Weekly Debrief

A plea for Team Autobalance, and QoL ideas. (Map Vote, Frequent quitter punishment, armory access).

Comments

  • sabootheshaman
    1100 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @JaniceB It's a forum, you can't say ppl are stomping around in it if they are just putting an opposing opinion forward. I do think it's selfish. In the end that's my opinion and I am comfortable with that.

    Your quit avalanches are due to multiple problems. A punishment system for leaving is a negative conflation of those in my opinion. You are treating the symptoms of multiple problems with a sledgehammer.
  • ragnarok013
    3207 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    PackersDK said:
    I disagree regarding quitters.

    I dont want to be punished for things outside of my control.

    I may be in the middle of a game of grand operations and in the first of 3 days and my mrs may want to be driven somewhere for shopping or visiting relatives..

    I may be only able to play one of those rounds before I have to get ready to leave.

    And then i may return a short time later and begin playing again and my Mrs tells me she'd forgotten something and so needs me to drive her to the store again,  it does happen you know,  So no.. in those circumstances it would be punishing the player.
    You do know the OP talked about warnings etc before a 5 min cooldown period, or ultimately a 15 min punishement.  

    In what “driving Mrs LoLGotYerTags” scenario could that POSSIBLY be relevant. Unless your repeated shopping/chauffeur chores last 4:55 mins. 

    I’m also not a fan of punishing quitters. But not because “the phone might ring” excuse. I just think it’s the wrong way to go. Dice should encourage players to finish games. 

    But if it HAD to be done, the OPs idea of warnings, repeated offences and a relative short penalty would be okay precisely  because punishing players whos life interferes would be unlikely in the OPs scenario. 

    You can always say “but what if...” everytime someone suggest something like this. But at a certain point the “what if” scenarios become a bit of a stretch. 

    “I had to quit 3 games in a row because of, you know... real life”. Hmm, really?
    PackersDK regardless of how the OP wants it implemented the core fact is that Battlefield does not at this time have a competitive ranked mode so nobody loses an elo or rank due to losing or quitting. If in the future Battlefield gets a competitive ranked mode punishments for abadoning should be restricted only to that mode and not the normal ranked modes where elo is not at stake.
  • MrCamp121
    551 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So if theres aimbotting going on....punish the ones who aint dealing with that crap by leaving? Hmm
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    MrCamp121 said:
    So if theres aimbotting going on....punish the ones who aint dealing with that crap by leaving? Hmm
    It depends. Is it actual aimbotting, or is it the opinion of a frustrated gamer who can't prove that's what's actually happening but uses that excuse as vindication for being able to ragequit?  In regards to actual, legitimate cheating and hacking, that absolutely should be priority #1. 
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    @JaniceB It's a forum, you can't say ppl are stomping around in it if they are just putting an opposing opinion forward. I do think it's selfish. In the end that's my opinion and I am comfortable with that.

    Your quit avalanches are due to multiple problems. A punishment system for leaving is a negative conflation of those in my opinion. You are treating the symptoms of multiple problems with a sledgehammer.
    The problem is not opposing opinions, though constructive feedback always trumps flaming.

    When I say 'stomping around', I don't mean simply expressing an opinion that disagrees with a poster's. I mean communicating with the poster in such a way that is designed to shut down conversations and shut down nuance in an authoritative tone. I could honestly care less if some people disagree with me, but what drives me up a wall is when my point is mis-construed or wildly exaggerated, and then personal attacks or strawmen come into the picture without regard to my, or the poster's actual intent, motivations, play style, or even post history. It's one thing to dislike an idea, but to misconstrue it and insult the person based upon an exaggerated interpretation of what they're saying is just dishonest and selfish. You can dislike someone for their different views regarding certain game mechanics all you'd like, but don't think to attack them with ideas or notions they never actually forwarded.

    This happens a lot when gamers see an opinion or perspective, or in my case usually a suggestion, that they disagree with. Their response isn't always to disagree, explain why, and try to offer a solution with reasoning for that. In many cases it is, and this is wonderful, constructive feedback that I always appreciate. Even people who disagree but don't go off flaming about it are fine. But in a lot of other cases it's an emotional outburst of why they disagree, a clear mis-understanding or flat-out wrong interpretation of what was suggested, and an insistence that the idea not be forwarded or promoted, (despite that no one involved is a dev). In a lot of cases an attack on the on the person for forwarding the idea based on an assumption often follows.

    Saboo, I don't enjoy arguing with you and I don't desire for our interactions to continue to be negative, but it is twice now that your first response to threads of mine come off as rude, bitterly sarcastic, and turn into personal attacks or suppositions about me or my playstyle. If you'll recall, the very first time we've ever interacted was regarding the post where I shared my ideas about improving the third person tank view and reticle. Bear in mind that the tone sets the pace for all future interactions, but to quote your very first line verbatim, it was as so:  'I do love how the OP claims no advantage in 3rd person view... Why on earth do you want to change it then? A higher view will give the ability to peak people hiding. It's fine as it is. I tank a bit and Im happy with how 3p works now.'  Your recent post literally began with 'Yay the punish quitters topic again!!!'.  It began with derisive sarcasm, ('I do love how OP claims..'), and so did this one. 

    I respect your opinion, as much as I completely disagree, but I don't believe it's a negative conflation at all. As I have repeatedly said, and I really don't want you to continue to ignore (A previously pending-approval post of mine went through on the last page), actual hacking is a far more major issue. If at all possible, that should be wiped out first. It's an issue that supersedes players quitting, but that doesn't mean the latter isn't an issue at all. And yes, if we are talking about statistics and ratios, pleasing the largest part of one's audience is perfectly reasonable, and in no way inherently immoral, especially if you can only commit so much resources at a time to fixing issues. Most people who play a game will be that audience. Core fans who have followed a series will be that same subset of people. Prioritizing their needs is not only a smart business decision but it's morally not a bad move either since you're rewarding and pleasing your most loyal fans who are the ones buying and propping up the game in the first place.

    You've got to calling this selfish, somehow, which I don't understand, but that's really the only workable way to approach these things. On the contrary, sometimes a small, but vocal minority complain about something, it gets changed, and then the bigger, base community that makes up more of the actual playerbase, has to suffer.  This is a general notion, and nowhere am I saying that hacking is okay, permissible, or should be ignored. What I have repeatedly said is that this isn't related to that, but is a separate issue that BFV, like so many other multiplayer titles out there, suffer from. 

    Furthermore, many other titles have built-in systems that curb frequent intentional quitting mid-match, which I need to say is only a part of their 'good play' incentives, many of which are positive, and nevertheless I and many others in various communities find some penalties to be a good system and certainly an un-selfish one, because it favors the rest of the team, at the expense of the few individuals that have the tendency to frequently quit and abandon the other team to a loss. Penalizing players should not be seen as an evil thing we should never do. Any game that has friendly fire or other mechanics that can be wrongly exploited by trolls to harm their own team has them.

    And I'm aware that this is a nuanced issue, and that there might be many different causes as to why a player manually quits mid-match, but the effect of it is the same. As per 'using a sledgehammer', obviously I find that intentionally hyperbolic. I think a sledgehammer would be perma-banning players on their first offense. I genuinely find that you're blowing it out of proportion. Especially under the systems as I went into detail of describing. You seem to have more issues with the idea of any negative penalty than you do with my suggestions for how it actually be implemented. If the crux of your argument is that there are more pressing issues, or that you disagree, that's fine. But there's no need to try to again turn it into personal attacks and exaggeration. 
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Well. Concerning the issue of team balancing issues, I did find this, which was.. as interesting as it was question-raising. Note the official DICE response.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/9w7da2/battlefield_v_has_no_auto_teambalance/ 
  • MrCamp121
    551 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    JaniceB wrote: »
    MrCamp121 said:
    So if theres aimbotting going on....punish the ones who aint dealing with that crap by leaving? Hmm

    It depends. Is it actual aimbotting, or is it the opinion of a frustrated gamer who can't prove that's what's actually happening but uses that excuse as vindication for being able to ragequit?  In regards to actual, legitimate cheating and hacking, that absolutely should be priority #1. 

    The level of legitimate cheating is through the roof. Anyone on pc knows this
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    PackersDK said:
    I disagree regarding quitters.

    I dont want to be punished for things outside of my control.

    I may be in the middle of a game of grand operations and in the first of 3 days and my mrs may want to be driven somewhere for shopping or visiting relatives..

    I may be only able to play one of those rounds before I have to get ready to leave.

    And then i may return a short time later and begin playing again and my Mrs tells me she'd forgotten something and so needs me to drive her to the store again,  it does happen you know,  So no.. in those circumstances it would be punishing the player.
    You do know the OP talked about warnings etc before a 5 min cooldown period, or ultimately a 15 min punishement.  

    In what “driving Mrs LoLGotYerTags” scenario could that POSSIBLY be relevant. Unless your repeated shopping/chauffeur chores last 4:55 mins. 

    I’m also not a fan of punishing quitters. But not because “the phone might ring” excuse. I just think it’s the wrong way to go. Dice should encourage players to finish games. 

    But if it HAD to be done, the OPs idea of warnings, repeated offences and a relative short penalty would be okay precisely  because punishing players whos life interferes would be unlikely in the OPs scenario. 

    You can always say “but what if...” everytime someone suggest something like this. But at a certain point the “what if” scenarios become a bit of a stretch. 

    “I had to quit 3 games in a row because of, you know... real life”. Hmm, really?
    PackersDK regardless of how the OP wants it implemented the core fact is that Battlefield does not at this time have a competitive ranked mode so nobody loses an elo or rank due to losing or quitting. If in the future Battlefield gets a competitive ranked mode punishments for abadoning should be restricted only to that mode and not the normal ranked modes where elo is not at stake.
    This has been brought up before, and my response is the same as then. There's nothing that inherently necessitates that the gamemode needs to be especially competitive/hardcore in order for such penalties to be in place. Numerous games have something similar at play in their standard game modes. My opinion is that this is because even the base, core, semi-casual audience gets frustrated at games dying and being ruined because of a handful of early quitters-of-convenience. 
  • warslag
    1450 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited July 9
    Could be that spots left by players who leave are not being filled by matchmaking. That's probably what the dev meant when they said it's 'broken'.
  • sabootheshaman
    1100 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @JaniceB I’m sorry you find the sarcasm offensive.

    I had to check where we had crossed paths and now I can see it’s a similar issue in that you are desiring mechanics and elements from other games to be pulled into BFV.

    In addition I really think the punishment thing can only be considered if it is after they address auto balance and the cheating issue.

    Similarly I want region blocking to prevent hackers from certain regions. I probably won’t get that though. It’s all a balancing act though. Maybe you need to take the replies less personally.

    Sarcasm is almost a default position for me by the way.
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    @JaniceB It's a forum, you can't say ppl are stomping around in it if they are just putting an opposing opinion forward. I do think it's selfish. In the end that's my opinion and I am comfortable with that.

    Your quit avalanches are due to multiple problems. A punishment system for leaving is a negative conflation of those in my opinion. You are treating the symptoms of multiple problems with a sledgehammer.
    And believe me, my points being exaggerated and/or personal attacks being added happens a lot. That's really all that frustrates me. I don't mind disagreement, but I hate the strawmen. Here are some funny examples: 

    - I'm sure you're familiar with star wars battlefront? I made a suggestion that the lightsaber-wielding heroes could de-activate the sabers at will to add a little nuance and a small element of stealth to their presence. Someone went off about how it'd unbalance them, making them impossible to see coming or to fight, it would 'remove all tactical play from heroes', that I 'just want it to be where there are no cons to using a hero', (wild assumption there). Someone came in with the usual 'it's fine as is', and one even flat-out pleaded 'please DICE don't listen to this person!'.

    And what came of it? Whether they read my post or not, the option was added in. Wasn't remotely game-breaking, and most people don't use it that actively. And they're going further in that direction by letting other heroes crouch where they couldn't previously.

    - In a free-to-play little PC bot-building game, Robocraft, I once suggested that a particular weapon in that game move from being hit-scan to having actual travel. I got hit with crazy claims from 'they'll just fill the sky with shots and it'll be impossible to fly', (ignoring rate of fire and travel speed, obviously they hadn't played similar MP games with ballistics), to 'it can't be coded and synced with all clients, it'll be a nightmare and won't happen' (though they suggested this company, Freejam, couldn't do it, that turned out to be false), to 'it'll make them useless and no one will use this weapon anymore'.

    What happened? Travel was added, and it wasn't a big deal. It's had a lot of changes since then but it blew me away just how much fuss and anger there was over the idea, how much push-back, and when it actually drops it's as inconsequential as I always figured.

    - In a survival building game, 7 Days to die, I defended the idea of an aerial vehicle being added in, with a lot of pros/cons to its' usage. Lots of rude and sarcastic responses, especially from one particular fella who had to check my steam profile game time and criticize that I was just a noob and shouldn't be allowed to make such suggestions. (I had a lot more game-time, but it was actually on console.) The same guy it'd break the game, there'd be no penalties to its' use (despite that I suggested some), and so on. Conclusion? 

    It was added in and is currently in the active game version, and the penalties I suggested are in play. (Again, I wouldn't say 'it's because they listened to me', but rather my point is I knew it wouldn't be game-breaking and might improve most people's game experience.)

    I think this comes from experience, and a decent sense of balance. When I make a suggestion about tank camera angle or reticle changes it's not out of a thoughtless or inconsiderate place, and as my claim developed it was amenable not only to realism in terms of what a tanker should and shouldn't be able to see, but gameplay balance, in that it would make sneaking players, flanking players, and especially low-to-the-ground players harder to see for the tanker. When I suggest this penalty system it's not because I'm completely ignorant of how it might work, but because I've experienced one and am familiar with them, and figure it wouldn't hurt as much as suggested. So it may or may not ever be added, and maybe the awful issue of quit-waves will always be in place without penalty. But could it work, do similar systems work, etc.?  Yes. Is it immoral? Well, in my point of view, no. I side with core players who are frustrated at bad team balance and mass-quits, and I suspect they might be in the majority, though I'd of course like to see some polls and stats to support that.
  • sabootheshaman
    1100 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @JaniceB see here we are again. Why are you a core player? Why do you represent them?

    Put your ego away. I have a bucket load of hours in the BF series. I played in one of the top clans in my region in BF2 and 2142. So what. Stop rattling your Sabre then playing the victim.

    People disagree with you, it’s a thing that happens. You decide to play the victim card. No one elected you the spokesperson for the core players.
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited July 9
    @JaniceB I’m sorry you find the sarcasm offensive.

    I had to check where we had crossed paths and now I can see it’s a similar issue in that you are desiring mechanics and elements from other games to be pulled into BFV.

    In addition I really think the punishment thing can only be considered if it is after they address auto balance and the cheating issue.

    Similarly I want region blocking to prevent hackers from certain regions. I probably won’t get that though. It’s all a balancing act though. Maybe you need to take the replies less personally.

    Sarcasm is almost a default position for me by the way.
    Maybe you need to curb your poor attitude and general demeanor, as that's usually how sarcasm is meant to be interpreted, but thanks, I actually am willing to humor that you mean that you're sorry. Though I will correct one thing; it doesn't offend me, it annoys me. The notion of 'taking it personally' is also slightly off. I don't care about my person, but I do care about ideas. And I think good ideas deserve vindication, especially if they're being twisted and confused. My person is secondary to that, just as I don't know who you are irl, nor you me. It's irrelevant.

    It doesn't hurt my fee-fees; it's not as though I haven't seen and dealt with every manner of troll under the sun. The effect (speaking generally, not necessarily to you) is more that it's obnoxious, roundabout, and insincere. I resent ad-hominem and exaggeration because it distracts and clouds rational judgment and clearer reasoning, which is necessary to communicate an idea and to deliberate why or why not it might be effective.

    And I resent someone lying or exaggerating about my, or others', suggestions because it's a microcosmic form of political smearing. If the idea can be misrepresented and attacked as something worse than it is, other people might be convinced that they actually have merit, and will buy into it and agree with the attacker, despite that it's actually nowhere near OP's suggestions. Twice in this very thread you can see clear mis-interpretations, where someone suspected I was suggesting we ban people for quitting, and someone even thought I suggested that we punish people for losing.

    'it’s a similar issue in that you are desiring mechanics and elements from other games to be pulled into BFV'

    No, not really. I'm not sure I'd call a camera, a reticle, and a penalty system 'game mechanics'. I think that term applies more to things the player actively interacts with, (i.e., flags or vehicles are game mechanics). But those semantics aside, I would not dream of appealing to purism or vague notions of 'this doesn't belong here', by implying that a suggestion is an issue simply because originated elsewhere. This isn't what you said, but it's clearly implied by your phrasing. And that would be plainly silly.  Other games had weapon customization before battlefield did, and now we have it. Other games have had character customization for ages, and now we have it. Other games have had leaning and now we have it. I wasn't a fan of a royale mode being added, but it didn't exactly break the game. Another caveat is that a very similar camera angle to the one I suggested actually exists in Battlefield V. You just have to look for it. https://puu.sh/DQEk2.jpg So ironically it can be pulled from our own currently existing game. But if you want to imply that inspiration from other games is an issue in and of itself, you are free to be wrong. Especially with one glance at the whole of the Battlefront series.

    Auto-balance is definitely the thrust of this whole thread, the other suggestions were minor QoL notions. It is pretty horrific if hacking is widespread as suggested, and I hope DICE can crush it and weed it out. Speaking of borrowing other mechanics, some games do in fact region-lock from areas where hacking is massively rampant, and I support that as well. I think PUBG did it, if memory serves. And yes, in all things there should be balance, and moderation. 
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    @JaniceB see here we are again. Why are you a core player? Why do you represent them?

    Put your ego away. I have a bucket load of hours in the BF series. I played in one of the top clans in my region in BF2 and 2142. So what. Stop rattling your Sabre then playing the victim.

    People disagree with you, it’s a thing that happens. You decide to play the victim card. No one elected you the spokesperson for the core players.
    I can't tell at this point if you're trolling or just confused. It'd help if you could quote where I'm saying some of these particular little lines or statements because you seem to be making them up. I most certainly did mention core players. Nowhere did I saw I was a 'core player', although I'm not sure why you would suggest otherwise. If you've followed the BF series and play it fairly often, you are probably part of the core audience. It's as simple as that. I don't see any sabre rattling, and I definitely see no playing the victim. Although your continued attempts to personally slander me are certainly telling. 

    And you've utterly missed my point as to why I even brought up the thing about core players. Utterly off about what I think about disagreement, and leaping to personal attacks because, at least from what I can assume, there's nothing else you intend to do here. You come in rude, exaggerate, personally insult, and then pretend the other person has an ego problem. Maybe you should follow your own words and not take that statement personally as an attack on you, especially seeing as it wasn't phrased in that way whatsoever. And if you could quote the specific line or two where I said it, re-read it, consider it, maybe you'd realize this.
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Look, if you want to keep up the charade of convincing yourself you aren't making all these interactions worse by your horrid tone, nevermind your exaggerations and personal attacks, you're free to. Only forum moderation can do anything about someone who lacks that kind of self-awareness. And I will leave it to them, though I doubt this is the first time you've trolled other people here, and I doubt it'll be the last. 

    If you want to wrongly assume I have problems with disagreement, and not, as I've described, ideas being misconstrued and exaggerated, you are free to. But if you're really going to abandon any kind of civil discourse and promote inflammatory personal attacks on all my future threads as a way to skirt around not having a solid argument against these ideas, you're going to be ignored/blocked, and your posts will be reported as a form of forum harassment.

    All I can say right now, and I say this in all honesty, maybe you'll even take some of this to heart, is that your presence from start to finish, has been toxic on the two threads of mine you've interacted with. And right from the start, with no provocation. You're clearly aware of this since you seem to wear it with pride, but whenever you get debated into a corner you pull out personal attacks as a way of deflecting, and it's telling that you don't actually have a counter when you do that.

    I've seen this countless times, and more often than not, in the end it's not about the ideas with people who act like that. They could care less. It's about not wanting to appear wrong, and the need to constantly one-up others and justify the uncalled for initial rudeness. People defend knee-jerk reactions as though their lives depended on it. Bias isn't worth so much ink spilled. Arrogance isn't a positive human quality, and defending it for its' own sake is easily a waste of time and effort. Sarcasm isn't a productive way of communicating with others, and without context or cause it comes off as just being an *sshole. It's literally designed to be inflammatory to the person, by definition. - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sarcasm  , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm .  Do you think I'm surprised at the irony that a person who's proudly caustic and bitter and rude without reason would claim anyone bothered by that is 'a victim'?  Or that such a person would conflate someone's problem with a **** attitude as being 'unable to take criticism'? It all basically fits the bill of the profile of a pampered internet troll.

    In any case,  I'm done with you if you keep going down this path and can't help from turning things into personal attacks. You will be ignored, and all the silly personal flaming will be reported. I kindly request that you do not troll my threads. If you disagree, good. Do so. I don't need to value that input if it hasn't been proven to be trustworthy. But I will ignore all future personal argument bait, and I will report, not respond to, all future personal attacks. Good day, god speed, and I sincerely hope you change your attitude when it comes to forum interaction if you actually care about this game and its' community.
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    warslag said:
    Could be that spots left by players who leave are not being filled by matchmaking. That's probably what the dev meant when they said it's 'broken'.
    Yeah, I think you're right. That seems more likely, especially considering how old that post is. If that can be done with a high degree of success, I'm fine with that. Though sometimes it takes long enough that we have half the match quitting. I'm not sure how to take all the later comments of people saying that it's still not fixed, months and months later though. I certainly saw this issue here enough to make this post.   DICE certainly has a lot of work on their docket. 
  • ElliotLH
    8367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    #1.) My plea is for active team auto-balancing, mid-round, to be brought back in in some way, shape or form.

    Would agree and don't see why the BF1 mid-round balancer couldn't be brought in as that seemed to work OK.

    #2.) A Map Vote system would be great, at the end of each match! 

    I'd be more up for that if there were more maps. Right now the choice just seems a little bit too slim to me to really be worthwhile, but in the future that may not be the case. Speaking personally if it did come in I'd quite like some servers to be left with a set rotation still as sometimes I like to know what map is next for definite.

    #3.) As there is a very serious issue with 'cascading quitting', I think it would only be fair if players who repeatedly, and frequently quit a live match, get penalized in some way. Maybe simply having a longer wait period before they can get back into a multiplayer match.  Overwatch does this quite well. There's one free grace leave you can use, (after all, sometimes real life interrupts, and that's always more important), but upon repeated uses you'll be warned and then get a kind of 'time out'. 

    Generally I'm not annoyed enough by people quitting to want any form of punishment system myself. I understand why some want this kind of system in place, and that's obviously absolutely fine, but it's just not for me. 

    #4.) Another big cause of mid-match leaving is that players still cannot easily access all of the armory or upgrade unlocks the moment they unlock them. There needs to be an option, maybe at the end of match during the voting period, where you can not only select new weapon upgrade unlocks, but buy anything from the store, unlock skins, customize all vehicles, and so on and so forth!  This will reduce a lot of players from quitting because a lot of people join matches to unlock something then immediately leave to go equip or select that unlock, or attach the skin, customize their player or vehicle, and so on and so forth.  Not having to disrupt the stream of the match would be ideal. 

    While I generally wait until the end of the round to quit when I complete and assignment or unlock something this is a feature I would welcome. Honestly I think I'd just be happy if we could change assignments on the EoR screen or mid-match. All they'd really need to do to allow vehicle customisation without quitting is let us pre-select and edit vehicles like we can in BF1, rather than quitting or waiting for one to become available in the round.

  • RipperShark
    7 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Regarding the penalty for leaving, let me give my perspective on this.  I am a somewhat old gamer.  I have been playing FPS games since the Quake days.  I have played many, many team-based games throughout the years.  In almost all of these, the game and server structure were set up so that you simply selected your server from the list and joined in.  Once in game, you jumped in and played.

    If I were not having fun, or the "server" was not right for me, I simply left the server and found another on the list to join.  I had many servers that I frequented and were my favorites, but I could join and leave as I wished.  There was no such thing as "leavers".

    For me, the Overwatch style of matchmaking is a relatively new phenomenon.  Honestly, I do not really like it.  I understand why Overwatch has a penalty for leaving.  This is mainly because there are only 5 members on a team.  Losing just 1 team member for even a minute or two has a large impact on the game.

    Conquest has 64 players, 32 for each team.  Losing a team member here is not even a blip on the radar.  They should be replaced quickly by the matchmaker with little to no impact.  If this isn't happening, then that needs to be looked into.  If entire 32 players are leaving, then that is probably because there was a cheater on the other team.  It happens.  You can't expect people to stay in a lobby with someone insta-gibbing everyone.

    So no, I am not in favor of a penalty.  With 64 players, the servers still act and feel like "open" servers to me.  I'm going to find a server that I fit into skillwise to maximize my enjoyment.  I'm not going to stay in a server that has one side with all pubs and the other composed of 1-2 clans (saw one last time I played), and I'm not going to stay with an obvious cheater.

    For small game modes where the team sizes are closer to Overwatch's, a deterrent may be warranted since losing a member will have a larger impact on the team.
  • JaniceB
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    @ElliotLH ; I appreciate the feedback. I'm not sure how to quote in sequence as you did there, and if I learn to do that I'll amend this post, but for now I'll respond as I can. 

    'Would agree and don't see why the BF1 mid-round balancer couldn't be brought in as that seemed to work OK.'

    - I'm in the same boat. I didn't hate it as it was, so you at least had two separate points in the match where balancing was at play, the beginning and mid-way. Some people still complained about 'being moved to the losing team', but that's going to happen anyway for the people back-filling the team that has half its' players quit mid-match. What I've found from my reading (mostly on reddit) about this is that people hate most the idea that their credit/score/kills aren't counting. Often times in games when you get moved to the other team your score is set to zero. I forget if this is how it was in BF1, but certainly that would need to change, and all your stats would be kept. In the end, you winning is always out of your own hands in BF. You can do your best, but your team is what makes or breaks it. And what you can be proud of at match end is your own score. So that should be stable. 

    'I'd be more up for that if there were more maps. Right now the choice just seems a little bit too slim to me to really be worthwhile, but in the future that may not be the case. Speaking personally if it did come in I'd quite like some servers to be left with a set rotation still as sometimes I like to know what map is next for definite.'

    - Hahah, that's a good point.  :D  I think most of us are dying for new maps. (nevermind factions, etc. Pacific can't come soon enough.) I just figured it'll be a little less repetitive to not know exactly which map will come next. Moreover, as someone expressed her, certain players dislike certain maps. If enough people do, maybe it's in the best interest of most people to let them choose the next one.  I'm all for custom playlists and lobbies and whatnot, though there's always the balance of not splitting the community too much. Which is why I was glad they removed one of the least-played modes recently. (Though I will reserve my opinions about Battle Royale because that is a whooole other subject. >__> )

    'Generally I'm not annoyed enough by people quitting to want any form of punishment system myself. I understand why some want this kind of system in place, and that's obviously absolutely fine, but it's just not for me.' 

    - That's totally fair. It's not even so much that an individual can quit, as it is that the larger phenomena of the mass-quit can flat-out ruin a lobby, and there's little recourse to fix that save for the hope that people will backfill fast enough to save said lobby. Which in my experience is a slower process than the mass-quit, and usually loses out. Certainly there are other solutions that could be figured out, but I hate having to re-automatch.

    'While I generally wait until the end of the round to quit when I complete and assignment or unlock something this is a feature I would welcome. Honestly I think I'd just be happy if we could change assignments on the EoR screen or mid-match. All they'd really need to do to allow vehicle customisation without quitting is let us pre-select and edit vehicles like we can in BF1, rather than quitting or waiting for one to become available in the round.'

    - Totally agreed. I remember in BF4 you could only do it with the vehicle types that were in that match too, which was silly. I've noticed though when you unlock a new perk level for a weapon you can't even equip/buy that until the match is over, which is also quite sucky.
  • ElliotLH
    8367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    JaniceB wrote: »
    @ElliotLH  I appreciate the feedback. I'm not sure how to quote in sequence as you did there, and if I learn to do that I'll amend this post, but for now I'll respond as I can. 

    'Would agree and don't see why the BF1 mid-round balancer couldn't be brought in as that seemed to work OK.'

    - I'm in the same boat. I didn't hate it as it was, so you at least had two separate points in the match where balancing was at play, the beginning and mid-way. Some people still complained about 'being moved to the losing team', but that's going to happen anyway for the people back-filling the team that has half its' players quit mid-match. What I've found from my reading (mostly on reddit) about this is that people hate most the idea that their credit/score/kills aren't counting. Often times in games when you get moved to the other team your score is set to zero. I forget if this is how it was in BF1, but certainly that would need to change, and all your stats would be kept. In the end, you winning is always out of your own hands in BF. You can do your best, but your team is what makes or breaks it. And what you can be proud of at match end is your own score. So that should be stable. 

    'I'd be more up for that if there were more maps. Right now the choice just seems a little bit too slim to me to really be worthwhile, but in the future that may not be the case. Speaking personally if it did come in I'd quite like some servers to be left with a set rotation still as sometimes I like to know what map is next for definite.'

    - Hahah, that's a good point.  :D  I think most of us are dying for new maps. (nevermind factions, etc. Pacific can't come soon enough.) I just figured it'll be a little less repetitive to not know exactly which map will come next. Moreover, as someone expressed her, certain players dislike certain maps. If enough people do, maybe it's in the best interest of most people to let them choose the next one.  I'm all for custom playlists and lobbies and whatnot, though there's always the balance of not splitting the community too much. Which is why I was glad they removed one of the least-played modes recently. (Though I will reserve my opinions about Battle Royale because that is a whooole other subject. >__> )

    'Generally I'm not annoyed enough by people quitting to want any form of punishment system myself. I understand why some want this kind of system in place, and that's obviously absolutely fine, but it's just not for me.' 

    - That's totally fair. It's not even so much that an individual can quit, as it is that the larger phenomena of the mass-quit can flat-out ruin a lobby, and there's little recourse to fix that save for the hope that people will backfill fast enough to save said lobby. Which in my experience is a slower process than the mass-quit, and usually loses out. Certainly there are other solutions that could be figured out, but I hate having to re-automatch.

    'While I generally wait until the end of the round to quit when I complete and assignment or unlock something this is a feature I would welcome. Honestly I think I'd just be happy if we could change assignments on the EoR screen or mid-match. All they'd really need to do to allow vehicle customisation without quitting is let us pre-select and edit vehicles like we can in BF1, rather than quitting or waiting for one to become available in the round.'

    - Totally agreed. I remember in BF4 you could only do it with the vehicle types that were in that match too, which was silly. I've noticed though when you unlock a new perk level for a weapon you can't even equip/buy that until the match is over, which is also quite sucky.

    No need to amend anything on my account but I hope those quick steps I gave you help 👍

    It's been a while since I've really played BF1, so this might not be reliable, but I don't remember losing my score on the occasions when I was moved across by the balancer. I never minded when it happened either as I usually put it down to not being in a squad or not scoring well. They could refine it for sure, such as using a reward system like you suggested, but it did seem to work alright in practice.

    Map voting was a nice addition to BF1 and I know many would like it for BFV too. It'd be interesting to see what people go for as well and could serve as feedback for Dice. Hopefully when we've got more to choose from it'll be looked at.

    Yeah not being able to add a specialism or use something you've just unlocked is sucky. I wonder if this is because it doesn't actually unlock until the end of round?
Sign In or Register to comment.