Matchmaking balance is completely broken.

Comments

  • Khronikos
    1354 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 10
    trip1ex wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Although MVPs are also easier to obtain if you're playing medic or support with the easy points you get from healing/reviving and resupplying. As a scout main, I need teammates to kill 3 or 4 enemies within the area of my spotting flare to gain as many points as you can get from one resupply, heal, or revive.

    MVP in Conquest is definitely easier to get as Medic or Support as both generate extra points - although I've seen plenty of planes, cavalry, or assaults get them too etc. Lots of points for a quad kill on a tank (although that isn't necessarily that easy). I'd argue revives aren't necessarily all that easy, by virtue of often having to leave cover to the point where someone else has already died - and therefore likely to be an enemy threat somewhere. But either way, Medics and Supports definitely have a score advantage with healing and ammo given those are pretty much unlimited. I think Scouts have the hardest time getting MVP given they are less likely to actively capture a flag, or engage multiple enemies and their spot points are really limited too. given they only get two flairs etc.
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Indeed, Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing from what I can see. The top 6 or 7 players are almost always fairly close in score. I would default to KDR, supplies/revives, and base caps/defends as more important with the top ten players.

    MVP in Conquest meaning nothing? Eh - say what now? MVP in Conquest is typically pretty hard to get as there are more players vying for that position, as well as it being much harder to influence the outcome. If you play conservatively, then you shouldn't really expect to get many MVP's. I'm damned proud of getting 900+ of them. You know kills, supplies/revives, flags capts/defends, vehicles destroyed etc IS what makes up the score that determines the MVP - right? It's just the amalgamation of all the points that players have earned in that game doing those things and the one with the most gets the award.


    I didn't mean it like that. I meant it means nothing in the context of the top 5 or so players. Please read beyond the first thing that enters your head when you go over a sentence. It was obvious this was what I meant, as I explained it very clearly.

    Of course they are important. A lot of things are. But I would still take a guy that didn't quite get MVP but was say 30-5 to the MVPs 1:1. I was just saying in those situations the MVP is not really all that special. That is all.

    It's obviously an important measure of success with teams.

    I can read dude, perhaps you should make a coherent point rather than throwaway comments? You said "Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing." Which is objectively nonsense. I agree that often there are a few players close to getting MVP, that's true. But that makes it even more special to be able to be that one person who takes the top spot - especially if you can do so regularly.

    The elaboration of the 30-5 close second place vs 1:1 MVP is reasonable. I agree, its likely the 1:1 MVP wouldn't have been able to do so without someone else doing the killing. Fortunately, whilst its common to see high KDR players lower down the scoreboard its relatively rare to see someone regularly MVP with a low KDR in Conquest.

    I think his observations are spot on. I don't think it means much to get MVP other than you're a better point **** than the other guy. That's all MVP is in most cases. NEvermind most games are mostly played in garbage time where the outcome wasn't in doubt the last 10-15 minutes of the match.

    So many games... are just garbage mode. People rail on and on about their MVPs when they are in nearly unbeatable squads playing against trash lol.

    An MVP only means something when there is competition. Period. I don't care how many noobs you scrap a game in an elite squad. You aren't going to do that say in an all-star game with even teams. Not even close. If you can attain MVP there good job well deserved.

    But let's stop acting like stats even matter for a lot of players on this board when they have literally almost zero competition in random pub matches.

    If Conquest had more balance the MVP would mean something more often. It rarely does. Does it feel good to get it? Sure. I can spam a lot of meds and do Tank supply all day long too and get a decent amount of MVPs added to my tally. But I don't really. Because it gets boring for me doing the same thing. Plus I prefer a horse a lot of the time these days. MVP on a horse only now that is something I am proud of in a close-fought match.

    Again, no one said MVP is useless lol. But with matchmaking so bad well stats are just another random thing. They don't mean much without context, and looking at tracker to criticize some dude is what tryhards and wankers do. Tracker means jack without context, hence no one has any clue what your stats mean outside of the specific way you play the game, which also cannot be glimpsed on tracker. Squad, no squad, alone, with friends, modes, et cetera. It all adds up. You certainly can tell a player is good with a lot of MVPs. I would certainly not doubt that. But as for precisely understanding why they are good MVPs are not going to tell you that.
  • GerocK-
    599 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Although MVPs are also easier to obtain if you're playing medic or support with the easy points you get from healing/reviving and resupplying. As a scout main, I need teammates to kill 3 or 4 enemies within the area of my spotting flare to gain as many points as you can get from one resupply, heal, or revive.

    MVP in Conquest is definitely easier to get as Medic or Support as both generate extra points - although I've seen plenty of planes, cavalry, or assaults get them too etc. Lots of points for a quad kill on a tank (although that isn't necessarily that easy). I'd argue revives aren't necessarily all that easy, by virtue of often having to leave cover to the point where someone else has already died - and therefore likely to be an enemy threat somewhere. But either way, Medics and Supports definitely have a score advantage with healing and ammo given those are pretty much unlimited. I think Scouts have the hardest time getting MVP given they are less likely to actively capture a flag, or engage multiple enemies and their spot points are really limited too. given they only get two flairs etc.
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Indeed, Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing from what I can see. The top 6 or 7 players are almost always fairly close in score. I would default to KDR, supplies/revives, and base caps/defends as more important with the top ten players.

    MVP in Conquest meaning nothing? Eh - say what now? MVP in Conquest is typically pretty hard to get as there are more players vying for that position, as well as it being much harder to influence the outcome. If you play conservatively, then you shouldn't really expect to get many MVP's. I'm damned proud of getting 900+ of them. You know kills, supplies/revives, flags capts/defends, vehicles destroyed etc IS what makes up the score that determines the MVP - right? It's just the amalgamation of all the points that players have earned in that game doing those things and the one with the most gets the award.


    I didn't mean it like that. I meant it means nothing in the context of the top 5 or so players. Please read beyond the first thing that enters your head when you go over a sentence. It was obvious this was what I meant, as I explained it very clearly.

    Of course they are important. A lot of things are. But I would still take a guy that didn't quite get MVP but was say 30-5 to the MVPs 1:1. I was just saying in those situations the MVP is not really all that special. That is all.

    It's obviously an important measure of success with teams.

    I can read dude, perhaps you should make a coherent point rather than throwaway comments? You said "Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing." Which is objectively nonsense. I agree that often there are a few players close to getting MVP, that's true. But that makes it even more special to be able to be that one person who takes the top spot - especially if you can do so regularly.

    The elaboration of the 30-5 close second place vs 1:1 MVP is reasonable. I agree, its likely the 1:1 MVP wouldn't have been able to do so without someone else doing the killing. Fortunately, whilst its common to see high KDR players lower down the scoreboard its relatively rare to see someone regularly MVP with a low KDR in Conquest.

    I think his observations are spot on. I don't think it means much to get MVP other than you're a better point **** than the other guy. That's all MVP is in most cases. NEvermind most games are mostly played in garbage time where the outcome wasn't in doubt the last 10-15 minutes of the match.

    Some players really deserve to be MVP, but you have a point of course.
    The MVP should be the player who makes the best choices to get his team the win. Sometimes those choices require you to leave easy points and spend time on actions that reward much less points (harassing planes, hunting tanks, defending first bases because the rest of your team is overextending).
    I still think MVP means something, but you're righ that getting the MVP ribbon doesn't automatically mean you're the best player in the server.
  • WetFishDB
    1567 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Yo people, learn to read and interpret what people are saying. In the context of my post, being MVP does NOT MEAN ANYTHING WHEN YOU HAVE 6 OR 7 PLAYERS ALL RELATIVELY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. YOUR MVP IS **** especially when the teams are imbalanced, which they are most of the time.

    And I was talking about Conquest. I don't even play any other modes, hence my post does not mean jack for other modes, which I have no clue about.

    Sounds like you are just jealous because you can't get many MVP's on Conquest. Agree teams are often imbalanced, hence why it's even better when one gets an MVP on the losing side :trollface:
  • WetFishDB
    1567 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Khronikos wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Although MVPs are also easier to obtain if you're playing medic or support with the easy points you get from healing/reviving and resupplying. As a scout main, I need teammates to kill 3 or 4 enemies within the area of my spotting flare to gain as many points as you can get from one resupply, heal, or revive.

    MVP in Conquest is definitely easier to get as Medic or Support as both generate extra points - although I've seen plenty of planes, cavalry, or assaults get them too etc. Lots of points for a quad kill on a tank (although that isn't necessarily that easy). I'd argue revives aren't necessarily all that easy, by virtue of often having to leave cover to the point where someone else has already died - and therefore likely to be an enemy threat somewhere. But either way, Medics and Supports definitely have a score advantage with healing and ammo given those are pretty much unlimited. I think Scouts have the hardest time getting MVP given they are less likely to actively capture a flag, or engage multiple enemies and their spot points are really limited too. given they only get two flairs etc.
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Indeed, Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing from what I can see. The top 6 or 7 players are almost always fairly close in score. I would default to KDR, supplies/revives, and base caps/defends as more important with the top ten players.

    MVP in Conquest meaning nothing? Eh - say what now? MVP in Conquest is typically pretty hard to get as there are more players vying for that position, as well as it being much harder to influence the outcome. If you play conservatively, then you shouldn't really expect to get many MVP's. I'm damned proud of getting 900+ of them. You know kills, supplies/revives, flags capts/defends, vehicles destroyed etc IS what makes up the score that determines the MVP - right? It's just the amalgamation of all the points that players have earned in that game doing those things and the one with the most gets the award.


    I didn't mean it like that. I meant it means nothing in the context of the top 5 or so players. Please read beyond the first thing that enters your head when you go over a sentence. It was obvious this was what I meant, as I explained it very clearly.

    Of course they are important. A lot of things are. But I would still take a guy that didn't quite get MVP but was say 30-5 to the MVPs 1:1. I was just saying in those situations the MVP is not really all that special. That is all.

    It's obviously an important measure of success with teams.

    I can read dude, perhaps you should make a coherent point rather than throwaway comments? You said "Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing." Which is objectively nonsense. I agree that often there are a few players close to getting MVP, that's true. But that makes it even more special to be able to be that one person who takes the top spot - especially if you can do so regularly.

    The elaboration of the 30-5 close second place vs 1:1 MVP is reasonable. I agree, its likely the 1:1 MVP wouldn't have been able to do so without someone else doing the killing. Fortunately, whilst its common to see high KDR players lower down the scoreboard its relatively rare to see someone regularly MVP with a low KDR in Conquest.

    I think his observations are spot on. I don't think it means much to get MVP other than you're a better point **** than the other guy. That's all MVP is in most cases. NEvermind most games are mostly played in garbage time where the outcome wasn't in doubt the last 10-15 minutes of the match.

    So many games... are just garbage mode. People rail on and on about their MVPs when they are in nearly unbeatable squads playing against trash lol.

    An MVP only means something when there is competition. Period. I don't care how many noobs you scrap a game in an elite squad. You aren't going to do that say in an all-star game with even teams. Not even close. If you can attain MVP there good job well deserved.

    But let's stop acting like stats even matter for a lot of players on this board when they have literally almost zero competition in random pub matches.

    If Conquest had more balance the MVP would mean something more often. It rarely does. Does it feel good to get it? Sure. I can spam a lot of meds and do Tank supply all day long too and get a decent amount of MVPs added to my tally. But I don't really. Because it gets boring for me doing the same thing. Plus I prefer a horse a lot of the time these days. MVP on a horse only now that is something I am proud of in a close-fought match.

    Again, no one said MVP is useless lol. But with matchmaking so bad well stats are just another random thing. They don't mean much without context, and looking at tracker to criticize some dude is what tryhards and **** do. Tracker means jack without context, hence no one has any clue what your stats mean outside of the specific way you play the game, which also cannot be glimpsed on tracker. Squad, no squad, alone, with friends, modes, et cetera. It all adds up. You certainly can tell a player is good with a lot of MVPs. I would certainly not doubt that. But as for precisely understanding why they are good MVPs are not going to tell you that.

    In one sentence you say MVP doesn't mean anything, then you say that you can tell a player is good with a lot of MVP's. Which is it? You seem to make conflicting points, which is possibly confusing whatever message you are trying to convey. I'm getting the impression you don't value MVP, and that's your choice, but that doesn't make it meaningless. I don't value vegan sausages, but it has meaning to those who do.

    Who has unbeatable squads? Sure, some of us, me included, play with strong squads a reasonable amount of the time - but we aren't unbeatable. My personal win rate is about 70% in Conquest, so... 30% beat me. There is only so much one squad can do in a game of Conquest, NO-ONE is unbeatable.

    Sure, people can get MVP from exploiting bonuses or by spamming meds/ammo etc like you describe, but for people to get it regularly there is often an underlying ability there - especially if coupled with high win rates, KDRs etc. Having other good players with you helps you win, absolutely, but by having more good players with you also increases the competition for MVP. I hate playing with @DonSharkito for exactly that reason :wink: And he'll MVP from a horse all day long (I am genuinely envious of his cavalry skills).

    Bad stats are not a random thing. Good players will generally do well regardless of the team around them. Sure, they will get better scores against weaker opposition (unless a spawn trap happens) and will get lower scores against tougher opposition. But that's the same for anyone. Over time peoples stats are a general reflection of how they performed against certain measures over that period.

    The one thing I do agree with, is that stats can't tell you WHY someone has good performances. Stats only tell you objective things... WHAT, WHEN, and potentially HOW, but not the subjective things like WHY. Sometimes WHY can be inferred, but it's always only a guess. I'd argue a high MVP rate infers they are probably pretty effective at their game mode of choice.
  • WetFishDB
    1567 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GerocK- wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Although MVPs are also easier to obtain if you're playing medic or support with the easy points you get from healing/reviving and resupplying. As a scout main, I need teammates to kill 3 or 4 enemies within the area of my spotting flare to gain as many points as you can get from one resupply, heal, or revive.

    MVP in Conquest is definitely easier to get as Medic or Support as both generate extra points - although I've seen plenty of planes, cavalry, or assaults get them too etc. Lots of points for a quad kill on a tank (although that isn't necessarily that easy). I'd argue revives aren't necessarily all that easy, by virtue of often having to leave cover to the point where someone else has already died - and therefore likely to be an enemy threat somewhere. But either way, Medics and Supports definitely have a score advantage with healing and ammo given those are pretty much unlimited. I think Scouts have the hardest time getting MVP given they are less likely to actively capture a flag, or engage multiple enemies and their spot points are really limited too. given they only get two flairs etc.
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Indeed, Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing from what I can see. The top 6 or 7 players are almost always fairly close in score. I would default to KDR, supplies/revives, and base caps/defends as more important with the top ten players.

    MVP in Conquest meaning nothing? Eh - say what now? MVP in Conquest is typically pretty hard to get as there are more players vying for that position, as well as it being much harder to influence the outcome. If you play conservatively, then you shouldn't really expect to get many MVP's. I'm damned proud of getting 900+ of them. You know kills, supplies/revives, flags capts/defends, vehicles destroyed etc IS what makes up the score that determines the MVP - right? It's just the amalgamation of all the points that players have earned in that game doing those things and the one with the most gets the award.


    I didn't mean it like that. I meant it means nothing in the context of the top 5 or so players. Please read beyond the first thing that enters your head when you go over a sentence. It was obvious this was what I meant, as I explained it very clearly.

    Of course they are important. A lot of things are. But I would still take a guy that didn't quite get MVP but was say 30-5 to the MVPs 1:1. I was just saying in those situations the MVP is not really all that special. That is all.

    It's obviously an important measure of success with teams.

    I can read dude, perhaps you should make a coherent point rather than throwaway comments? You said "Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing." Which is objectively nonsense. I agree that often there are a few players close to getting MVP, that's true. But that makes it even more special to be able to be that one person who takes the top spot - especially if you can do so regularly.

    The elaboration of the 30-5 close second place vs 1:1 MVP is reasonable. I agree, its likely the 1:1 MVP wouldn't have been able to do so without someone else doing the killing. Fortunately, whilst its common to see high KDR players lower down the scoreboard its relatively rare to see someone regularly MVP with a low KDR in Conquest.

    I think his observations are spot on. I don't think it means much to get MVP other than you're a better point **** than the other guy. That's all MVP is in most cases. NEvermind most games are mostly played in garbage time where the outcome wasn't in doubt the last 10-15 minutes of the match.

    Some players really deserve to be MVP, but you have a point of course.
    The MVP should be the player who makes the best choices to get his team the win. Sometimes those choices require you to leave easy points and spend time on actions that reward much less points (harassing planes, hunting tanks, defending first bases because the rest of your team is overextending).
    I still think MVP means something, but you're righ that getting the MVP ribbon doesn't automatically mean you're the best player in the server.

    Definitely right about the best player isn't always necessarily the one who gets the highest score.

    Like you describe, I chase the win mostly. If it's a close game, I will kill the enemy on a flag but then leave other team mates to get the actual capture missing out on vital points (should they join me on the flag). I'll also go back to defend a flag, or choose to go the opposite direction to a zerg which can impact on scores and MVP etc. Winning is the most important thing to me personally, but everyone has their own objectives in games.
  • EA_Cian
    478 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, EA Moderator
    'Sup everyone. There's some heated conversation happening here but let's please just remember to keep it civil and if someone isn't understanding what we're trying to say, try to rephrase. Thanks!
  • Loqtrall
    11159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    4 player disadvantage can be huge. It's basically an extra squad. And if you don't think it's not a big advantage then imagine if the team that was down 4 players suddenly got 8 extra players on their team. 8 players!!! But hey they are only up 4 players now so no big deal right? :)

    Played with @Ram1c yesterday and two matches in a row right off the bat the enemy, with 5+ less players than we had, capped 3 objectives before our team even got to our closest 2nd.

    Ram was actually YELLING in the mic asking how the hell a team with less players is near full capping right off the rip.

    Being low on players CAN be a disadvantage, but it's most certainly not a blatant disadvantage by default.
  • Trokey66
    6225 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Being a pedant, I would say that being low on numbers is a disadvantage by default that can be over come through a cohesive lower numbered team.
  • trip1ex
    3503 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    4 player disadvantage can be huge. It's basically an extra squad. And if you don't think it's not a big advantage then imagine if the team that was down 4 players suddenly got 8 extra players on their team. 8 players!!! But hey they are only up 4 players now so no big deal right? :)

    Played with @Ram1c yesterday and two matches in a row right off the bat the enemy, with 5+ less players than we had, capped 3 objectives before our team even got to our closest 2nd.

    Ram was actually YELLING in the mic asking how the hell a team with less players is near full capping right off the rip.

    Being low on players CAN be a disadvantage, but it's most certainly not a blatant disadvantage by default.

    lol i get the feeling that, next, you too are going to tell me that numbers don't matter because you can take on 5 three yr olds in a game of basketball. :)
  • trip1ex
    3503 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    trip1ex wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Although MVPs are also easier to obtain if you're playing medic or support with the easy points you get from healing/reviving and resupplying. As a scout main, I need teammates to kill 3 or 4 enemies within the area of my spotting flare to gain as many points as you can get from one resupply, heal, or revive.

    MVP in Conquest is definitely easier to get as Medic or Support as both generate extra points - although I've seen plenty of planes, cavalry, or assaults get them too etc. Lots of points for a quad kill on a tank (although that isn't necessarily that easy). I'd argue revives aren't necessarily all that easy, by virtue of often having to leave cover to the point where someone else has already died - and therefore likely to be an enemy threat somewhere. But either way, Medics and Supports definitely have a score advantage with healing and ammo given those are pretty much unlimited. I think Scouts have the hardest time getting MVP given they are less likely to actively capture a flag, or engage multiple enemies and their spot points are really limited too. given they only get two flairs etc.
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Indeed, Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing from what I can see. The top 6 or 7 players are almost always fairly close in score. I would default to KDR, supplies/revives, and base caps/defends as more important with the top ten players.

    MVP in Conquest meaning nothing? Eh - say what now? MVP in Conquest is typically pretty hard to get as there are more players vying for that position, as well as it being much harder to influence the outcome. If you play conservatively, then you shouldn't really expect to get many MVP's. I'm damned proud of getting 900+ of them. You know kills, supplies/revives, flags capts/defends, vehicles destroyed etc IS what makes up the score that determines the MVP - right? It's just the amalgamation of all the points that players have earned in that game doing those things and the one with the most gets the award.


    I didn't mean it like that. I meant it means nothing in the context of the top 5 or so players. Please read beyond the first thing that enters your head when you go over a sentence. It was obvious this was what I meant, as I explained it very clearly.

    Of course they are important. A lot of things are. But I would still take a guy that didn't quite get MVP but was say 30-5 to the MVPs 1:1. I was just saying in those situations the MVP is not really all that special. That is all.

    It's obviously an important measure of success with teams.

    I can read dude, perhaps you should make a coherent point rather than throwaway comments? You said "Conquest MVPs mean almost nothing." Which is objectively nonsense. I agree that often there are a few players close to getting MVP, that's true. But that makes it even more special to be able to be that one person who takes the top spot - especially if you can do so regularly.

    The elaboration of the 30-5 close second place vs 1:1 MVP is reasonable. I agree, its likely the 1:1 MVP wouldn't have been able to do so without someone else doing the killing. Fortunately, whilst its common to see high KDR players lower down the scoreboard its relatively rare to see someone regularly MVP with a low KDR in Conquest.

    I think his observations are spot on. I don't think it means much to get MVP other than you're a better point **** than the other guy. That's all MVP is in most cases. NEvermind most games are mostly played in garbage time where the outcome wasn't in doubt the last 10-15 minutes of the match.

    So many games... are just garbage mode. People rail on and on about their MVPs when they are in nearly unbeatable squads playing against trash lol.

    An MVP only means something when there is competition. Period. I don't care how many noobs you scrap a game in an elite squad. You aren't going to do that say in an all-star game with even teams. Not even close. If you can attain MVP there good job well deserved.

    But let's stop acting like stats even matter for a lot of players on this board when they have literally almost zero competition in random pub matches.

    If Conquest had more balance the MVP would mean something more often. It rarely does. Does it feel good to get it? Sure. I can spam a lot of meds and do Tank supply all day long too and get a decent amount of MVPs added to my tally. But I don't really. Because it gets boring for me doing the same thing. Plus I prefer a horse a lot of the time these days. MVP on a horse only now that is something I am proud of in a close-fought match.

    Again, no one said MVP is useless lol. But with matchmaking so bad well stats are just another random thing. They don't mean much without context, and looking at tracker to criticize some dude is what tryhards and **** do. Tracker means jack without context, hence no one has any clue what your stats mean outside of the specific way you play the game, which also cannot be glimpsed on tracker. Squad, no squad, alone, with friends, modes, et cetera. It all adds up. You certainly can tell a player is good with a lot of MVPs. I would certainly not doubt that. But as for precisely understanding why they are good MVPs are not going to tell you that.

    In one sentence you say MVP doesn't mean anything, then you say that you can tell a player is good with a lot of MVP's. Which is it? You seem to make conflicting points, which is possibly confusing whatever message you are trying to convey. I'm getting the impression you don't value MVP, and that's your choice, but that doesn't make it meaningless. I don't value vegan sausages, but it has meaning to those who do.

    Who has unbeatable squads? Sure, some of us, me included, play with strong squads a reasonable amount of the time - but we aren't unbeatable. My personal win rate is about 70% in Conquest, so... 30% beat me. There is only so much one squad can do in a game of Conquest, NO-ONE is unbeatable.

    Sure, people can get MVP from exploiting bonuses or by spamming meds/ammo etc like you describe, but for people to get it regularly there is often an underlying ability there - especially if coupled with high win rates, KDRs etc. Having other good players with you helps you win, absolutely, but by having more good players with you also increases the competition for MVP. I hate playing with @DonSharkito for exactly that reason :wink: And he'll MVP from a horse all day long (I am genuinely envious of his cavalry skills).

    Bad stats are not a random thing. Good players will generally do well regardless of the team around them. Sure, they will get better scores against weaker opposition (unless a spawn trap happens) and will get lower scores against tougher opposition. But that's the same for anyone. Over time peoples stats are a general reflection of how they performed against certain measures over that period.

    The one thing I do agree with, is that stats can't tell you WHY someone has good performances. Stats only tell you objective things... WHAT, WHEN, and potentially HOW, but not the subjective things like WHY. Sometimes WHY can be inferred, but it's always only a guess. I'd argue a high MVP rate infers they are probably pretty effective at their game mode of choice.

    I think to get MVPs consistently you have to play the pt mercenary game. You gotta be in the flag zones with 20 others and be playing musical flags even though neither is beneficial to the team. You gotta be issuing squad orders every minute even if you don't need them or even follow them. And then you gotta do the tasks that get you the most points. Spam ammo is probably the biggest point generator of all. Healing/reviving is next.

    I just don't put too much stock into the MVP trophy because of this. I see "MVPS" as usually one of the top guys on a server, but he could be better or worse than half the others on the server. I don't look at MVP as more than that because I know how many points I leave on the table all the time because I could care less about getting pts for pts sake. I know lots of tasks that are good for the team and I don't mind doing them my share of the time even though they don't generate lots of points. Nevermind the last 10-15 minutes of most matches hardly matters to the outcome and yet that's where a bulk of pts are generated.



    And I disagree that playing with a squad of good bf buds makes it tougher to get MVP. There's a lot of squad bonus points to be had for passing out ammmo and healing and reviving squad members etc. These are easier to get in organized squads. You stay alive longer in a good squad as well and thus have more opportunities to generate points. And I think the odds are better to beat out 4 other guys for the point mercenary trophy than 31 others.

  • SMK_GAMING_2
    751 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    1 stat (MVP stat included) cannot tell you the full story on how good a player is. In domination I will MVP at least 90-95% of the time. In conquest it would be very little because I clear out an objective and move on to the next and let the blueberries cap it whereby sacrificing a lot of of points, but winning is more important to me. Looking at MVP, KPM, K/D and the SPM stats together are usually a good indication of how good or bad a player is.
  • Khronikos
    1354 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 11
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Yo people, learn to read and interpret what people are saying. In the context of my post, being MVP does NOT MEAN ANYTHING WHEN YOU HAVE 6 OR 7 PLAYERS ALL RELATIVELY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. YOUR MVP IS **** especially when the teams are imbalanced, which they are most of the time.

    And I was talking about Conquest. I don't even play any other modes, hence my post does not mean jack for other modes, which I have no clue about.

    Sounds like you are just jealous because you can't get many MVP's on Conquest. Agree teams are often imbalanced, hence why it's even better when one gets an MVP on the losing side :trollface:

    This is not even the case though. In the last 6 games I played to full I was MVP twice, which you can see in my stats since we started having this conversation. With Cavalry no I don't usually beat full squads who can heal each other and spam that all day for MVP lol.

    When I am on a good squad of randoms it is quite easy for me to get MVP or second or third on a very consistent basis. Less easier when the room is dominated by all good players obviously.

    Let's make this clear: if you are playing with friends getting MVP is super easy as long as you beat your friends. Playing with randoms in Conquest makes getting MVP quite difficult, though, like I said I find it fairly easy to do on some maps in some situations.

    It's not like I don't have MVPs lol. I just don't aim for them. Recently I have went back to my tryhard loadouts, and MVPs have been coming at a fair rate.

    Do I get MVPs playing with 98% of the weapons? No. I get MVPs usually when I am playing with my best weapons in a reasonably decent squad.

    I mean if I am on a horse in a bad Conquest game with a leader not even calling out bases yeah there is no MVP in sight for me lol.

    Most MVPs I see in games are spamming support or meds to dedicated squads.

    Likewise, I tend to mix it up for my MVPSs, but there is always going to be supply spam, which does not necessarily correlate to skill at all. Helpful sure.
  • WetFishDB
    1567 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Khronikos wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Yo people, learn to read and interpret what people are saying. In the context of my post, being MVP does NOT MEAN ANYTHING WHEN YOU HAVE 6 OR 7 PLAYERS ALL RELATIVELY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. YOUR MVP IS **** especially when the teams are imbalanced, which they are most of the time.

    And I was talking about Conquest. I don't even play any other modes, hence my post does not mean jack for other modes, which I have no clue about.

    Sounds like you are just jealous because you can't get many MVP's on Conquest. Agree teams are often imbalanced, hence why it's even better when one gets an MVP on the losing side :trollface:

    This is not even the case though. In the last 6 games I played to full I was MVP twice, which you can see in my stats since we started having this conversation. With Cavalry no I don't usually beat full squads who can heal each other and spam that all day for MVP lol.

    When I am on a good squad of randoms it is quite easy for me to get MVP or second or third on a very consistent basis. Less easier when the room is dominated by all good players obviously.

    Let's make this clear: if you are playing with friends getting MVP is super easy as long as you beat your friends. Playing with randoms in Conquest makes getting MVP quite difficult, though, like I said I find it fairly easy to do on some maps in some situations.

    It's not like I don't have MVPs lol. I just don't aim for them. Recently I have went back to my tryhard loadouts, and MVPs have been coming at a fair rate.

    Do I get MVPs playing with 98% of the weapons? No. I get MVPs usually when I am playing with my best weapons in a reasonably decent squad.

    I mean if I am on a horse in a bad Conquest game with a leader not even calling out bases yeah there is no MVP in sight for me lol.

    Most MVPs I see in games are spamming support or meds to dedicated squads.

    Likewise, I tend to mix it up for my MVPSs, but there is always going to be supply spam, which does not necessarily correlate to skill at all. Helpful sure.

    lol, you may have had two in a day - doesn't really mean a whole lot in the wider context of consistently getting them. Every dog has his day, and all that.

    And of course getting MVP is only possible by spamming meds /s

    The fact you keep referring to people who get MVP's regularly in a negative tone kinda implies some jealousy and an presumption they can only do so through score padding. Whilst it is possible to do that, most MVP's I see are anything but that - they are the ones killing the enemies, capping flags, reviving if medic, killing tanks if assault etc.

    "Let's make this clear: if you are playing with friends getting MVP is super easy as long as you beat your friends" dude, that's kinda a nonsense statement. Firstly, not all friends are equal, and not all parties have the necessary calibre to regularly get MVP's. Secondly, even IF they were the best players in that server, you're saying it's easy to be the Best of the Best. Tell that to Goose (Top Gun reference).

    Very few people do aim for them, or at least not that I know of. Most people I play with just want to win the game, which is why I like playing with them. Getting MVP comes as a Consequence of in game actions, but is not the objective of them. If you see lots of MVP's spamming, but aren't able to beat them to MVP through good behaviours - that says more about you than them.

  • ProLegion_exor
    3266 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Solid points W!
  • Khronikos
    1354 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 12
    Solid points W!

    Says the guy whose last 48 games came out to 47 wins and 1 loss. You know very little of what it takes to get consistent MVPs ALONE in a Conquest game. Although you would easily do this, you don't really play Conquest or TDM. This conversation is mostly about Conquest, so it's absurd for you to talk about it so much like it is a mode you main. For total time played you have spent hardly any in Conquest. And though your elite squads would do well in it, that is neither here nor there.

    W made no solid points. In fact his entire post was filled with extremely poor rhetoric and very few coherent points.

    It's incredibly clear that both you and Wet run in good medic squads, so having this conversation is pointless. You are inherently against the FACT that squads of medics have it easy with this trash balance in the game.

    You both have made absolutely no coherent points against the idea that it is inherently much easier for medics and support to get MVPs. To be honest it is the easiest for medics overall that run in good squads. I get 90% of my MVPs being a medic. It's really simple: your squad is getting revived on a constant basis because this is revive train the game, and you are also healing your squad on a constant basis. It doesn't even matter if you win. If you are an elite squad you are constantly racking up points wherever you go.

    You can't do that as Assault, and all you can do as a sniper is spam the flare. Not even close to the points a support or medic can rack up. If you are a good squad under heavy fire, it is objectively true that you have the most capability to get the most potential points as a medic. This is not arguable so don't even try. The numbers are set in stone.

    AND THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN WITH RANDOMS ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. Number one with randoms your squad is NOT even following you or around you half the time. You can't heal them because they are not there. You don't get those free points, so it basically becomes impossible to MVP. And even when you do have good squads with randoms they rarely follow you around. But I don't think you guys have too much experience with that, as it seems you possibly think matchmaking is A OKAY.

    You literally have no competition in your squad Exor. You just went 47-1 in your last 48 games, and you are trying to tell me someone else in your crappy Domination games is getting the MVP over someone in your squad? Bollocks.

    This game simply has completely trash balance. Don't forget the thread title. You guys are not making any coherent points that would convince anyone the game does not have trash balance.

    This thread is now arguing about how easy MVPs are to attain. Well whatever. I don't care. You have your opinion on MVPs, and I will have mine.

    Running in great squads like you guys seem to do, it is very easy. As it was for me in TDM. EASY MODE. That was why I quit playing with friends in TDM. Because it simply was not fun anymore. My statline for games looked like yours in the win column. I don't play games for easy mode and stats. I play hard fought games for the most part and I do really well, and I am totally happy with that.

    But BFV needs to be better than this, hence the thread.
    Post edited by Khronikos on
  • LOLGotYerTags
    9116 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Moderator
    Thread has been cleaned up.

    @IG-Calibre
    Statbashing or any form of baiting isn't allowed, which you should be well aware of by now.

    As for you @Khronikos
    Don't bother posting retaliatory posts when somebody else wrongs you via their violating of the forum rules, As retaliating would only serve to violate the rules for flaming and baiting also.

    Keep it on topic and the discussion can flow smoothly.

  • Khronikos
    1354 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 12
    As for the idea that people have experience in the mode they are talking about, as far as I am concerned this thread is about Conquest balance. But even so going 47-1 also proves this game has no balance, and for whatever reason cannot find any with squads involved. It's not just the fact you can join in an elite squad and pillage a TDM or whatever server, it's the fact that you are never stopped half the time. I have gone 40-1 before in TDM servers lol. It's boring. Dull. Vapid. It puts me on autopilot.

    In over 1700 games in TDM I played 70% of those alone. I have experience on both sides of pillaging servers and getting pillaged too. And throughout having to find good servers and seeing how many bad games are out there the point still stands: BF1 has terribly balanced matchmaking. So far no one has done anything to disprove this in any significant way.

    All I hear is the excuse that it is too hard. Convenient yet not the solution...

    For instance mid-match balancing is so far to me a failure. I rarely see it work correctly or in time for matches to change. And the concept is a band-aid, not a real solution. I would accept it if I thought in 100 plus games it worked, but it does not seem to work well at all. Maybe someone else can give their opinion on it, but I feel like it is pointless.
  • CHAMMOND1992
    589 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Solid points W!
    You know very little of what it takes to get consistent MVPs ALONE in a Conquest game. Although you would easily do this

    Has anyone ever seen someone refute their own point in their next sentence? Me neither.
  • Khronikos
    1354 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 12
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Solid points W!
    You know very little of what it takes to get consistent MVPs ALONE in a Conquest game. Although you would easily do this

    Has anyone ever seen someone refute their own point in their next sentence? Me neither.

    Hello, let me explain this to you: The first sentence is a claim that operates on the idea that he has played very few Conquest games alone or at all really. The second's meaning is basically that he would get MVPs if he played alone, but that is neither here nor there as we can only go on the outlook that he is a good player with very limited experience playing alone in Conquest and with very little vehicular experience as well.

    The point is him commenting on something he has very little experience with matters here. No one doubts Exor is going to get MVPs in some random mode because he is one of the best players, but he surely isn't going to be MVP of every other match or more as in Domination if he plays 64 player Conquest alone. You don't always get to pick your teams. The discussion was about squads and playing alone and the differences in points. You don't care about that though because you were just looking for a casual drive-by as you always are.

    Chammond, you almost never have anything to offer a thread. You constantly just stop by to add nothing. This will be your last bait post here in my thread okay now? Don't bump the thread unless you have something of worth to add.

    "Says the guy whose last 48 games came out to 47 wins and 1 loss. You know very little of what it takes to get consistent MVPs ALONE in a Conquest game. Although you would easily do this, you don't really play Conquest or TDM. This conversation is mostly about Conquest, so it's absurd for you to talk about it so much like it is a mode you main."

    As you can see the point of the post is asking why someone that goes 47-1 in mostly Domination is responding to another poster about Conquest when said person does not play Conquest. I know you think you are cute, but your posts are derivative, illogical, and void of any worthy content. If you were concerned about comprehending a post, maybe ask what it means before you fail in your attempt to do a drive-by.
  • CHAMMOND1992
    589 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 12
    I was simply pointing out your obvious contradiction which I guess, "baited" you into elaborating on what you, "really" meant. You've done this quite a few times because you struggle to structure you points in a comprehensible way. You're too busy foaming at the mouth to realize you're introducing points that have already been settled or not even argued with at all.
    Khronikos wrote: »
    You guys are not making any coherent points that would convince anyone the game does not have trash balance.

    Literally no one has taken a stance, or made points that suggested otherwise.
    Kronikos wrote:
    You both have made absolutely no coherent points against the idea that it is inherently much easier for medics and support to get MVPs.
    WetFishDB wrote:
    MVP in Conquest is definitely easier to get as Medic or Support as both generate extra points

    Underlined and bolded so you can properly identify important information which you missed.
    Kronikos wrote:
    BF1 has terribly balanced matchmaking. So far no one has done anything to disprove this in any significant way.

    It's almost as if everyone agrees, fascinating.

    *drives away*
This discussion has been closed.