and Dice can’t avoid upsetting some, I agree with that. But the Campaign Ops switch irks me :-D 

    It is not “mid round” and it has some tiresome consequences.
    I mentioned it implicitly. I said "DICE attempts to fix (or at least alleviate)" which means that the implementation isn't perfect, hence why I used the word "attempt" and "alleviate" instead of straight up saying "DICE fixed the balancing issue...". 

    Yes it's flawed. However, I genuinely believe that DICE was trying to fix the balancing problem with the resources they had.

    You leave out the “mid-round balancer” part at the end of your sentence when quoting yourself. That’s not un-important since my issue is getting switched 2 minuttes before the game ends.

    As I said, 50 tickets left is not “mid-round”. 

    I write there’s no perfect solution, so we agree on that. It’s the last minut switching where I think Dice drops the ball. And I just thought it should be on your list. 
  • Forkbeard84
    1833 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 28
    A big problem is they dont balance at the beginning of a game. I was in an Op tonight that started with 20 on one side and 27 on the other side. The smaller team was defending and lost the first two flags before the teams evened out.

    It should be a relatively easy program to make sure the starting numbers on each team are close to even.

    This uneven start problem by itself is indicative of poor programming.
  • Getier
    229 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Team balancing has always been the sadest part about bf1 and Dice never managed to get a decent algorithm in place.
  • Ronin9572
    1215 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    PackersDK wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You leave out the “mid-round balancer” part at the end of your sentence when quoting yourself. That’s not un-important since my issue is getting switched 2 minuttes before the game ends.

    As I said, 50 tickets left is not “mid-round”. 

    I write there’s no perfect solution, so we agree on that. It’s the last minut switching where I think Dice drops the ball. And I just thought it should be on your list. 

    I play mostly Op's and this happens alot. Not sure if it happens for other game modes like Conquest.
  • Ronin9572
    1215 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited May 28
    ElliotLH wrote: »
    Can't say it's ever bothered me. The balancer will move people who have recently joined, aren't in a squad or are towards the bottom of the scoreboard before anyone else. It's quite rare to be moved otherwise.

    While everything you mentioned will usually end in a team switch. But I've had times on my 2nd or 3rd map rotation, top 10, and in a full squad and it still happens on Operations.
    Post edited by Ronin9572 on
  • ElliotLH
    9349 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Ronin9572 wrote: »
    ElliotLH wrote: »
    Can't say it's ever bothered me. The balancer will move people who have recently joined, aren't in a squad or are towards the bottom of the scoreboard before anyone else. It's quite rare to be moved otherwise.

    Whole everything you mentioned will usually end in a team switch. But I've had times on my 2nd or 3rd map rotation, top 10, and in a full squad and it still happens on Operations.

    Yeah it can indeed happen, I've experienced it myself in the past. It's just much less likely thankfully. I try to see it as an incentive to play well, and shrug it off if I still get moved.
  • Colt6940H
    27 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I often wonder when this happens to me towards the end of the game if some people are quitting the game because they don’t want a loss on their record; and, the system is pulling people from the winning side to fill their slots. If you’ve been busting your ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ off for your squad / team the whole game and suddenly towards the end you’re switched to the other side it’s kinda like you’re getting screwed.

    I’ve also started off with a poor performing team and noticed that the team numbers dwindle the closer we get to the end. Like rats leaving a sinking ship. The players that are working hard on the losing side are in an impossible situation.

  • BadWellzy89
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Colt6940H wrote: »
    I often wonder when this happens to me towards the end of the game if some people are quitting the game because they don’t want a loss on their record; and, the system is pulling people from the winning side to fill their slots. If you’ve been busting your ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ off for your squad / team the whole game and suddenly towards the end you’re switched to the other side it’s kinda like you’re getting screwed.

    I’ve also started off with a poor performing team and noticed that the team numbers dwindle the closer we get to the end. Like rats leaving a sinking ship. The players that are working hard on the losing side are in an impossible situation.

    Thats why if I'm at the top of my teams scoreboard and the team is rubbish and full of braindead noobs I'll switch or sit in the pause menu until I can switch. I ain't putting in a good show for these idiots to just give away sector after sector with no defense at all or fail to push on a point.
  • WetFishDB
    2310 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Colt6940H said:
    I often wonder when this happens to me towards the end of the game if some people are quitting the game because they don’t want a loss on their record; and, the system is pulling people from the winning side to fill their slots. If you’ve been busting your ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ off for your squad / team the whole game and suddenly towards the end you’re switched to the other side it’s kinda like you’re getting screwed.

    I’ve also started off with a poor performing team and noticed that the team numbers dwindle the closer we get to the end. Like rats leaving a sinking ship. The players that are working hard on the losing side are in an impossible situation.

    That's EXACTLY why it happens at the end of the game.  Too many people quit either because they want to protect stats, or people who just aren't good enough to pull their weight against the opposition and are finding that round not very enjoyable etc.  

    That said, IIRC the balancer prioritises swapping people who haven't been in the game as long, haven't contributed as much to the win, or aren't in squads.  It's highly unlikely someone busting their **** off the whole game with their squad will get switched - I never have been switched when I've been in the round from the beginning, and I've played over 6,000 rounds now.
  • CSO7777
    1762 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Dice are working on a team-balancer in BFV, as this is server-side, it would be nice if it was added to the BF1 servers as well (which is probably not gonna happen).

    Anything that improves balance in BF1 is welcome (even just small improvements).

    I "hate" a lot of things in BF1, but team-balancing is what really makes the game awful to play. Finding balanced servers can be pretty hard.

    But unfortunately it's probably also a matter of game-design. The map-design (too many large open areas), the vehicle/infantry-balance as well as things like elites makes it too easy for a team with good players to stomp a team of 'not-so-good' players.

    If the game at least scrambled squads between rounds it would become much better than now. One thing is getting stomped, but getting stomped in match after match is really awful.
  • PackersDK
    872 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited May 30
    A big problem is they dont balance at the beginning of a game. I was in an Op tonight that started with 20 on one side and 27 on the other side. The smaller team was defending and lost the first two flags before the teams evened out.

    It should be a relatively easy program to make sure the starting numbers on each team are close to even.

    This uneven start problem by itself is indicative of poor programming.
    This is one of the things that annoy me the most about balancing, the uneven starts. 

    On Operations attackers are the ones with the difficult job ahead. They need to push and take casualties to win. Why on Earth do Ops games then start 20-25 in defenses advantage?? And if you sit in the Score screen you’ll see players added to defense well before attack is filled up. I don’t get the logic of that, if there are any. 
  • WetFishDB
    2310 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    PackersDK wrote: »
    (Quote)
    This is one of the things that annoy me the most about balancing, the uneven starts. 

    On Operations attackers are the ones with the difficult job ahead. They need to push and take casualties to win. Why on Earth do Ops games then start 20-25 in defenses advantage?? And if you sit in the Score screen you’ll see players added to defense well before attack is filled up. I don’t get the logic of that, if there are any. 

    Completely agree. Mid round or end of round with leavers is different, as you can’t predict who will leave and when etc, But just delay the start until the teams are even shouldn’t be that hard.
  • Forkbeard84
    1833 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    PackersDK wrote: »
    (Quote)
    This is one of the things that annoy me the most about balancing, the uneven starts. 

    On Operations attackers are the ones with the difficult job ahead. They need to push and take casualties to win. Why on Earth do Ops games then start 20-25 in defenses advantage?? And if you sit in the Score screen you’ll see players added to defense well before attack is filled up. I don’t get the logic of that, if there are any. 

    Yeah it would seem an easy program to make sure the teams start with even numbers.

    And sometimes you’ll see pretty uneven numbers mid or late round. If one team is smaller then at least dont let the bigger team continue growing until the smaller team evens out. The software should handle this better. I dont know if they just tried to get too fancy with their algorithms or what. Its not rocket science.
Sign In or Register to comment.