This Week in Battlefield V

Team Switching Is a Necessary Skill

2

Comments

  • SWE-Androctonus
    557 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited October 2018
    dICEHOUSE wrote: »
    I think it is like this. When first joining a game and it's mid round or less, and you join the winning team, it is only a matter of time before it kicks you to the other team that is losing. At least that is what I see but that is the point of the balancer, correct?

    Waiting/quitting, or then rejoining the 'winning team' defeats the purpose of the balancer I would think. Which ends up causing these so called 'routs' in the end.

    If starting a game at the beginning of the match and you are winning you stay. Possibility being kicked to the other team still is possible. If for some reason you do get kicked to the 'losing side', you're going to quit or switch back to the other team??

    Seems to defeat the purpose of the balancer and just seems like a jacka** thing to do.

    Yes. The balancer is stupid because most of the time the teams fill up a moment after someone leaves. So you get switched to the losing team while the "new joiner" takes your place. This is so beyond stupid, I don´t even know what to say.
  • hawkseye17
    577 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Team switching has been good for balance. Autobalancers always fail. You can't switch teams when they are unbalanced anyways .
  • Insidious_Inc
    211 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Pretty sure the balancer has gotten worse since the patch. Before it wouldn't switch you if you were high up enough on the leaderboard. However, today I got switched over while being on top and 900 tickets in, on CQ.

    Yeah good point. Although I guees it could be good for balance to take the best guy from the winning team and put him on the losing team. Not so great for that guy though.

    Starting balance is still terrible too. I was in a conquest game tonight where our losing team was clearly losing with only one objective held with the score of 120-180 and the member count for each team was 28-31. How is that kind of lopsided team count even allowed to happen? Its terrible programming.

    It's actually starting to get really annoying. I might just have to play badly on purpose not to get switched over. ;)
  • von_Campenstein
    6568 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Pretty sure the balancer has gotten worse since the patch. Before it wouldn't switch you if you were high up enough on the leaderboard. However, today I got switched over while being on top and 900 tickets in, on CQ.

    Yeah good point. Although I guees it could be good for balance to take the best guy from the winning team and put him on the losing team. Not so great for that guy though.

    Starting balance is still terrible too. I was in a conquest game tonight where our losing team was clearly losing with only one objective held with the score of 120-180 and the member count for each team was 28-31. How is that kind of lopsided team count even allowed to happen? Its terrible programming.

    It's actually starting to get really annoying. I might just have to play badly on purpose not to get switched over. ;)

    Or you know, don't die.
  • Ronin9572
    904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I'll admit I've been team switching a lot lately. Absolutely hate doing it but tired of my winning percentage dropping like 12% the last few months. Also been working on the Supply Drop dog tag, it's hard enough finding servers as it is!
  • Insidious_Inc
    211 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Pretty sure the balancer has gotten worse since the patch. Before it wouldn't switch you if you were high up enough on the leaderboard. However, today I got switched over while being on top and 900 tickets in, on CQ.

    Yeah good point. Although I guees it could be good for balance to take the best guy from the winning team and put him on the losing team. Not so great for that guy though.

    Starting balance is still terrible too. I was in a conquest game tonight where our losing team was clearly losing with only one objective held with the score of 120-180 and the member count for each team was 28-31. How is that kind of lopsided team count even allowed to happen? Its terrible programming.

    It's actually starting to get really annoying. I might just have to play badly on purpose not to get switched over. ;)

    Or you know, don't die.

    The server lets out a notice usually when the balancer is active, so not dying during that period makes sense. However, sometimes it's out of your hands.
  • FocalCapybara34
    294 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I will often try to switch to a non clan stacked team which is getting stomped, but get the ”you can't switch due to making the teams unbalanced” message.
    It's like wtf how can the teams possibly be balanced if one team is getting smashed every time
  • MachoFantast1c0
    2033 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    hawkseye17 wrote: »
    Team switching has been good for balance. Autobalancers always fail. You can't switch teams when they are unbalanced anyways .

    The only thing team switching is good at is netting pathetic switchers a 90 percent win rate. Stop this crap.
  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1329 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I think it's essential for a game like this because of how long matches are.

    Waiting 20-30 minutes for a match to end so you can play with your friends, dump a team of potatoes, or whatever reason is too long. I would have stopped playing a long time ago if there was no team switcher in BF1. It's not fun joining in a match halfway solo and you see that your team is being stomped. Or you join a match with friends and it splits your squad up onto different teams.

    The real solution would be to have DICE fix their balancing and whatever they use to create and keep squads together, but seeing as how those have been problems since BF3 at least I don't see that happening any time soon.
  • SongToRememberPS
    71 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Switching teams should be removed along with autobalancer. Right now I get thrown into losing team when I join game and when I push my team to win I get switched to enemy team. It is impossible to enjoy game like this and this is one of the reasons why I kind a stopped playing actively. I only returned to finish last few available dogs tags before battlefield v.
  • WetFishDB
    1988 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    RRedux wrote: »
    Pretty sure the balancer has gotten worse since the patch. Before it wouldn't switch you if you were high up enough on the leaderboard. However, today I got switched over while being on top and 900 tickets in, on CQ.

    Yeah good point. Although I guees it could be good for balance to take the best guy from the winning team and put him on the losing team. Not so great for that guy though.

    Starting balance is still terrible too. I was in a conquest game tonight where our losing team was clearly losing with only one objective held with the score of 120-180 and the member count for each team was 28-31. How is that kind of lopsided team count even allowed to happen? Its terrible programming.

    It's not really bad programming, since it is very likely intentional. The matchmaker / balancer tries to give players an equal amount of wins and losses over time, not make one particular round balanced. So it creates lopsided teams.

    After bf1 came out, there was a guy on youtube (I don't remember his name) who pointed out that a few years before bf1 came out, EA patented a system like that. The reasoning is that if a player only wins, they get bored, and if they only lose, they get bored, to keep people playing more the balancer tries to give players a mix of wins, losses and draws.

    TL:DR the system isn't designed to create balanced matches, its designed for "player retention". It's not terrible programming, just a bad game design decision.

    You and I both have no idea how the system is actually meant to work, although probably both agree that it's got some serious flaws: like starting a round of Conquest with significantly numerically imbalanced teams.

    I actually think it is intended to create balanced matches, but is just poorly implemented. There are some odd decisions, like retaining squads between rounds (even if they are just random strangers), the acceptable numerical imbalance in starting rounds of Conquest etc. The challenge is there is only so much it can do to balance games, even if they hadn't made those odd design choices. One good squad in a party can often significantly influence the outcome of games. And any inadequacy is then massively amplified by quitters and switchers. The mid-round balancer is a bit nonsense period. It's just a poorly thought through concept IMHO, designed to give the temporary appearance of balance for no real change in outcome.

    Unfortunately there is no perfect solution to balancing in this game without significant re-work - which isn't going to happen in this games lifecycle. We just have to hope they've thought about this a little more for BFV.
  • disposalist
    8594 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Stopping team switching to the winning/bigger side will stop a LOT of games from ending up unbalanced.
    Stopping games from starting unbalanced (ie. not balancing based on players that haven't even loaded yet) will help a lot.

    The whole thing re. player retention algorithms rather than player balancing is ridiculous. They can't orchestrate a win or loss unless they have good skill assessment ability and if they have command of accurate skill assessment, why would they balance according to some player retention algorithm instead of just making the games fair? The whole issue is silly. No one gets bored, win or lose, if the game is good and close, ie. balanced.

    The issue is, they, apparently, don't use a good skill balance algorithm and then they throw it out of the window anyway by allowing team switching and by starting games unbalanced and by not penalising those that quit anything other than early in the game.
  • SWE-Androctonus
    557 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    So I find myself becoming one of the expert switchers. When it looks like one team has a slight advantage, I'll immediately switch so I don't get stuck on the sinking ship. ... I guess I'm part of the problem but I really have no choice. The way this game is designed is that someone will always be left holding the bag and getting stomped on the losing team.

    You always have the choice of not being a ****. Not winning does not necessarily equal getting stomped, and comebacks do happen (though not often). My code of ethics allows for quitting spawncamps (which are relatively rare on PC), but otherwise I work to try and turn the game around. It makes me a better player, and I still have a 62 percent win ratio to show for it.
    As bad as it is, I'll admit that I switch too. I think I'm a pretty good player so I'm always thrown on the losing team.

    This is factually incorrect and displays considerable observation bias. You are not always thrown on the losing team, no one is. Playing solo the expected win/loss ratio is approximately 50 percent, unless you are playing smaller modes and can carry your team. You are just rationalizing your despicable behavior.

    That's not true at all. You get put on the team people leave. The losing team. You can se in every game, the losing team has multiple new joiners at the bottom of the score board. The winning team does not.

    9of10 games I join, I get put on the losing team.
  • WetFishDB
    1988 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So I find myself becoming one of the expert switchers. When it looks like one team has a slight advantage, I'll immediately switch so I don't get stuck on the sinking ship. ... I guess I'm part of the problem but I really have no choice. The way this game is designed is that someone will always be left holding the bag and getting stomped on the losing team.

    You always have the choice of not being a ****. Not winning does not necessarily equal getting stomped, and comebacks do happen (though not often). My code of ethics allows for quitting spawncamps (which are relatively rare on PC), but otherwise I work to try and turn the game around. It makes me a better player, and I still have a 62 percent win ratio to show for it.
    As bad as it is, I'll admit that I switch too. I think I'm a pretty good player so I'm always thrown on the losing team.

    This is factually incorrect and displays considerable observation bias. You are not always thrown on the losing team, no one is. Playing solo the expected win/loss ratio is approximately 50 percent, unless you are playing smaller modes and can carry your team. You are just rationalizing your despicable behavior.

    That's not true at all. You get put on the team people leave. The losing team. You can se in every game, the losing team has multiple new joiners at the bottom of the score board. The winning team does not.

    9of10 games I join, I get put on the losing team.

    That has nothing to do with balancing though.

    When you join a server it can only put you on the team with spaces. Because of all the quitters and switchers, there’s inevitably more often space on the losing side. It’s certainly not 9/10 though.
  • disposalist
    8594 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    So I find myself becoming one of the expert switchers. When it looks like one team has a slight advantage, I'll immediately switch so I don't get stuck on the sinking ship. ... I guess I'm part of the problem but I really have no choice. The way this game is designed is that someone will always be left holding the bag and getting stomped on the losing team.
    You always have the choice of not being a ****. Not winning does not necessarily equal getting stomped, and comebacks do happen (though not often). My code of ethics allows for quitting spawncamps (which are relatively rare on PC), but otherwise I work to try and turn the game around. It makes me a better player, and I still have a 62 percent win ratio to show for it.
    As bad as it is, I'll admit that I switch too. I think I'm a pretty good player so I'm always thrown on the losing team.

    This is factually incorrect and displays considerable observation bias. You are not always thrown on the losing team, no one is. Playing solo the expected win/loss ratio is approximately 50 percent, unless you are playing smaller modes and can carry your team. You are just rationalizing your despicable behavior.
    That's not true at all. You get put on the team people leave. The losing team. You can se in every game, the losing team has multiple new joiners at the bottom of the score board. The winning team does not.

    9of10 games I join, I get put on the losing team.
    Stop quitting servers then ;^) Of course when joining new servers you mostly end up joining the losing (smaller) side. This is partly why balancing is so difficult. People have no faith in it, so they quit rather than let the balancer make the next game better.

    As I said above, if they stop switching, stop starting games unbalanced and discourage quitting, the balancing would be much better.
  • disposalist
    8594 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    So I find myself becoming one of the expert switchers. When it looks like one team has a slight advantage, I'll immediately switch so I don't get stuck on the sinking ship. ... I guess I'm part of the problem but I really have no choice. The way this game is designed is that someone will always be left holding the bag and getting stomped on the losing team.

    You always have the choice of not being a ****. Not winning does not necessarily equal getting stomped, and comebacks do happen (though not often). My code of ethics allows for quitting spawncamps (which are relatively rare on PC), but otherwise I work to try and turn the game around. It makes me a better player, and I still have a 62 percent win ratio to show for it.
    As bad as it is, I'll admit that I switch too. I think I'm a pretty good player so I'm always thrown on the losing team.

    This is factually incorrect and displays considerable observation bias. You are not always thrown on the losing team, no one is. Playing solo the expected win/loss ratio is approximately 50 percent, unless you are playing smaller modes and can carry your team. You are just rationalizing your despicable behavior.

    That's not true at all. You get put on the team people leave. The losing team. You can se in every game, the losing team has multiple new joiners at the bottom of the score board. The winning team does not.

    9of10 games I join, I get put on the losing team.
    Stop quitting servers then ;^) Of course when joining new servers you mostly end up joining the losing (smaller) side. This is partly why balancing is so difficult. People have no faith in it, so they leave rather than let the balancer make the next game better.

    As I said above, if they stop switching, stop starting games unbalanced and discourage quitting, the balancing would be much better.
  • I-Soldat-I
    1640 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Unless you find yourself in a clan run server (which is more and more common these days) which not coincidentally is also clan stacked and your on the non clan stacked team. As I found myself this evening. Alt F4 FTW!
  • abc1434286920
    447 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I-Soldat-I wrote: »
    Unless you find yourself in a clan run server (which is more and more common these days) which not coincidentally is also clan stacked and your on the non clan stacked team. As I found myself this evening. Alt F4 FTW!

    There are rare times that a clan splits their members between the two teams, in most cases this ends up with a very competitive game, a fun experience.
  • Forkbeard84
    1608 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Stopping team switching to the winning/bigger side will stop a LOT of games from ending up unbalanced.
    Stopping games from starting unbalanced (ie. not balancing based on players that haven't even loaded yet) will help a lot.

    The whole thing re. player retention algorithms rather than player balancing is ridiculous. They can't orchestrate a win or loss unless they have good skill assessment ability and if they have command of accurate skill assessment, why would they balance according to some player retention algorithm instead of just making the games fair? The whole issue is silly. No one gets bored, win or lose, if the game is good and close, ie. balanced.

    The issue is, they, apparently, don't use a good skill balance algorithm and then they throw it out of the window anyway by allowing team switching and by starting games unbalanced and by not penalising those that quit anything other than early in the game.

    Good observations here and I agree. It's ridiculous that games would even be allowed to start with uneven numbers on the teams. And team switching ought to be limited if it will create a large imbalance in the teams.

    The only real legitimate reason that I can see for team switching is to allow friends and squads to join up with each other. You could accomplish that goal by allowing all the team switching you want before the beginning of a round and then balancing the numbers with new joining players before starting the game. You could maybe even add a 15 second team switch timer to the start of every game. And then maybe some very limited team switching could occur during the round as long as switching won't create a large imbalance. During the game you could even have a one for one switching algorithm where one person puts in a request to switch and as soon as another player on the opposite team requests to switch the one for one switch occurs. Right now, team switching is just too wide open and its a huge contributor to imbalance.

    (Note: I suppose people quitting can cause an imbalanced game too. You might even have a one for one algorithm for quitting later in the game as well or maybe bigger penalties for quitting a game like you lose some experience, etc.)
  • Puckerbucket
    694 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    There are rare times that a clan splits their members between the two teams, in most cases this ends up with a very competitive game, a fun experience.
    The platoon I started in March 2017 has grown to nearly 90 members on 4 continents, and has resulted in some lasting real-world and gaming friendships. We *regularly* split ourselves across both teams to even things out. And since we're all usually in the same party chat and know each other fairly well, the smack-talking and taunting are hilarious. Probably the most enjoyable games I've had in this title, and I know the non-platoon members are probably having a decent time as well, as most games come down to the wire. The only time we get serious about playing together is when a second or third platoon moves in and tries to turn it into a pub stomp and ruin it for all.

Sign In or Register to comment.