Being put in trash team is getting worse by day

2

Comments

  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Well you jsut demonstrated nicely why DICE decided to not have rental servers. By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    Actually on many rental servers the admins would have taken steps to balance the teams, like moving squads between rounds so one side doesn't get stomped over and over again.

    Needless to say your claim that a good player can't end up on a bad team is foolish.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I wonder how this matchmaking seems to put me into terrible team in the first place, while having other team stacked with good players.

    To some extent this is not an accident. I'm seeing clans or platoons who are very good at getting all their pals on one side so they can pubstomp the other team round after round. This is even happening with members of different clans, they're mixing and matching players from the two groups within squads. It's a safe bet they're on each other's friends lists and all use the same VOIP channel.

    As to why you get placed on the weak team, if that team is getting crushed then players will be bailing out, and if you join late you're going to be placed on the short-handed team.

    BFV needs a team scramble between rounds, keep squads together but shuffle the squads between rounds.

  • ProAssassin2003
    3865 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    A Bad team makes everyone play worse. Because good players like me will be alone on flags and trying to get past enemy team alone and more.

    If you're on a Team and they lose 6 out of 7 Flags that Team is just awful and should Uninstall the game.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
    Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
    But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the "bad team", which happens to lose. Just look at everybody's stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP's case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls "trash teams". He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
    Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren't exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds.
    @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin' reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.
  • SuperiorByGender
    3239 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
    Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
    But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the "bad team", which happens to lose. Just look at everybody's stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP's case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls "trash teams". He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
    Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren't exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds.
    @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin' reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.

    I said earlier, I don't mind loosing. My problem is that most games that I join, my team is getting utterly destroyed on every level. I'm fine playing a round and loosing by 50-100 points when alteast my and enemy team are taking flags and having a fight. But in today's reality, my team will always be loosing by 300-400 points while being spawn locked. Thats why I leave most of the time. Don't believe me? Cool, add me on Origin and lets do social experiment. Randomly join 10-20 different servers via match making with intervals of 3-4 hours, and see how many times our team will be getting completely wrecked.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
    Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
    But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the "bad team", which happens to lose. Just look at everybody's stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP's case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls "trash teams". He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
    Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren't exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds.
    @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin' reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.

    I said earlier, I don't mind loosing. My problem is that most games that I join, my team is getting utterly destroyed on every level. I'm fine playing a round and loosing by 50-100 points when alteast my and enemy team are taking flags and having a fight. But in today's reality, my team will always be loosing by 300-400 points while being spawn locked. Thats why I leave most of the time. Don't believe me? Cool, add me on Origin and lets do social experiment. Randomly join 10-20 different servers via match making with intervals of 3-4 hours, and see how many times our team will be getting completely wrecked.

    I do not need bloody proof, your BF3 quitrate is 35%, while your win rate has been 80% over the course of three games. You hate losing, you quit the game when you see a tendency. For comparison's sake look at StodehTV's or DRUNKKZ3's winrate, that is around 60ish, and they have a tendency to break games. Mine is around 60ish. Parkingbrakes winrate is at 48%, I could look up anyone else in here and we would be moving around the 40-60% mark. This means that the darn matchmaking is working decently enough.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
    Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
    But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the "bad team", which happens to lose. Just look at everybody's stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP's case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls "trash teams". He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
    Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren't exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds.
    @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin' reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.

    I said earlier, I don't mind loosing. My problem is that most games that I join, my team is getting utterly destroyed on every level. I'm fine playing a round and loosing by 50-100 points when alteast my and enemy team are taking flags and having a fight. But in today's reality, my team will always be loosing by 300-400 points while being spawn locked. Thats why I leave most of the time. Don't believe me? Cool, add me on Origin and lets do social experiment. Randomly join 10-20 different servers via match making with intervals of 3-4 hours, and see how many times our team will be getting completely wrecked.

    I do not need bloody proof, your BF3 quitrate is 35%, while your win rate has been 80% over the course of three games. You hate losing, you quit the game when you see a tendency. For comparison's sake look at StodehTV's or DRUNKKZ3's winrate, that is around 60ish, and they have a tendency to break games. Mine is around 60ish. Parkingbrakes winrate is at 48%, I could look up anyone else in here and we would be moving around the 40-60% mark. This means that the darn matchmaking is working decently enough.

    i dont think quit ratios hold much weight since mine is due to this .....

    https://1drv.ms/v/s!AmjSl2amw1Q0ggf9Eyrs3PuPboiF

    along with blackscreens. So I have to dashboard once or twice an hour currently. I'd be curious what mine is but it wouldnt change much. Also, team switching is being abused and any algorithm DICE uses is pretty inconsistent if they dont address it.

    Lastly, isnt there a diff "advantage tickrate" for a losing side to help balance different from previous titles? I assume bleedrate, respawn times, and cap speed all play a role but unsure exactly or at what point does it trigger for the losing side? I'd wager this is bugged and is also throwing off games by a ton.

    I actually did it, I gathered all the data from players in this thread, and guess what: The lowest winrate is 45%. 3/4 are sitting between 45-60%. Another four or so in the 70s. And yet these people come into the forums and claim that they are "always put on the losing with all the bad players". Now truthfully, for every guy that has a winrate of 70% there must be a guy that has a winrate of 30%. However, I do not see them coming to the forum or a guy sticking up for them in this thread.
    Let me give you an example: Say your teams value is 32000 through the algorithm, same with the other team. Our OP is pretty decent so he is worth about 3k. His team gets a bad start, there are a thousand possible reasons, he quits because his team is trash, or because his cat just puked on the floor, or he had a blackscreen of death. His team is now 3k short. Who created the imbalance now? DICE?
    .
    And yes, there is the conquest catch-up mechanic, nobody knows how it works, but assuming from this thread, every round ends in a landslide, the effect must be marginal. In any case, a winner emerges. It was rather big at release and beta, but now I daresay it is only a slight boost, to again, keep people from leaving and creating more lopsided games. The point remains: Do not leave your team and then come to the forum to complain about team-balance.
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
    Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
    But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the "bad team", which happens to lose. Just look at everybody's stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP's case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls "trash teams". He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
    Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren't exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds.
    @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin' reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.

    I said earlier, I don't mind loosing. My problem is that most games that I join, my team is getting utterly destroyed on every level. I'm fine playing a round and loosing by 50-100 points when alteast my and enemy team are taking flags and having a fight. But in today's reality, my team will always be loosing by 300-400 points while being spawn locked. Thats why I leave most of the time. Don't believe me? Cool, add me on Origin and lets do social experiment. Randomly join 10-20 different servers via match making with intervals of 3-4 hours, and see how many times our team will be getting completely wrecked.

    I do not need bloody proof, your BF3 quitrate is 35%, while your win rate has been 80% over the course of three games. You hate losing, you quit the game when you see a tendency. For comparison's sake look at StodehTV's or DRUNKKZ3's winrate, that is around 60ish, and they have a tendency to break games. Mine is around 60ish. Parkingbrakes winrate is at 48%, I could look up anyone else in here and we would be moving around the 40-60% mark. This means that the darn matchmaking is working decently enough.

    i dont think quit ratios hold much weight since mine is due to this .....

    https://1drv.ms/v/s!AmjSl2amw1Q0ggf9Eyrs3PuPboiF

    along with blackscreens. So I have to dashboard once or twice an hour currently. I'd be curious what mine is but it wouldnt change much. Also, team switching is being abused and any algorithm DICE uses is pretty inconsistent if they dont address it.

    Lastly, isnt there a diff "advantage tickrate" for a losing side to help balance different from previous titles? I assume bleedrate, respawn times, and cap speed all play a role but unsure exactly or at what point does it trigger for the losing side? I'd wager this is bugged and is also throwing off games by a ton.

    I actually did it, I gathered all the data from players in this thread, and guess what: The lowest winrate is 45%. 3/4 are sitting between 45-60%. Another four or so in the 70s. And yet these people come into the forums and claim that they are "always put on the losing with all the bad players". Now truthfully, for every guy that has a winrate of 70% there must be a guy that has a winrate of 30%. However, I do not see them coming to the forum or a guy sticking up for them in this thread.
    Let me give you an example: Say your teams value is 32000 through the algorithm, same with the other team. Our OP is pretty decent so he is worth about 3k. His team gets a bad start, there are a thousand possible reasons, he quits because his team is trash, or because his cat just puked on the floor, or he had a blackscreen of death. His team is now 3k short. Who created the imbalance now? DICE?
    .
    And yes, there is the conquest catch-up mechanic, nobody knows how it works, but assuming from this thread, every round ends in a landslide, the effect must be marginal. In any case, a winner emerges. It was rather big at release and beta, but now I daresay it is only a slight boost, to again, keep people from leaving and creating more lopsided games. The point remains: Do not leave your team and then come to the forum to complain about team-balance.

    this is a design flaw then. eventually players leave the game, every one of them. so by virtue every match that they are in and leave will be effected? I mean just think about "peak times" when the majority of players are typically on. Can you imagine the unbalance caused by players simply by not just stating in rotations forever and not logging off. I get the point you are trying to make in specific cases but i still think its a flaw of some sort. Unless they would love to explain the 'catch up' parameter, what triggers it, and what advantages it offers. Also, I wonder if the unbalance complaints are across all consoles or if its more prominent to certain ones. To me, it seems blackscreens are an Xbox thing. So if this is the case then you could imagine xbox balance is off due to X amount of players that have to leave in order to reboot.

    Blackscreens or crashes happen all the time, but they would not have effect on your win ratio in the long run. If OP or I, or you had crashes ever so often (and assuming they do not count as a lose) you would still win x times and lose y. Also frequent crashes as a problem of a certain platform does not create imbalance either, because most likely, everyone is equally affected. If x amount of people crash during a game, it will fill up again from the pool of available people.
    Yeah players are always leaving and joining and are then matchmaked, if one is worth 3k points and leaves the game will let the players in queue join. That is flawed, but what other system would there be? If it is the end of the round, it will try to match players so that again it evens out. But that can not be flawless either. However, this was no different on RSP servers at all.
    As far as catch-up mechanic goes, it was captime and vehicle respawn timer, that I know of. That is probably still in there, but I doubt it turns rounds anymore. It is more a psychological thing when you take three flags where you would before only been able to take two. It creates a bit of momentum and therefore legthens rounds, nothing more.
  • ColesFlexili
    179 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    i know that the playerlevel doesnt tell much about skill, but when i see a team in squadcombat that has 7 players under level 15 i KNOW they get their ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ handed to them by the full stacked lvl 50 enemy team. its a matter of experience and it has to be balanced. sadly it doesnt
  • TheGM86
    917 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 2019
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
    Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
    But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the "bad team", which happens to lose. Just look at everybody's stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP's case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls "trash teams". He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
    Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren't exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds.
    @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin' reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.

    I said earlier, I don't mind loosing. My problem is that most games that I join, my team is getting utterly destroyed on every level. I'm fine playing a round and loosing by 50-100 points when alteast my and enemy team are taking flags and having a fight. But in today's reality, my team will always be loosing by 300-400 points while being spawn locked. Thats why I leave most of the time. Don't believe me? Cool, add me on Origin and lets do social experiment. Randomly join 10-20 different servers via match making with intervals of 3-4 hours, and see how many times our team will be getting completely wrecked.

    I do not need bloody proof, your BF3 quitrate is 35%, while your win rate has been 80% over the course of three games. You hate losing, you quit the game when you see a tendency. For comparison's sake look at StodehTV's or DRUNKKZ3's winrate, that is around 60ish, and they have a tendency to break games. Mine is around 60ish. Parkingbrakes winrate is at 48%, I could look up anyone else in here and we would be moving around the 40-60% mark. This means that the darn matchmaking is working decently enough.

    i dont think quit ratios hold much weight since mine is due to this .....

    https://1drv.ms/v/s!AmjSl2amw1Q0ggf9Eyrs3PuPboiF

    along with blackscreens. So I have to dashboard once or twice an hour currently. I'd be curious what mine is but it wouldnt change much. Also, team switching is being abused and any algorithm DICE uses is pretty inconsistent if they dont address it.

    Lastly, isnt there a diff "advantage tickrate" for a losing side to help balance different from previous titles? I assume bleedrate, respawn times, and cap speed all play a role but unsure exactly or at what point does it trigger for the losing side? I'd wager this is bugged and is also throwing off games by a ton.

    I actually did it, I gathered all the data from players in this thread, and guess what: The lowest winrate is 45%. 3/4 are sitting between 45-60%. Another four or so in the 70s.
    IllegalColorlessKoala-size_restricted.gif
    what is my quit rate oh wise number wizard?
  • CSO7777
    1873 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    And yes, there is the conquest catch-up mechanic, nobody knows how it works, but assuming from this thread, every round ends in a landslide, the effect must be marginal. In any case, a winner emerges. It was rather big at release and beta, but now I daresay it is only a slight boost, to again, keep people from leaving and creating more lopsided games. The point remains: Do not leave your team and then come to the forum to complain about team-balance.
    When the game was released the games were much better balanced than now.

    After they adjusted the 'catch-up-mechanic' the game has become much more unbalanced.

    The 'catch-up-mechanic' is somehow stupid, but perhaps it really was the best solution?

    I thought it was a cheesy mechanic at the time, but now I would rather have that than what we have now. They could perhaps tweak it so we will get something in between now and how it was in the beginning (the team with the best players should still win).
  • snavelaer
    1148 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    I wonder how this matchmaking seems to put me into terrible team in the first place, while having other team stacked with good players.

    I know how it happened. Because your skill is way higher than the rest of your team. You basically compensating the teams.
    You are so good you get in the bad team everytime.

    How you feeling now. Good?
  • MachoFantast1c0
    2067 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number..

    This is the theory yes, but in practice it is severely limited by the relative small player population and its tendency of prioritizing your getting into a game in about a minute. In the vast majority of cases a waiting player will be placed in a pre-populated server, and the skill component of the matchmaking algorithm is reduced to determining the team (assuming both sides have room). Thus skill distribution in matches is wide, and good players will be put on the weaker side. As it should be.
    .
    The quality of the skill component could only be analyzed by looking at freshly spawned server instances, but this data is hard to come by (outside of DICE). So it is of relatively little interest, as the majority of matches will happen on pre-populated servers. For this purpose DICE has a pre-round balancer (and in BF1 experimented with a mid-round balancer). However, the pre-round balancer seems to be far less aggressive than in BF1. It does swap squads, but it seems to only do this under conditions of severe imbalance, if even then.
    .
    Furthermore, when it acts on an imbalance, it doesn't go far enough. Yesterday I was stomping with @bran1986 and @TyroneLoyd on Frontlines, and just our squad got swapped. But the new team was so outmatched that we managed nothing to stem the tide. So what I would like to see is full team randomization that breaks up squad and rebuilds the team compositions from the ground up, only retaining friends inside squads. Platoons/parties bigger than a squad can only be divided among the teams.

  • AssassinAgent47
    19 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    Spam spot flares
    Get in a light tank and use the 'spotting scope.'
    SPOT everything , tanks, planes , soldiers.

    You'll soon see most stacked teams eventually quit out when they start to lose because now everyone on your team can see all the red dots.
  • Hawxxeye
    7773 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I think that friends and clans are simply having easier time getting together because the recent patch solved the match making issue of joining friends who are in full squads.
    .
    Until the game has once again autoadmin like in BF4 where it will say "the score difference was too large last round, the teams will be scrambled next round" you will have lots of cases where you will get frustrated if you are trying to win.
    .
  • VincentNZ
    3885 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TheGM86 wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    By the way, if your team is trash, this means you are just as trashy.

    I don't agree with this. I'm usually miles ahead of my team in terms of performance. A full squad could cause enough trouble for the enemy team to make a difference. A single or 2 players in a squad can barely cap a single flag before being overwhelmed by enemy team.

    Heres a good example, its me and my friend going toe to toe while the rest of out team is getting destroyed, this is how most of our games goes. We, or I when play alone, go 6-10k points ahead of everyone else while completely embarrassing enemy players, and our team(And especially our squad) is camping somewhere in the open field trying to snipe someone. And then our squad mates wonder why we kick them.
    4jazEuH.jpg

    So? Has it ever occured to you that you are put into this via matchmaking? To have a balanced round? As you put it so eloquently: 1. In earlier games you would have just switched sides, which is the reason why they removed that option. 2. Or you would have payed for a premium slot, which illustrates why we do not have RSP.
    Matchmaking is there and it is skill based, everybody claiming he is so good but simply gets put on the wrong team is just confirmation bias. When you look up the stats, they are still above a 50% winrate. You sourself are sitting at a whooping 77% which basically means that you leave every round where your team can not clearly win. I would applaud DICE to simply award not any points again for leaving a round mid-game.
    So obviously you do not get put into the "trashteam" all the time. It is simply a vast overexaggeration.
    .
    Matchmaking is there to ensure balanced rounds and the algorithm is skill-based. It does naturally not account for people joining through the server browser, or later into the game, nor can it compensate for players leaving the game after the round has started. It can also not accomodate if a succesful tanker suddenly plays medic with the worst weapon available. Still, if you get your buttocks handed to you over a round, it's your whole team's fault and that included yourself, because the algorithm did it's best to balance the round via skill.

    Can you explain the balancing please? because there is no shuffle at EOR so I'm confused how its the players fault for being put into a one sided server that doesn't rotate players.

    And team switching is still a thing, and its being exploited. But DICE will DICE

    I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for "skill". So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
    Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
    But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the "bad team", which happens to lose. Just look at everybody's stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP's case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls "trash teams". He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
    Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren't exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds.
    @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin' reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.

    I said earlier, I don't mind loosing. My problem is that most games that I join, my team is getting utterly destroyed on every level. I'm fine playing a round and loosing by 50-100 points when alteast my and enemy team are taking flags and having a fight. But in today's reality, my team will always be loosing by 300-400 points while being spawn locked. Thats why I leave most of the time. Don't believe me? Cool, add me on Origin and lets do social experiment. Randomly join 10-20 different servers via match making with intervals of 3-4 hours, and see how many times our team will be getting completely wrecked.

    I do not need bloody proof, your BF3 quitrate is 35%, while your win rate has been 80% over the course of three games. You hate losing, you quit the game when you see a tendency. For comparison's sake look at StodehTV's or DRUNKKZ3's winrate, that is around 60ish, and they have a tendency to break games. Mine is around 60ish. Parkingbrakes winrate is at 48%, I could look up anyone else in here and we would be moving around the 40-60% mark. This means that the darn matchmaking is working decently enough.

    i dont think quit ratios hold much weight since mine is due to this .....

    https://1drv.ms/v/s!AmjSl2amw1Q0ggf9Eyrs3PuPboiF

    along with blackscreens. So I have to dashboard once or twice an hour currently. I'd be curious what mine is but it wouldnt change much. Also, team switching is being abused and any algorithm DICE uses is pretty inconsistent if they dont address it.

    Lastly, isnt there a diff "advantage tickrate" for a losing side to help balance different from previous titles? I assume bleedrate, respawn times, and cap speed all play a role but unsure exactly or at what point does it trigger for the losing side? I'd wager this is bugged and is also throwing off games by a ton.

    I actually did it, I gathered all the data from players in this thread, and guess what: The lowest winrate is 45%. 3/4 are sitting between 45-60%. Another four or so in the 70s.
    IllegalColorlessKoala-size_restricted.gif
    what is my quit rate oh wise number wizard?

    17% for BF3, obviously I can not say anything about the rest, as the stat sadly was not present in recent games. Now, how do I know OP tends to leave? Well I extrapolate from known behaviour, he claims to be put into the losing team all the time, yet has a winrate of 80%, and that is constant over the course of the last games. In any case OP is a reason for lopsided games, but complains that he is losing too much. I merely illustrated that fact.
    .
    @MachoFantast1c0
    Yep, there are a dozen ways around the matchmaking. Something no algorithm can ever calculate is being in TS with a mate let alone a whole squad. Joint teamwork effort is another thing that can vary greatly from round to round and dependent on a thousand things. The algorithm is just trying to cope, but it has severe limits. RSP would not save us there either, because any third party program will encounter the same problem.
    Personally I am against all forms of matchmaking, I just want to battle the general lack of knowledge and bias, which brings people to complain on these forums. Just by going through the stats of the players here, the matchmaking system works just great and there is no room to complain about. Alas until a guy with a 30% winrate starts a thread like this, who can actually be taken seriously.
Sign In or Register to comment.