UPDATED: Community Broadcast - New EOR Matchmaking

Comments

  • RipGroove99
    274 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Before you even consider trying some SBMM type system lets work on actually just trying to get balance right within a server. We aren't even at the point where I am asking for balance from a skill perspective, given you guys haven't got down having a equal number of players on each team. DICE are trying to jump to the final boss before even beating the first mission

    Exactly.
  • AmosBurton_GER
    948 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    oqpasaqpo wrote: »
    My opinion is that dice wants to shut down bf5 because they don't want to deal with cheats and balance. I heard information that bf6 is coming. So in bf6 they will correct the stupid mistakes from bf5.my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. And The last two nights I can't find EU servers. There is no breakthrough at all. Disaster

    I usually do not follow "conspiracy theories". But this is a healthy one. Everything Dice did with that last months makes things worse or at least does not improve anything.
    Probability theory says that they should get at least something right by pure coincidence, but they don't.
  • RipGroove99
    274 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Well it seems this awful matchmaking mechanic has been killswitched (for now at least) so if anyone from DICE is actually reading this, thank you. And please do NOT add this to BF6, at least without giving people the option to opt out of it.
  • phunkynugz
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Wow petewelsh is claiming this test was partially successful!? Ofcourse lobbies were more balanced after you kicked all the good players.... Dice wants sbmm, its super obvious reading petes post. Sbmm in casual sucks. Punish good players for having a good round.

    Battlefield players love server browser, we love map rotation, we love having rematches. Hard NO this test was a massive failure
  • RipGroove99
    274 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    phunkynugz wrote: »
    Wow petewelsh is claiming this test was partially successful!? Ofcourse lobbies were more balanced after you kicked all the good players.... Dice wants sbmm, its super obvious reading petes post. Sbmm in casual sucks. Punish good players for having a good round.

    Battlefield players love server browser, we love map rotation, we love having rematches. Hard NO this test was a massive failure

    Seriously!!!!! That can not be good news.
  • Noodlesocks
    3740 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Wow petewelsh is claiming this test was partially successful!? Ofcourse lobbies were more balanced after you kicked all the good players.... Dice wants sbmm, its super obvious reading petes post. Sbmm in casual sucks. Punish good players for having a good round.

    Battlefield players love server browser, we love map rotation, we love having rematches. Hard NO this test was a massive failure

    It often feels as though are simply throwing features at their games simply because it's what everyone else is doing with their games without consideration taken in regards to whether or not it is appropriate for Battlefield. It's been a problem with Dice Sweden for years now. They want the bells and they want the whistles. They want to do things other modern games are doing but they refuse to put in the work to create a viable base product to build all these modern features on top of. They have built a volatile game engine with a barely functioning network infrastructure and despite several games with the same, recurring issues over the past decade they have continuously ignored the much needed maintenance and improvements to the foundations of the game and engine in favour of entertaining their more design oriented whimsy.

  • VME23
    9 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Wow petewelsh is claiming this test was partially successful!? Ofcourse lobbies were more balanced after you kicked all the good players.... Dice wants sbmm, its super obvious reading petes post. Sbmm in casual sucks. Punish good players for having a good round.

    Battlefield players love server browser, we love map rotation, we love having rematches. Hard NO this test was a massive failure

    It often feels as though are simply throwing features at their games simply because it's what everyone else is doing with their games without consideration taken in regards to whether or not it is appropriate for Battlefield. It's been a problem with Dice Sweden for years now. They want the bells and they want the whistles. They want to do things other modern games are doing but they refuse to put in the work to create a viable base product to build all these modern features on top of. They have built a volatile game engine with a barely functioning network infrastructure and despite several games with the same, recurring issues over the past decade they have continuously ignored the much needed maintenance and improvements to the foundations of the game and engine in favour of entertaining their more design oriented whimsy.

    Stop bashing the engine. Frostbite is one of the best game engine on the market for First Person Shooter games. I don't need to prove that because everyone knows it. This engine pushed me to spend over €5000 to upgrade my rig and I don't regret any cent spent. Battlefield on 'Ultra' with an 1440p 165Hz IPS monitor (with G-Sync enabled) and a Virtual Surround 7.1 DAC + a good pair of headsets is a truly amazing & immersive experience where I couldn't feel it in any other FPS games.

    Battlefield servers are being hosted in AWS Cloud and I don't know what 'network infrastructure' issues are occurring for you, I don't have any. Where I live we have a very good internet connection and me personally I have two internet subscriptions from two different ISPs - the first one is 1 GBPS connection and the second one is 500 MBPS connection. Both are FTTH connections and my router is supporting Dual WAN and Link Aggregation.

    Anyway, what I really want is to see what's DICE's vision for the next Battlefield title. I hate when the community is criticizing their vision because that could have a big impact and mess up with their initial design - I don't want the next Battlefield title to be a mediocre game. This isn't a free Open Source game where everyone can contribute with any idiotic idea.
    What's most important for me is to understand what new features are being added to the game and what are their plans for supporting it in the long run. (I would like the Premium Pass to be an option for me - I hate the 'Game as A Service' model)

    Sorry for off-topic.
  • RipGroove99
    274 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2020
    Technically speaking BFV is amazing because of the engine, not many other games even come close. I never really played much BF1 but went back on it today and the map design and detail and sound is much better than BFV. I've got a dedicated sound card with 150ohm studio quality headphones and it sounds noticeably better than BFV. And Argonne Forest is a masterpiece, it looks amazing yet still returns high FPS on Ultra. Think I'll be playing a lot more of it for a while. Really miss not having manual lean though.
    Post edited by RipGroove99 on
  • Noodlesocks
    3740 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VME23 said:
    Wow petewelsh is claiming this test was partially successful!? Ofcourse lobbies were more balanced after you kicked all the good players.... Dice wants sbmm, its super obvious reading petes post. Sbmm in casual sucks. Punish good players for having a good round.

    Battlefield players love server browser, we love map rotation, we love having rematches. Hard NO this test was a massive failure

    It often feels as though are simply throwing features at their games simply because it's what everyone else is doing with their games without consideration taken in regards to whether or not it is appropriate for Battlefield. It's been a problem with Dice Sweden for years now. They want the bells and they want the whistles. They want to do things other modern games are doing but they refuse to put in the work to create a viable base product to build all these modern features on top of. They have built a volatile game engine with a barely functioning network infrastructure and despite several games with the same, recurring issues over the past decade they have continuously ignored the much needed maintenance and improvements to the foundations of the game and engine in favour of entertaining their more design oriented whimsy.

    Stop bashing the engine. Frostbite is one of the best game engine on the market for First Person Shooter games. I don't need to prove that because everyone knows it. This engine pushed me to spend over €5000 to upgrade my rig and I don't regret any cent spent. Battlefield on 'Ultra' with an 1440p 165Hz IPS monitor (with G-Sync enabled) and a Virtual Surround 7.1 DAC + a good pair of headsets is a truly amazing & immersive experience where I couldn't feel it in any other FPS games.

    Battlefield servers are being hosted in AWS Cloud and I don't know what 'network infrastructure' issues are occurring for you, I don't have any. Where I live we have a very good internet connection and me personally I have two internet subscriptions from two different ISPs - the first one is 1 GBPS connection and the second one is 500 MBPS connection. Both are FTTH connections and my router is supporting Dual WAN and Link Aggregation.

    Anyway, what I really want is to see what's DICE's vision for the next Battlefield title. I hate when the community is criticizing their vision because that could have a big impact and mess up with their initial design - I don't want the next Battlefield title to be a mediocre game. This isn't a free Open Source game where everyone can contribute with any idiotic idea.
    What's most important for me is to understand what new features are being added to the game and what are their plans for supporting it in the long run. (I would like the Premium Pass to be an option for me - I hate the 'Game as A Service' model)

    Sorry for off-topic.

    If it weren't for that criticism from the community we would have had Dice Sweden's "initial design" for BF5

     

  • Hawxxeye
    7958 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2020
    VME23 said:

    Anyway, what I really want is to see what's DICE's vision for the next Battlefield title. I hate when the community is criticizing their vision because that could have a big impact and mess up with their initial design - I don't want the next Battlefield title to be a mediocre game. This isn't a free Open Source game where everyone can contribute with any idiotic idea.
    What's most important for me is to understand what new features are being added to the game and what are their plans for supporting it in the long run. (I would like the Premium Pass to be an option for me - I hate the 'Game as A Service' model)

    Sorry for off-topic.
    You know...there was once a time where I felt I could trust game developers with everything because I trusted they wanted to make something awesome for both the players and their satifaction of pursuing their art. I trusted devs to get their game and play it with their hands to confirm the experience.
    .
    But this ~6 to 7 years has been full of games where I mostly see game devs just repeat the same mistakes on every sequel they make on an established franchise. They either reskin the same game over and over or they change it so much that it starts to feel like another game. A lot of their decisions seem to show that they lack a feel of how their own games play (assault supersoldiers, clunky tanks that only work well for campers, unadressed bugs etc)
    I do not get why those who would defend devs mention a supposed  "vision" that game devs have? Hasn;t retrospective convinced them yet that they have NO vision? They only seem to have each time the same directive to make the next pretty-looking hardware devouring sequel that will draw quick sales before the visual bubble bursts and the gameplay issues become apparent after the refund period.
    .
    I also apologize for going off topic, but each time I hear about these supposed secret visions of game devs that will save us all, I feel compelled to say some choice words.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1693 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2020
    It's been quite a while since I've posted on this forum, since BFV somewhat turned me off from this franchise. I come back to see how things are going and am greeted with ... this.

    BFV is a game that has suffered from many, many, ridiculous decisions and gameplay choices. It seems DICE insists on continuing to make these sorts of decisions regularly. If I want to join a server, I should be allowed to continue to play on that server until I leave, or am kicked out by an admin. This is how it's always been in the past. Why has this become a problem for DICE?

    I keep thinking that DICE will see the light and change their attitude towards this franchise ... that they would recapture that 'Battlefield magic' we used to feel not even that long ago. I know that people will still buy BF6, but if DICE does not change for the better, then I fear that Battlefield as a whole will finally be dead once BF6 comes out.

    It's a massive shame to see yet another one of my childhood franchises suffer so much. I know it's quite silly, but I still have a sliver of hope that this is the last time DICE messes up so spectacularly.
    I haven't been around here either - I stopped playing, wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said here - I don't need to add anything else

  • LOLGotYerTags
    14670 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @DigitalHype and @Hawxxeye
    Please don't derail this thread into a cheat discussion .

    The very topic is not permitted on the forum,  per forum rules.

    Let's stay on topic please.
  • wildbam
    80 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    hmmm I'd like to see this EOR matchmaking permanently implemented.. I came back today.. played a few rounds and they were basically steam rolling parties again.. after a few rounds we switched server and again boring steam rolling party..

    Idk about you .. but I like intense games and fights much more than steam rolling or getting steam rolled. I hope any kind of balance system will be introduced soon so we have more intense games than boring steam rollings -.-

    really sad this test is already over..  :#


  • PTFO_PLZ
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    Mid Round Team Switching Considerations

    -------------------------------------------------------

    I don't like to see map rotation messed up, that's a big part of my choosing which server to join.

    End of round balancing makes a lot more sense to me.

    As for mid round team balancing, I don't like the idea of either

    1) people being allowed to choose to switch teams

    or

    2)  auto team switching

    unless certain specific strict criteria are met. 

    What would those criteria be?  Dunno what's best, but as a suggestion players would not be auto switched to the other side unless they're going from a team which is both a) winning and b) has more people.  Exactly how many more players and winning by exactly how much more is a matter for debate and there's some interesting algorithm suggestions folks could make.

    I'm highly skeptical about allowing any manual switch feature at all.  If it was allowed (I'd rather it wasn't) then the criteria would have to be even stricter than auto switching.  Which would then render manual switching obsolete anyway, as the auto switching would kick in 1st, unless the server settings had auto switching turned off and manual switching turned on.

    I'd prefer manual switching never to be allowed.  If DICE did allow any servers, e.g. rental servers, to have auto switching turned off and manual switching turned on, I hope that very strict criteria would always be applied to manual switching (more strict than for auto switching), even for paid for rental servers.

    I know it can be frustrating if your team is a) getting trounced and b) there's too many team mates failing to even try and push on objectives, but I almost always like sticking it out to the end no matter what.  I only quit if there's less than half the number of team mates on your side than the opposing side, and even then I often hang on for a while to see if any others will join the server.  I have occasionally quit on Conquest when the opposing side has captured all the flags, I've been trying for ages to capture one, and it dawns on me that there's virtually no-one else going for objective capture.  Other than that, battling against massive odds can be a fun experience in itself, and there's nothing more satisfying than turning the tide against an enemy who has been kicking your **** big time.

    Manual switching only encourages stats obsessed cowards to jump to the other side as soon as they can, and gives them another reason to delay playing the objective.  I personally couldn't give a **** about stats, I play for the enjoyment and to PTFO.  For those obsessed with how others perceive them, the only manual choice they should have is to quit the match mid round.  If an increase in rounds quitted in their stats distresses them less than their KDR or whatever other stat is causing them anxiety, then they can turn tail and flee if they so choose.  Perhaps they can find an even more cowardly way out, e.g. closing the BF application rather than quitting from the options menu, thereby possibly preventing an increase of 1 in their "games quit" stats.

    End of round balancing is the way to go, and mid round auto team switching could really help only when certain strict imbalance thresholds in both player numbers and in the "winning" criteria have been crossed.  The "winning" aspect would obviously vary by game mode.  Having stricter criteria for auto team switching also helps with keeping squads together, i.e. by the time the number of players on each side has become very imbalanced, you can switch whole squads over without changing the team with less players into a team with more players.

    Any suggestions for mid round auto team switching algorithms folks?

     





  • wildbam
    80 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    switch/auto balance 2. or 3. best squad in mid round if teams get imbalanced.. but idk.. if 2 squads from the same clan are playing.. and one squad gets switched into the opposite team maybe this has to be considered..
  • PTFO_PLZ
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    wildbam said:
    switch/auto balance 2. or 3. best squad in mid round if teams get imbalanced.. but idk.. if 2 squads from the same clan are playing.. and one squad gets switched into the opposite team maybe this has to be considered..

    I'd suggest that if more than one squad from the same clan is playing, and they're totally hammering the opposition, then they need to get used to the idea of one or more of them being switched to the opposing side.  It can still help them to learn to work together as a clan (when they're playing together later) by appreciating the strengths and weaknesses of their different players and different tactics.
  • KPNuts74
    760 postsMember, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2020
    wildbam wrote: »
    switch/auto balance 2. or 3. best squad in mid round if teams get imbalanced.. but idk.. if 2 squads from the same clan are playing.. and one squad gets switched into the opposite team maybe this has to be considered..

    One of the main issues on Xbox EU servers is certain clans having 12+ players stacked on one team. This creates unbalanced servers which often end in spawn camp situations (which are not fun for either team).

    I think stat padding is one of the reasons they do this and you even see members of top clans squad up together to do this during the times they don’t have many of their own on.

    This makes the game not a good experience for new players stuck on the opposing teams and must make many quit. Therefore, on pub servers we need these clans squads split over each team (if they are the best squads).

    I would suggest #1 & #4 squads from last round gets put on one team whilst #2 & #3 get put on the other.
  • Hawxxeye
    7958 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2020
    PTFO_PLZ said:

    Mid Round Team Switching Considerations

    -------------------------------------------------------

    I don't like to see map rotation messed up, that's a big part of my choosing which server to join.

    End of round balancing makes a lot more sense to me.

    As for mid round team balancing, I don't like the idea of either

    1) people being allowed to choose to switch teams

    or

    2)  auto team switching

    unless certain specific strict criteria are met. 

    What would those criteria be?  Dunno what's best, but as a suggestion players would not be auto switched to the other side unless they're going from a team which is both a) winning and b) has more people.  Exactly how many more players and winning by exactly how much more is a matter for debate and there's some interesting algorithm suggestions folks could make.

    I'm highly skeptical about allowing any manual switch feature at all.  If it was allowed (I'd rather it wasn't) then the criteria would have to be even stricter than auto switching.  Which would then render manual switching obsolete anyway, as the auto switching would kick in 1st, unless the server settings had auto switching turned off and manual switching turned on.

    I'd prefer manual switching never to be allowed.  If DICE did allow any servers, e.g. rental servers, to have auto switching turned off and manual switching turned on, I hope that very strict criteria would always be applied to manual switching (more strict than for auto switching), even for paid for rental servers.

    I know it can be frustrating if your team is a) getting trounced and b) there's too many team mates failing to even try and push on objectives, but I almost always like sticking it out to the end no matter what.  I only quit if there's less than half the number of team mates on your side than the opposing side, and even then I often hang on for a while to see if any others will join the server.  I have occasionally quit on Conquest when the opposing side has captured all the flags, I've been trying for ages to capture one, and it dawns on me that there's virtually no-one else going for objective capture.  Other than that, battling against massive odds can be a fun experience in itself, and there's nothing more satisfying than turning the tide against an enemy who has been kicking your **** big time.

    Manual switching only encourages stats obsessed cowards to jump to the other side as soon as they can, and gives them another reason to delay playing the objective.  I personally couldn't give a **** about stats, I play for the enjoyment and to PTFO.  For those obsessed with how others perceive them, the only manual choice they should have is to quit the match mid round.  If an increase in rounds quitted in their stats distresses them less than their KDR or whatever other stat is causing them anxiety, then they can turn tail and flee if they so choose.  Perhaps they can find an even more cowardly way out, e.g. closing the BF application rather than quitting from the options menu, thereby possibly preventing an increase of 1 in their "games quit" stats.

    End of round balancing is the way to go, and mid round auto team switching could really help only when certain strict imbalance thresholds in both player numbers and in the "winning" criteria have been crossed.  The "winning" aspect would obviously vary by game mode.  Having stricter criteria for auto team switching also helps with keeping squads together, i.e. by the time the number of players on each side has become very imbalanced, you can switch whole squads over without changing the team with less players into a team with more players.

    Any suggestions for mid round auto team switching algorithms folks?


    Manual switching worked fine in the previous games. Ironically BFV needed manual switching more than the older titles due to the asymmetry on the vehicle/plane progression. Those who were trying to level the newer US planes will know what I mean. I still have not maxed the ones without rockets on the US army (not Navy) side.
    There was also the more obscure problem of having a difficulty making a video on stuff like the scope glints before the community servers came with how it was random if the friend would end up on the other team  as intended.
Sign In or Register to comment.