Team Balancing (Skill)

2»

Comments

  • magosnow
    607 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2018
    Well without switching ,you have the bfv beta experience where you enjoy 10 losses in a row in different servers because tou're forced to play with muppets.
  • von_Campenstein
    6568 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    magosnow wrote: »
    Well without switching ,you have the bfv beta experience where you enjoy 10 losses in a row in different servers because tou're forced to play with muppets.

    You're not on Sesame Street anymore, it's pretty hairy here.
  • Woodlbrad
    615 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    The scoring is much better in 5 I remember winning a game by a single point. I've seen so many close games in the beta than I have seen in a month of playing bf1 maybe more.
  • WetFishDB
    1982 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Woodlbrad wrote: »
    The scoring is much better in 5 I remember winning a game by a single point. I've seen so many close games in the beta than I have seen in a month of playing bf1 maybe more.

    Whilst I saw a few close ones in the beta, I also saw plenty of games won by hundreds of points towards the end of the beta and people had started actually playing the game rather than just exploring and mucking about. In particular this was the case when I played in party with a bunch of other guys I regularly play with. Personally, I think there's a risk we'll see well co-ordinated squads even more dominant than they were before, and therefore there's the potential to have even more one sided matches.
  • von_Campenstein
    6568 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2018
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Woodlbrad wrote: »
    The scoring is much better in 5 I remember winning a game by a single point. I've seen so many close games in the beta than I have seen in a month of playing bf1 maybe more.

    Whilst I saw a few close ones in the beta, I also saw plenty of games won by hundreds of points towards the end of the beta and people had started actually playing the game rather than just exploring and mucking about. In particular this was the case when I played in party with a bunch of other guys I regularly play with. Personally, I think there's a risk we'll see well co-ordinated squads even more dominant than they were before, and therefore there's the potential to have even more one sided matches.

    No doubt, the 1 tagged up squad will see 3 tagged up squads on the other side, the rest randoms and leave the server.

    What's the solution you say? One would be just showing tags at the end of the match but then there are those people who insist on having their tags in their names... That and of course distribute the premades evenly, you'd think that one is obvious but no.
  • WetFishDB
    1982 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Woodlbrad wrote: »
    The scoring is much better in 5 I remember winning a game by a single point. I've seen so many close games in the beta than I have seen in a month of playing bf1 maybe more.

    Whilst I saw a few close ones in the beta, I also saw plenty of games won by hundreds of points towards the end of the beta and people had started actually playing the game rather than just exploring and mucking about. In particular this was the case when I played in party with a bunch of other guys I regularly play with. Personally, I think there's a risk we'll see well co-ordinated squads even more dominant than they were before, and therefore there's the potential to have even more one sided matches.

    No doubt, the 1 tagged up squad will see 3 tagged up squads on the other side, the rest randoms and leave the server.

    What's the solution you say? One would be just showing tags at the end of the match but then there are those people who insist on having their tags in their names... That and of course distribute the premades evenly, you'd think that one is obvious but no.

    I'm sure some do leave when they see a bunch of platoons on the enemy side. For me, tags don't mean diddly. Just because someone is in a platoon doesn't mean they are great. Sure, it indicates that at least they took the time to join a platoon, and a bunch of them together are often better than random blurberry's - but I'll come across plenty who are pretty poor, perhaps just a bunch of mates etc. If my party comes across a bunch of platoons on the other side we actually are pleased as it means we are a little more likely to get a balanced game.

    I also frequently find myself in a party with a couple of guys who don't wear the same tags as me - but are every bit as good (or better than I am) and if we end up in the same squad then it's pretty formidable. The importance is voice comms, not wearing a tag.

    There are some great things Dice could do for balance, I've made a few posts in the past discussing my ideas, but it's probably too late now for BF1. We'll just have to wait and see in BFV if they can get the formula right.

  • von_Campenstein
    6568 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    Woodlbrad wrote: »
    The scoring is much better in 5 I remember winning a game by a single point. I've seen so many close games in the beta than I have seen in a month of playing bf1 maybe more.

    Whilst I saw a few close ones in the beta, I also saw plenty of games won by hundreds of points towards the end of the beta and people had started actually playing the game rather than just exploring and mucking about. In particular this was the case when I played in party with a bunch of other guys I regularly play with. Personally, I think there's a risk we'll see well co-ordinated squads even more dominant than they were before, and therefore there's the potential to have even more one sided matches.

    No doubt, the 1 tagged up squad will see 3 tagged up squads on the other side, the rest randoms and leave the server.

    What's the solution you say? One would be just showing tags at the end of the match but then there are those people who insist on having their tags in their names... That and of course distribute the premades evenly, you'd think that one is obvious but no.

    I'm sure some do leave when they see a bunch of platoons on the enemy side. For me, tags don't mean diddly. Just because someone is in a platoon doesn't mean they are great. Sure, it indicates that at least they took the time to join a platoon, and a bunch of them together are often better than random blurberry's - but I'll come across plenty who are pretty poor, perhaps just a bunch of mates etc. If my party comes across a bunch of platoons on the other side we actually are pleased as it means we are a little more likely to get a balanced game.

    I also frequently find myself in a party with a couple of guys who don't wear the same tags as me - but are every bit as good (or better than I am) and if we end up in the same squad then it's pretty formidable. The importance is voice comms, not wearing a tag.

    There are some great things Dice could do for balance, I've made a few posts in the past discussing my ideas, but it's probably too late now for BF1. We'll just have to wait and see in BFV if they can get the formula right.

    To me same tag implies they are on voicecomms at all times.
  • Danikun85
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited October 2018
    Match making my ****. 90% of the operations I join are completely one sided with more than half the other team above level 120 while the team I join averages 80 or less. It’s not even a contest. This is extremely frustrating...as a beginner it’s next to impossible to improve because every time I spawn I get sniped or blown to **** immediately. I’ve joined 3 games tonight where it found me a match and my team lost before I even spawned in. If one of you high level **** tells me to “get gud” I’m gonna lose my ****. C’mon EA. Enough of this BS.
  • daProfessional1
    4 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Its just pure garbage. Almost every games there's 10+ guys who literally live and breath BF, the 150's, all on one side and bunch of guys like me who like to play now and then on the other. If I could just switch to a normal server I would but there's barely any servers as it is. It's just a sad joke. I rarely had this issue with HALO. It's literally the reason I don't like playing BF for PC. Too many **** all stacked on one team with no other server options.
    skates15 wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    I can take one steamroll, but when I see the next round the teams are the same I leave or switch ..

    The biggest problem is: the game should "notice" (measure) the numbers during a game and change the teams accordingly for the next round (or just mix everything), but is doesn't and then the switching/leaving starts ..

    When a game was pretty close I see little to noone switch/leave.
    But everyone knows the next round will have the same outcome because the teams will stay the same after a steamroll.

    I can accept the fact that balancing is hard at the beginning of a random round on longtime numbers like skill, level, KPM and K/D ratio, because those numbers are easy to manipulate.

    And someone is not on his/her A-game, because he/she is for example trying out new weapons, completing/unlocking an assignment, just in the mood for killing and not PTFO and so on.

    But not changing teams after a round you can measure at that moment is .. BAD.

    I agree. When the games are blow outs and the next round doesn't shuffle the deck, then you gotta wonder just how much 'balancing' is actually happening. In these cases I'd say none and yes, I look to see if the same players are on the same teams after a blow out. If they are, I just find another server.

    I think DICE needs to address this as a priority on their next project.

  • daProfessional1
    4 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Bah. I was thinking of buying BF5 but it's going to be the same BS. I quit playing the BF series after BF4. Man that game sucked. Came back with BF1. But I think I'm done for good. Nothing has changed. Fun game. Garbage servers.
  • Khronikos
    2145 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Their mid round balancer is completely broken. No idea what they think they are doing, but it isn't working. It has never worked. Period.
  • spartanx169x
    698 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    They don’t allow team switching in BF V and it appears the teams are better balanced. They also don’t have behemoths but allow the losing team to cap faster instead. The games so far appear close. I’ve only watched, I have not played. I’m still not sold on BFV will wait a week or two then decide.
  • Skill4Reel
    351 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Wins/losses mean nothing in this series, and most people on these servers play like it. They are too busy trying to get 50 kills with whatever weapon or gadget to get some lame assignment done. Achievement hunting. That team score and objective icons at the top of the screen are irrelevant to them. That is the problem with team balance. Too many of these players on the servers, and it is impossible to balance them.

  • GrislyAccord
    26 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Danikun85 wrote: »
    Match making my ****. 90% of the operations I join are completely one sided with more than half the other team above level 120 while the team I join averages 80 or less. It’s not even a contest. This is extremely frustrating...as a beginner it’s next to impossible to improve because every time I spawn I get sniped or blown to **** immediately. I’ve joined 3 games tonight where it found me a match and my team lost before I even spawned in. If one of you high level **** tells me to “get gud” I’m gonna lose my ****. C’mon EA. Enough of this BS.

    The matchmaking obviously has its flaws. (Whenever I'm autobalanced "based on skill" I think, "Great, put all the **** players like myself on one team!" haha.)

    But I have to disagree about it being next to impossible to improve. I've only been playing the game for a little less than three weeks now, and I've improved considerably. Started out, I could barely get off the ground, maybe three kills to fifteen deaths per game. Just this morning I broke 20 kills with only 7 deaths. That might not seem like much compared to the truly talented players, but for me, it's pretty damn good and I'm pleased with it. (Although, in all fairness, it wasn't skill that allowed me to get the 20 kills. Badguys just kept running right into my line of fire. Like they were all eager to look down the barrel of my machine gun, see if I had some Skittles in there or something. Maybe some kettle corn.)
  • HuwJarz
    3868 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Danikun85 wrote: »
    Match making my ****. 90% of the operations I join are completely one sided with more than half the other team above level 120 while the team I join averages 80 or less. It’s not even a contest. This is extremely frustrating...as a beginner it’s next to impossible to improve because every time I spawn I get sniped or blown to **** immediately. I’ve joined 3 games tonight where it found me a match and my team lost before I even spawned in. If one of you high level **** tells me to “get gud” I’m gonna lose my ****. C’mon EA. Enough of this BS.

    The matchmaking obviously has its flaws. (Whenever I'm autobalanced "based on skill" I think, "Great, put all the **** players like myself on one team!" haha.)

    But I have to disagree about it being next to impossible to improve. I've only been playing the game for a little less than three weeks now, and I've improved considerably. Started out, I could barely get off the ground, maybe three kills to fifteen deaths per game. Just this morning I broke 20 kills with only 7 deaths. That might not seem like much compared to the truly talented players, but for me, it's pretty damn good and I'm pleased with it. (Although, in all fairness, it wasn't skill that allowed me to get the 20 kills. Badguys just kept running right into my line of fire. Like they were all eager to look down the barrel of my machine gun, see if I had some Skittles in there or something. Maybe some kettle corn.)

    Good post. Lots of wah wah wah wah posts. Good to see someone that recognises that it sometimes takes time to skill up.
Sign In or Register to comment.