Once upon a time there was team balancing

«1
Zerpher84
postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
When will you ever bring team balancing back to the Battlefield series? If it is there I fail to see it. 

Comments

  • xHonest_Abe
    218 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I ran this by on the forum last year for a simple way of making a server fun. There would be 2 types of servers. Players with k/d 2.0 and lower would be allowed on the Fun Server, and the rest no matter what k/d the player has on the competition server. So the ones on the competition server would have some real challenges for a change instead of slowly emptying the server that we currently have. By having a few competition servers, this would prove if a gamer is really that good or not by playing on it. You tube heroes should not fear this competition server, but it would boost their credibility. Some say that a pro might want to stay under 2.0 to play on the Fun Server to have plenty of fresh meat, and not playing against the real pro's. That would be OK, but you would not see the outrageous kill number that we are seeing at the end of the game currently. High kill scores will eventually push them out of the Fun Server. Fun Servers are just what the title means, they are just for fun.
  • SystemicProgress
    106 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It is shameful (to EA account) that we still have to discuss something that should have been done at the beginning. This alone puts a serious impact on my decision to buy their next BF title. Being seemingly unable (it has been over a year) to take care of hacking makes it conclusive. I will not go through this experience again. 
  • LeMaestro99
    27 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Very hard to have a good team balance if you want to keep clans and squad together. And this is the DEVs decision for now.
  • CSO7777
    1929 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 13
    Stunl3y said:
    I have never played a BF game before in my life where server balance is so bad its nothing more than horrendous and DICE obviously don't care
    I see you have played BF1. That was really really bad, probably even worse than BFV.

    But BFV is becoming like BF1 was, they tried different things in BF1 and none of them worked...
    Post edited by CSO7777 on
  • xHonest_Abe
    218 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Instead of selling skins for soldiers and vehicles EA, sell balanced servers to play on........more players will buy in to that. :D
  • Fruhstuck
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I couldn't agree more with this game needing team balancing. I like that EA/Dice has been changing the game up and trying different things game play wise. However, I can only imagine a community doesn't enjoy playing a game where they get dumped on three plus matches in a row. I mean at the very least a scramble teams vote or something. That's kinda been a staple in online gaming since like what 2001 lol?

  • Jaskaman
    761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 14
    About balance, we need a midround balancer to balance the player count. But when people want to have a balance, then joining to server with the squad and friends should be disabled. 
    You do realize that when you join to server with voice communication, it's always helping against lonewolfs who are not in voice. 
    In BC2, BF3, BF4, BFH (PC) you had a procon and procon scrambling functions to make balance. Usually it was working nicely with player count balance, but for the skill balance it had problems. 
    If we set a skill balancer aggressive (moving good players to helping other team) caused a lot of angryness and comments like "Why me, I want to play in the winning team". 
    Teams were always scrambled (by squads) between the rounds. Problem was that people do play differently on different maps, so it was never perfect. 
    In BF3 times we managed to get balanced rounds (by tickets) with the following way: Remove people from the squad, when ticket difference is more than 100 tickets, move best players to other team. 
    We managed to get some balanced rounds but it caused so much rage so we had to remove that function. 
    But player count balance is easy to fix, as it was done in BF1 also (at later implement) and ppl got even angry about that too. 
    So if you want to have a skill balance, be ready to face the consequences. We do need a player count balancer for sure, but if that is implemented for BFV, and it will move players, do not get angry if you are being moved to other team. 

  • OskooI_007
    1355 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 14
    Players with the lowest score should be the ones who get team switched mid-match. Switching someone who's doing well over to the losing team just makes them rage quit.

    If someone has a low score it means they just joined the server so no harm in switching them.

    This is how it works in BF1, and it works well.
  • Jaskaman
    761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 14
    Players with the lowest score should be the ones who get team switched mid-match. Switching someone who's doing well over to the losing team just makes them rage quit.

    If someone has a low score it means they just joined the server so no harm in switching them.

    This is how it works in BF1, and it works well.
    For Last joiners,  it's ok. But if they are low score because they camp or they are bad, then it just makes balance worse even numbers are matching :)
  • CSO7777
    1929 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Players with the lowest score should be the ones who get team switched mid-match. Switching someone who's doing well over to the losing team just makes them rage quit.

    If someone has a low score it means they just joined the server so no harm in switching them.

    This is how it works in BF1, and it works well.
    They did this in BF1, but it really didn't change much. Perhaps they were not aggressive enough I don't know, but it didn't work.

    The problem is that one team has almost all the good PTFO players and the other one doesn't. Moving the lowest scoring players will not fix this.

    I understand that moving the some of the best players is a problem, they are the reason why the stomps happen anyway, but without balancing the best players, nothing will change.
  • OskooI_007
    1355 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 15
    Balancing the best players needs to happen at the beginning of a round when the map changes. Once the round starts, only low score players get switched mid-round.

    During a map change, the server would first balance out the squads based on a squad's skill rating, and assign the squads to different teams. Then assign individual players not in squads to different teams based on skill rating.

    But once the round starts, you don't team switch high scoring players to the losing team. As the UP guy said, nobody likes that.
    Post edited by OskooI_007 on
  • Fruhstuck
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    My vote is still for a vote to scramble teams option. At least that way it's democratic and majority wins. That or I've played other games where it will ask you if you'd like to join the other team to balance things. That way you're at least giving the user a choice so they don't feel forced. It may not solve all the issues but it's a step in the right direction. Another option could be to try and incentivizing people to switch teams. Maybe offer players an exp boost for the rest of the round if they switch teams.


  • eskeatv
    111 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Yesterday I had countless rounds in games and game modes where I'd either be in a very unskilled, half team against buckets or I'd be in a stacked team, on a dead game cause there was no enemy team. It was definitely different in the older games. It's unfortunate you have to keep switching servers the whole time. 
  • CSO7777
    1929 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Balancing the best players needs to happen at the beginning of a round when the map changes. Once the round starts, only low score players get switched mid-round.

    During a map change, the server would first balance out the squads based on a squad's skill rating, and assign the squads to different teams. Then assign individual players not in squads to different teams based on skill rating.

    But once the round starts, you don't team switch high scoring players to the losing team. As the UP guy said, nobody likes that.
    This is how things would be in an ideal world. But the problem is that in real life you cannot balance a game without moving the best players.

    Moving low score players doesn't change anything at all. The problem is the overall skill-gap of the teams, and moving the low scoring players will not change that. You have to move good players/squads if you wan't get any effect from moving players. In reality nobody wants to get moved from a winning team to a loosing team, not even the "bad" players.

    But balancing teams from the start and when new players join could still be improved a lot.
  • Stunl3y
    115 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Players with the lowest score should be the ones who get team switched mid-match. Switching someone who's doing well over to the losing team just makes them rage quit.

    If someone has a low score it means they just joined the server so no harm in switching them.

    This is how it works in BF1, and it works well.
    This .. its not perfect but its a dam site better than the joke we have now , I cannot stomach spending all night to find one decent game , ive simply had enough wasting my time.
  • stallzer
    111 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I'd be happy with both teams having the same amount of players let alone try and balance by KDR. Seems to be the norm now that one side starts with a 2-3 squad advantage and the game is usually over but the time things balance out. What exactly is so difficult about even teams numbers wise?
  • Bolly_MixedModes
    113 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    In my experience, it is the players with high K/D who are just farming kills that cause the imbalance. If the losing team is being decimated then the PTFO guys will walk on to objectives unopposed, but the primary cause is the players with big kill streaks. The PTFO players on the losing side can't do their thing because their team is dead and they are on the back foot caught up in fighting for their lives.

    You could split squads at the start of the round when balancing if they are randoms. If the top players are squaded up via Friends, then count all 4 of them as the top 4 and give the other team the next best 8 players to counter balance it.

    I'm sure it would be possible to use an algorithm like this to create balanced servers from the start of the round whilst also keeping friends together.
  • SpejsXmonkeY
    19 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 31
    Yeah im pretty sure there is no balancing at all, was stomped last night when my game actually worked (not working atm. crashing to desktop from menu after start) so we got stomped half my team left when the server was about to start a whole new map. Their full team was there. none had shifted to ours. they were a 4 man clan and a 3 man clan **** **** up basically. i would atleast swapped one of those crews to our side but no. So what happend next was even more awful 18 vs 32 warheroes just came down on us, killed the whole server i was there 5 rounds before i quitted. Maybe becuas ei quitted ingame thats when the karma came in and F'cked me up so bad that my game crashes now on launch.
  • xHonest_Abe
    218 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    In the last few months I had to do the pick and choose of which servers to play on conquest. Long ago I let Battlefield 5 pick the servers for me thinking this was like BF4, no more because of imbalance is not dealt with. When I pick a server, the first thing I look at is the players scores, if it is close to or even score I continue to play on that server. If the score is extremely one sided, I leave immediately. At the end of the game that has outrages score from either side, I leave that server. I guess the makers of the game has deaf ears on letting an admins do the balancing on each server, I discovered that there is no auto balance in BF5. Why waste your time on a one sided server even if you are on the winning side.
Sign In or Register to comment.