UPDATED: Community Broadcast - New EOR Matchmaking

Comments

  • Dal1971
    6 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Thank you for finally looking into some much needed team balancing. Hope this approachment works out great.
  • jn2004_wu22n3oa
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I'm a veteran player. Since Battlefield 1942 on pc. I've never posted anything against the game, because I'm a big fan of the franchise. But this attempt to balance the matches with the exchange of servers got very bad. Change maps at random, servers with very few players and out of the time it takes to load again. I suggest you come back soon with the old way of balancing the match so you don't lose players. It got really bad playing Breakthrough. And that's the game mode I like the most. 
  • Toxic_CA
    964 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why not just scramble teams instead of sending them to an entirely different server? When I played, i would join a server that has a map that i like coming up. Ruining my map rotation would just ruin the experience for me.

  • chilled412
    1 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    This "Matchmaking"  is an absolute shambles tbh.

     Numerous times I've joined a server intending to play through the map rotation, to then either be

    1. Shipped out to another server after one game to another lobby, playing the same map I've just played or to a completely random map I don't want play, usually with half or less the amount of players to make a full lobby.
    2. Kept in the same lobby but 60-80% of the players that were in the lobby get put into another server or don't connect, and were left with a 10v10 for example, and it then takes 5-10 mins for the server to semi fill up or not at all.
    3. After the end of the game, it goes to the end of round screen with scoreboards, summary etc, and I don't get put into another lobby and I stay at the end of round screen and I then have to leave and find another lobby, and one of the 3 points I've just made, happens all over again within a game or two usually.

    I would say 60-70% of the time the above happens.

    The other 30-40% of the time I might play the games are either

    • Over within 3-5 minutes as the teams aren't balanced
    • Balanced to Fairly balanced and the game plays as it used to before you added this "Matchmaking" update
    • After "Z" amount of games examples 1-3 occur and were back to where we started.

    Also since this "Matchmaking" update, numerous times I've looked on the "List Games" to find a game and there has been 6-8 servers playing Provence for example and another 2-4 playing Arras out of a possible say 18 servers leaving only a handful of other servers with different maps.

    The switching up lobby's and maps as well as shipping players out doesn't work, there needs to be a system where it balances the teams with the players within the server, and then trying to bring players in to also balance the teams up when players leave the server.  Since this "Matchmaking" update I haven't actually noticed to much difference in the balance of teams anyway, its definitely made the game worse and a lot more frustrating though, as I now can't just jump on and pick a game to play with good maps rotations after, without being switched to a different server, or have to find a few one, every other game or so. 

    Players should not be shipped out to completely different server with different maps and varied amount of players, as you are just ruining the experience for them.

    I get why you are trying to implement this "Matchmaking" so that games are more balanced and good squads don't just stomp every lobby, but these good squads and good players are usually the Battlefield veterans or people who play Battlefield a lot, and its a bit of a kick in the teeth for them really, and everyone in general really.

    I write all this after only playing for 2/3 hours in the last two days as well.

     


  • Noodlesocks
    3748 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I get the impression that when it shuffles players between servers, it will often spin up a new server starting from the very beginning of the rotation.
     
    Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 5v5 game mode disaster. The players have been asking for one thing for over two years now (a basic team scrambler/balancer) while Dice spends their time working on something no one is asking for.
  • lmaoItsDusey
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Idk if anybody who matters is looking at this but, fellas, all you have to do is balance the 2 teams IN the lobby after a game- no shipping everybody off to new lobbies, just keep everybody in the lobby but rebalance the teams- you can literally do a random squad scrambler or have some fancy algorithm, either one is better than sending everybody off to new servers. I promise you this system as it is now would be a disaster to have for BF6, everybody would be losing their mind over this great value SBMM.
  • sapia_gria
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dice has ruined the game with this stupid rotation,i can't understand the thinking of dice.Im thinking of uninstall it
  • Jarp75
    91 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This and other SBMM mechanics will be the final nail in the coffin for Battlefield. It just ruined the COD franchise and you guys at DICE think it´s a good idea to introduce that into Battlefield? Good luck with that approach, it will miserably fail in BF6. If EA thinks that this will boost sales numbers they are not very clever. The already in BF existing mechanics for leveling the playing field like automatically toning down aim assist or increasing latency are already unbearable at times (at least I´m experiencing this for a long time now). SBMM in what form ever will ruin BF games completely. Please stop these plans immeadiately.
  • TEIKI_KIHON
    1 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dear PartWelsh.

    Excuse me for a long sentence.
    This is a translation from Japanese to English with google translate. I'm sorry if it's hard to read.
    Thank you for the pilot implementation.
    I am very pleased to make this progress toward the future.

    This implementation is very effective in overcoming the following situations.
    - Clan and friends gather in one team to continue the one-sided game (including team movement using the friend function)
    - I'm sick of continuing a one-sided game with the same allies and enemies (especially those who don't PTFO) (same for both winners and losers)
    - It takes time and effort to find a server that is playing a competitive game to solve the above.

    It's a big change compared to the situation where nothing is done.
    It is likely that it is not the PTFE player who completely disagrees with this.

    However, this implementation looks a bit complicated.
    The balancer that a veteran player who pursues PTFO thinks is very simple.

    If you don't have the ability to balance the team as well as replace the servers, you will end up making a one-sided game.
    Higher priority is the ability to balance the team.

    Also, the current score alone is not enough to evaluate players when balancing a team.
    Because the scoring system is still incomplete at this point.

    It's great to see developers with the slogan PTFO, but at this point I'm a little skeptical.
    The good thing about BF is that there are many things that can contribute to victory other than killing as well as killing.

    We will propose not only this improvement request but also a little future story.



    <(Supplement) Uncertain points at this time>
     - Details of judgment conditions for good balance
     - If you continue on the same server, is there a team shuffle according to the balance of the team, and if so, what is the shuffle standard?
     - Is the server to skip to random? Or is it supposed to gather in cormorants with the same high ranks like the rank system?
     - Is the area fixed? I would like to move within the conditions for displaying the server list.
       Especially in North America, there are many players playing from other regions, and the ping value changes greatly between the west coast and the east coast, so I would like you to divide the region between the west coast and the east coast.


    <(Premise) Player qualities>
    Breaking down the player's qualities consists of multiplying skill and morals.

    Skill is a simple fighting power.

    Moral is the power that can contribute to the victory of the team other than the battle.
     - Understand the purpose of the game and follow the rules
     - Being able to select the military department according to the situation
     - Give an advantage to allies
    And so on.

    Player qualities can be classified into the following four.
    1.High PTFO player (HighMoral * HighSkill)
        Victory is the highest priority, and the fighting power is high. In order to win, do something that has a high influence depending on the situation.
        Depending on the situation, I am willing to lose my score and personal record
    2.PTFO player (HighMoral * LowSkill)
        I will do my best to contribute to my allies even if my fighting power is low
    3.CoDkids (LowMoral * HighSkill)
        Scores and personal achievements are prioritized over victory
        Team deathmatch in an object game
    4.Noob (LowMoral * LowSkill)
        Low fighting power and low understanding of victory conditions and system

    The higher you go, the more you will feel disadvantaged by the players below.
    Especially if the team balance is bad.
    If the morals are low, the Fure squad will gather in one team or create a one-sided game.
    BFV has a high kill score, and even CoDkids will get a high score just thinking about killing in a lot of people rather than playing an object game.
    I think it's a good point of BF, but even such a player feels like playing an object game.
    The disadvantage of allies will be reduced only if there are many times in the game where important bases can be killed.
    It is impossible to implement the score perfectly. (There is a lot of room for improvement, so I will tell you this time)

    A true PTFO player is one with high skill and morals.
    Players with different morals will have a relatively large number of people who can enjoy gathering on different servers as much as possible.
    If your morals are low, you won't notice your condition or your good or bad play.
    If the team balance is at a level where the outcome is determined by the ratio of players who are not involved in the object, no matter how much the ultimate PTFE player can win, it is just a waste of time.

    Many beginners and intermediates do not belong to the community and cannot obtain information.
    We need a way for them to go from low morals to high morals.
    Take as little time as possible.
    For example, this exam isn't notified in-game, so ordinary people don't know what's happening and they're not sure. I'm confused.


    <Specific repair details (hope for simple implementation)>
     - Team shuffle will be performed at the end of each match according to the balance of both teams on the server.
     - Shuffle criteria are evaluated in the order of PTFO score (* described later) and total score, SPM, K / D, KPM in this match.
     - Squad shuffle on / off is implemented in the community game
     - No need to move to another server.


    <What is PTFO score?>
    BFV scores too high on kills.
    There are many players who get a high score and misunderstand just by doing a team deathmatch in an object game.
    There are many cases where even a good play to win is not reflected correctly in the score.
    The good point (unique point) of BF is that there are many things that can contribute to victory other than killing as well as killing.
    I want you to add the PTFO score according to the PTFO play to the score.

    Below is an example of PTFO play.
     - If a friendly player commits a kill streak, steals an object, or defends, the contribution of the friendly player who provided support, revival, supply, or respawn to that player should be evaluated more.
     - Not only reducing the base gauge, but also the time it takes to react is a contribution.
     - Kills and support from inside the base, not from outside the base, have a higher degree of contribution.
     - The contribution of securing team member respawns in transport vehicles is high.
     - The score for defense and capture at the terminal base is low.
     - The score and individual results are higher for players who are doing team deathmatch in attrition warfare on the front line than for players who are trying to break through another route or base by using their wits depending on the situation when the front line is rigid. There are many.
     - The contribution of not only the player who directly destroyed the vehicle but also the player who caused damage before that is high.
     - In many cases, continuing recovery and resuscitation with a medical pack will contribute to victory rather than a player who is just shooting when the front is stiff.
     - In a transport vehicle rather than a player who is just shooting when the front is rigid
     - The contribution of the player who takes the risk and goes forward is high. It's extreme, but you can make a contribution just by walking and attracting the enemy's line of sight and attention.
     - Attacking and defending remote bases with as few people as possible to attract multiple enemies and take time and strength is a high contribution.
     - Selecting a wait and respawning a squad member without attacking to avoid annihilation of the squad has a high degree of contribution.
     - The contribution is higher if you not only attack the base and move, but also defend well.
     - A player who can grasp the situation according to various situations, make appropriate decisions, and execute with high influence has a high degree of contribution.
     - Being able to cover allies as quickly as possible has a high degree of contribution. Making an ally's death into your own personal interest without a cover is a low contribution.
     - Going to the next important base or clearing the surroundings of the base before getting points to seize the base has a high degree of contribution.
     - If you play in the spirit of PTFO, even walking or even dying can contribute to victory.
     - Players who can give information and advantages to allies other than killing, not just killing, have a high degree of contribution.
     - The contribution is high if you do not stay in the same place or with multiple people more than necessary.
     - Players who increase what they can do to make it easier for their allies have a high degree of contribution.
     - The contribution is higher if you can defeat a large number with a small number than if you defeat a small number with a large number rather than solidifying the front with a large number.
     - Players who understand that allies are gathering too much in one place and immediately welcome them to another place have a high degree of contribution.
     - Players whose base gauge responds immediately to the enemy and heads for it have a high degree of contribution.
     - The contribution is not high even if you kill using the death or disadvantage of your allies.
     - Simple number of kills is not important. It's important to increase the number of meaningful kills.
     - There are some ways of fighting that give an advantage to allies and some that give disadvantages to allies.
     - You should reflect everything in your score at a fixed rate for the PTFO play that created your ally's kill streak or PTFO streak.

    Some are abstract, but there are many others, and on the contrary, there are many plays that are detrimental to allies.
    It explains that there are many things where the contribution to winning is not proportional to the score.


    <Implementation in the next work (a little future story)>
    If you really want PTFO, you need the following implementation.
     - Increase the reflection of contributions to team victory in the score.
     - From now on, not only skills but also morals will be improved with the game system (tutorial, hint system, score reflection, etc.)

    It may be a tough word, but what makes me feel disadvantageous is that it is a half-finished system.

    I understand that it is impossible to implement the score perfectly in the system.
    However, I believe it is possible to make a good system that reflects the above as much as possible.

    It may be one way to display the PTFO score separately from the normal score on the scoreboard.
    Rabbits Now, the scores of players who play team deathmatches in object games are too high.
    It is a common phrase for these non-PTFO players to say, "Does it contribute to victory because of its high score?"
    In BFV, the pursuit of winning often results in lower scores and personal achievements.
    Sometimes I wonder if PTFO is really a slogan.
    Rethink what is BF's unique fun.
    I believe in the developer who made a great game called BF.

    Also, if you stick to the squad system and don't dismiss your squad, you should implement tutorials and tips deeper in the game.



    Thank you for reading the long text.
  • RipGroove99
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Pros of the new balancer:

    None.

    Cons of the new balancer:

    1. You can't settle into a server knowing exactly what map rotation you will be playing for the next few hours.

    2. You end up playing a completely random map rotation, sometimes even playing the same map twice.

    3. You can't play with the same big group of people in a server for multiple games in a row so you loose all the comradery and rivalry that goes along with that.

    4. The whole experience now has no structure and after each round you feel like you are just leaving the server and hitting a big 'random' button to decide what map/server you are going to play next. If instead of adding this new 'balancer' if DICE had literally added that aforementioned 'random' button, how many people would have pressed it after EVERY single round? None, that's how many. But alas now it's being pressed for us at the end of every around whether we like it or not.
  • RipGroove99
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Driveways wrote: »
    How do players who do not use auto-matchmaking opt out of the system?

    You can't, that's what makes this system awful.
  • RipGroove99
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @PartWelsh  So what if you hop into a server looking forward to the next map or two coming up and like where you are in the rotation?  Couldn't this basically take away freedom to play the maps you want when you want?  Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds like it sends you to another server and is not in-server balancing.

    That's right, you can no longer play in just one sever and experience the full map rotation. Instead at the end of the round you just get randomly switched to a random server which could be playing any map at all, even the same map you were just playing. So hours and hours could go by before you get to play your favourite maps. What an awful feature this is. TEAM balance I agree with, SERVER balancer makes absolutely no sense and ruins all consistency you had when you could join a server and stay there.
  • RipGroove99
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    nerugui20 wrote: »
    Please Kill Switch this and then delete the code when you are done.Put a "team switch" button and call it a day.Being able to play a continuous and non-repeating rotation of known maps is a great feature for people wanting to play for a bunch of hours.  This absolutely ruins it.

    Agreed.
  • RipGroove99
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    OskooI_007 wrote: »
    Can't team stack more than 4 players, great news! I like MM is squad based. I am concerned about not being able to play the maps I want though...

    Big concern yes, now you have no choice, you will simply play a random map after each round with a new set of random people.
  • RipGroove99
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2020
    So, while I appreciate the effort - this will hurt groups of friends, platoons, clans and guilds - whatever you want to call them - this will hurt them. So what if I have 6 or so friends who I want to play Battlefield with... 1 1/2 squads. Now one of the squads does very well, they play the game tactically.. ptfo as one would say and then next round they are forced to leave. Ok, so now that squad can either try and get back into the same server on the same side as their friends or the 1/2 squad can join them until the end of the next round where it'll probably happen again.

    For a community that DICE likes to say is the 'Best Community In the World' you guys sure like to do alot of anti community things.

    Full disclosure - I am a leader in Clan AOD. Because of the lack of community tools in this game like rental servers with multiple Admins, a persistent ban list and the ability to team switch people when the server is unbalanced we are forced to play on DICE servers as a clan. We actively balance these servers on our own. We leave the server and sit in queue to parse out the sides so we don't have too many of us on one side. We are doing the best we can as a clan in this game given the poor tools we have been given. This system is a full frontal slap to the face to us and groups like ours. So if we all want to play together as a clan now we also need to worry about being balanced out of the server along with our inability to team switch when things get too unbalanced during the game and having to deal with a bad friend join system in Origin. We now get to worry about being pulled out of the server our friends are playing on if we do too well. We now get to look forward to sitting in queue even MORE now just to play with with our friends.

    DICE - we appreciate the effort but this as they say isn't it. Give us the abily to team switch like we could in BF1/BFV at the bare minimum - good players are better at this than you give them credit for. Playing on all capped servers is beat. Most players want the ability to balance when things get bad.

    I implore you to go a different route here - ideas like this are what is going to kill off the few remaining Battlefield micro communities.

    I was an Admin on some very popular servers on BF3 & BF4 (BIA) and I agree completely, DICE are making it so hard to actually have a community in BFV, in fact we don't even have a clan anymore because the tools just are not there to make it viable. It really does seem like DICE just want a solo arcade server hopping lone wolf experience for BF now. It makes absolutely zero sense.

    If this is the future of the BF franchise then you can count me out once and for all. I honestly thought BF6 was going to go back to the rent a server thing with all the tools needed to create clean servers for clans and the whole community yet this recent move has shown that DICE really are not on the same page as us lot and wants to take it in a different direction completely. The best experiences were on the BF3 & 4 servers that had the same regular players and were kept clean, there was a real community feeling and spirit about them and everyone got to know eachother and learn from eachother and you knew exactly where to go to find all your friends.
  • Milica_ss
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    After giving this balancing system another day, I have to say this might be the most frustrating update I've ever experienced so much so that it even trumps the dreaded TTK update.

    This update puts the final nail in the coffin of whatever little enjoyment there was left after DICE massacred this installment beyond recognition of this once great franchise.
    It further destroys already non-existent communities, but more importantly now it kills servers, it kills progression through the rotation, it kills the flow of alternating attack and defense.
    I also want the game to follow the map rotation I joined for, and I simply cannot do that anymore, the only mode that I play is now completely ruined with another band-aid solution from DICE that didn't tackle the original problem whatsoever but only added additional side effects.
    Last night I was put on the attacking side 3 times in a row, once it loaded for the third time I was the only guy in my team and there were 8 guys in the enemy team, so we waited for around a minute and instead of the server filling up everyone from the enemy team left one by one until I was the last player on the server...

    First thing that came to mind as to why would you implement this a year and a half after officially abandoning the game is that you're probably testing this system for the upcoming Battlefield in 2021.
    If this is all you could come up with with all the backlash you received in the last 2 years and still haven't learned anything from it, then I'll let you in on a little secret; your next game is going to be another failure and a waste of time just like BFV because you never listen but instead you try to copy the latest trends in games that have nothing to do with Battlefield (like CoD and Battle Royales) and bring it to a player base that has no interest in those games. SBMM does NOT belong in Battlefield.
    When you first killed communities, that was the beginning of the end for this game. Almost all servers used to be community ran in previous games, now all you can do is join a random soulless DICE server #43841 and play with random people you'll only ever see once.
    I suggest DICE team spin up a round of their own game from a decade ago and see how your games functioned back then and maybe you'll learn how to save this franchise.
    It has become obvious that DICE has simply lost the knowledge and soul to continue developing these games and forgot what made Battlefield unique.
    Next year you'll have one final chance to stop the death spiral of Battlefield. If the next game is not heavily based around communities and DICE listening to their player base, there won't be another Battlefield game.


  • RipGroove99
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2020
    After giving this balancing system another day, I have to say this
    might be the most frustrating update I've ever experienced so much so
    that it even trumps the dreaded TTK update.
    This
    update puts the final nail in the coffin of whatever little enjoyment
    there was left after DICE massacred this installment beyond recognition
    of this once great franchise.It further destroys already non-existent communities, but more importantly now it kills servers, it kills progression through the rotation,
    it kills the flow of alternating attack and defense.
    I
    also want the game to follow the map rotation I joined for, and I
    simply cannot do that anymore, the only mode that I play is now
    completely ruined with another band-aid solution from DICE that didn't
    tackle the original problem whatsoever but only added additional side
    effects.Last
    night I was put on the attacking side 3 times in a row, once it loaded
    for the third time I was the only guy in my team and there were 8 guys in the enemy team, so we waited for around a minute and instead of the server filling up everyone from the enemy team left one by one until I was the last player on the server...

    First
    thing that came to mind as to why would you implement this a year and a half
    after officially abandoning the game is that you're probably testing
    this system for the upcoming Battlefield in 2021.If this is
    all you could come up with with all the backlash you received in the
    last 2 years and still haven't learned anything from it, then I'll let
    you in on a little secret; your next game is going to be another failure and a
    waste of time just like BFV because you never listen but instead you
    try to copy the latest trends in games that have nothing to do with
    Battlefield (like CoD and Battle Royales) and bring it to a player base
    that has no interest in those games. SBMM does NOT belong in Battlefield.When you first killed communities, that was the beginning of the end for this game. Almost all servers used to be community ran in previous games, now all you can do is join a random soulless DICE server #43841 and play with random people you'll only ever see once.I suggest DICE team spin up a round of their own game from a decade ago and see how your games functioned back then and maybe you'll learn how to save this franchise.
    It
    has become obvious that DICE has simply lost the knowledge and soul to
    continue developing these games and forgot what made Battlefield
    unique.Next year you'll have one final chance to stop the death spiral of Battlefield. If the next game is not heavily based around communities and DICE listening to their player base, there won't be another Battlefield game.

    100% agree. And yes it's extremely worrying that this is clearly a test platform for this function ready for BF6.
  • G0aPsnpgDinryrn
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2020
    Been playing BF from 1942 straight to BFV.  Part of the joy is that you can play the maps you like and avoid the once you don't. So there are a few maps rotations together that are nice. This whole system kills that joy. It's awful. please kill switch it. Better spent time on anti cheating stuff, or give us vote kick, so we can deal with em ourselves. And please please please kill switch it and don't let it come back in BF6. 
  • G0aPsnpgDinryrn
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2020
    It is rubish, I even get dumped in servers that are nearly empty  or it's keeps on the loading screen for the next map whatever that map is. This things is killing for breakthrough.  It's really breaks BFV. It's worse than the TTK disaster.
    Post edited by G0aPsnpgDinryrn on
  • RipGroove99
    275 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Been playing BF from 1942 straight to BFV.  Part of the joy is that you can play the maps you like and avoid the once you don't. So there are a few maps rotations together that are nice. This whole system kills that joy. It's awful. please kill switch it. Better spent time on anti cheating stuff, or give us vote kick, so we can deal with em ourselves. And please please please kill switch it and don't let it come back in BF6. 

    Agreed
Sign In or Register to comment.