Why BF1 Is One Sided?

«1
CStarfish9
105 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
99% of time one team only holds 1 flag entire match.

Comments

  • Titan_Awaken
    1344 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It's not just this game, balancing has always been a problem with (recent entries into) the franchise. To DICE's credit though, balancing 64 players in a single server is pretty difficult, especially when you have to account for each individual playstyle of each player in the server.

    It's fun when it works and it's a snooze fest when it doesn't. 
  • Ronin9572
    1423 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    It matters which map your on and what mode your playing. Plus ppl team switch ASAP when they think the side their on is losing. I usually try my best and if it continues I just find another server. But I understand it's frustrating.
  • Colt6940H
    31 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The players need to take some responsibility too. The squad / team itself needs to be balanced. When you have three snipers in a squad, there’s a problem.
  • Ronin9572
    1423 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Colt6940H wrote: »
    The players need to take some responsibility too. The squad / team itself needs to be balanced. When you have three snipers in a squad, there’s a problem.

    This is true. But when 3/4's of the console player base doesn't have/use a headset it's kind of hard to tell them.
  • -Antares65z
    1793 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2020
    Ronin9572 said:
    Colt6940H wrote: »
    The players need to take some responsibility too. The squad / team itself needs to be balanced. When you have three snipers in a squad, there’s a problem.

    This is true. But when 3/4's of the console player base doesn't have/use a headset it's kind of hard to tell them.
    Jumped on the PS4 last night, first time in months and played a Conquest round on Neville that ended 1000-962.  It was close the entire round.  I normally play on PC. I was surprised at how many full PS4 servers there were in the U.S. Especially Operations servers. 
    Post edited by -Antares65z on
  • Colt6940H
    31 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member

    Ronin9572 wrote: »

    This is true. But when 3/4's of the console player base doesn't have/use a headset it's kind of hard to tell them.

    I use a headset UNLESS there is too much background noise at my house. I’ve never heard squad members sharing information, plans, or anything useful about the game. I’ll yell out enemy locations, individual warnings, and general squad threats like tanks, flame throwers, and incoming planes. No feed back ever. I have seen squad members react to my warnings by changing their direction; but, never any feedback.

    What I have heard: twice some kid has berated his squad because the team was losing, someone having excessive gas while they played, babies crying, little kids asking the game player questions about every action they take on the screen, lots of Arab music ( really, not making that up, LOL ), and one guy playing head banging hard metal rock so loud it hurt my ears. Comments about the game, never. Kind of sad because this is an awesome game with amazing technology! I’m an old guy. I can remember when there were NO CELL PHONES OR VIDEO GAMES!

    I’ve hypothesized that the locked squads are players that actually communicate and work together as a team. Blocking out the players with the loud background noise and nothing to add to the gameplay.

    My internet sucks. When I play, my screen is always lit up like a Christmas Tree with all the performance warnings in the upper right hand of the steen. I live in the middle of no where, no cell service, and no prospect of better internet any time soon. Once, I would like to play with good internet, a good squad, and everyone using com’s.
  • Titan_Awaken
    1344 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Colt6940H said:

    Ronin9572 wrote: »

    This is true. But when 3/4's of the console player base doesn't have/use a headset it's kind of hard to tell them.

    I use a headset UNLESS there is too much background noise at my house. I’ve never heard squad members sharing information, plans, or anything useful about the game. I’ll yell out enemy locations, individual warnings, and general squad threats like tanks, flame throwers, and incoming planes. No feed back ever. I have seen squad members react to my warnings by changing their direction; but, never any feedback.

    What I have heard: twice some kid has berated his squad because the team was losing, someone having excessive gas while they played, babies crying, little kids asking the game player questions about every action they take on the screen, lots of Arab music ( really, not making that up, LOL ), and one guy playing head banging hard metal rock so loud it hurt my ears. Comments about the game, never. Kind of sad because this is an awesome game with amazing technology! I’m an old guy. I can remember when there were NO CELL PHONES OR VIDEO GAMES!

    I’ve hypothesized that the locked squads are players that actually communicate and work together as a team. Blocking out the players with the loud background noise and nothing to add to the gameplay.

    My internet sucks. When I play, my screen is always lit up like a Christmas Tree with all the performance warnings in the upper right hand of the steen. I live in the middle of no where, no cell service, and no prospect of better internet any time soon. Once, I would like to play with good internet, a good squad, and everyone using com’s.
    Man, the last time I've heard this type of stuff happening was the MW2 era. Does this really happen in BF1 nowadays? 

    Dayum.
  • chasebarley
    57 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Battlefield  1 players are usually completely silent . I never even use phones for BF1 cause nobody ever says anything. But if squads actually communicated it would definitely make for a more effective attack or defense.
  • BadWellzy89
    72 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've noticed this recently aswell. I mostly only play operations. If youve a good team you can either defend a point against the whole enemy team all game. (Bunkers on Monte Grappa. I had a 123 kill game with 51 limpet kills defending B point bunker which is D bunker on conquest ) . Or you get steam rolled because team mates are dumb as **** example Snipers on Argonne. OK if your stodeh, fabian or ravic but not average Joe. I never used to switch but now I do. Wait until I can switch then switch and if I get switched back I'll go sit in the pause screen looking at team numbers then when I can I'll switch back. Second time switching the game won't switch you again. Otherwise I'll just quit. Carnt play with these people anymore. Because there's no helping some people and carnt keep getting new pads all time. If your on xbox and can play add me GT- badwellzy89
  • Titan_Awaken
    1344 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Battlefield  1 players are usually completely silent . I never even use phones for BF1 cause nobody ever says anything. But if squads actually communicated it would definitely make for a more effective attack or defense.
    Well to be fair, microphones are limited to your Squad members and not the whole team. That means at any given moment, you can only communicate to a maximum of 5 people out of 32 with your mic. 

    On PC you have the option to privately message your team using the chat feature (although 99% of the time it's used for crap-talking the other team/hackusations/insults) but if you're on console, you're completely screwed because you have no way of communicating with the other 27 members of your team. 
  • Skill4Reel
    393 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    It is possible to be a team player with the microphone on or off.  The person simply has to want to be a team player, and that is the problem.  Most of the people playing Battlefield seem to not want to play on a team even though that is what they are doing in the game modes.  The only real solution to this problem is to create an area in the game for platoons as people typically join platoons because they value teamwork.  So start ranking platoons based on wins, migrate them all to the same servers, and then watch the quality of matches significantly skyrocket. 

    As long as these servers are full of people playing the game modes for different reasons that have nothing to do with helping their teams win.  The matches are going to continue to be consistently terrible. 
  • disposalist
    8984 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    In my humble opinion, people give up way to easily. One team gets 50 ahead in the first 5 minutes and the losing side start leaving and *worse* start going sniper because they find the front line objectives fighting tough.

    That means a possibly matched or just slightly unmatched game becomes a badly matched game really early and that effect snowballs.

    Of course, the whole thing where the game starts with uneven teams is amazingly stupid. The balancer appears to decide the teams and stick with that decision during the end of the last match! (I seriously believe the lobby system is fundamentally flawed and has little concept of what players are leaving or joining).

    Also, the balancer should equalise and balance during the first minute. It is ridiculous that it persists in sticking with, say, 32 to 20 game because it thinks 12 people are joining. Just even the teams and spread the joiners as they join.

    Also, the balancer should split squads that aren't locked and, where a locked squad is clearly causing an imbalance, it should split it anyway. A clan pub-stomp is not a good game.

    Also, the ability to switch to the winning side is ridiculous. Players should only be able to switch to the losing side.

    There are basically lots of reasons that balance is often bad, but players are as much (well, nearly as much) to blame as the system. You can't balance campers, switchers and quitters.
  • StLunaticNick
    128 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah balancing is always an issue. One is either getting crushed or doing the crushing in most cases. It's hard to come by close evenly matched matches. With that said, I have also seen one team stay virtually the same and dominate one round and then get spanked the next. Just have to hope your blueberries are doing their part lol. I personally lose more hair seeing 15 friendly players rush an objective just to get annihilated moments later and fail miserably trying to cap a spot. Like, How does that happen? Lol
  • Skill4Reel
    393 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Ronin9572 said:
    This is true. But when 3/4's of the console player base doesn't have/use a headset it's kind of hard to tell them.

    You shouldn't have to tell them.  They can see on their own screens that none of the objectives are being controlled, and that the gap on the score board behind the winning team continues to increase.  They can also see the class and whereabouts of everyone else in their squad.  Only they just don't care.  I don't want to talk to these people. 
  • Temp1st
    2493 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Wait so you are telling me that my strategy of sitting on a hill 500m away from the objective with a bipoded sniper is bad for the team?
  • HateMyLife00
    23 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Yeah balancing is always an issue. One is either getting crushed or doing the crushing in most cases. It's hard to come by close evenly matched matches. With that said, I have also seen one team stay virtually the same and dominate one round and then get spanked the next. Just have to hope your blueberries are doing their part lol. I personally lose more hair seeing 15 friendly players rush an objective just to get annihilated moments later and fail miserably trying to cap a spot. Like, How does that happen? Lol
    Sir, we casuals are not good as you, I am terrible sorry in behalf of myself and of the other hobby players too.

    Balance will be never a thing, since the game seemingly dosen't split up the kd and killstreak hoarders. Also if an unshootable pilot god joins the game, you will be dropping-respawning for the rest of the match.
  • WetFishDB
    2377 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    In my humble opinion, people give up way to easily. One team gets 50 ahead in the first 5 minutes and the losing side start leaving and *worse* start going sniper because they find the front line objectives fighting tough.

    That means a possibly matched or just slightly unmatched game becomes a badly matched game really early and that effect snowballs.

    Of course, the whole thing where the game starts with uneven teams is amazingly stupid. The balancer appears to decide the teams and stick with that decision during the end of the last match! (I seriously believe the lobby system is fundamentally flawed and has little concept of what players are leaving or joining).

    Also, the balancer should equalise and balance during the first minute. It is ridiculous that it persists in sticking with, say, 32 to 20 game because it thinks 12 people are joining. Just even the teams and spread the joiners as they join.

    Also, the balancer should split squads that aren't locked and, where a locked squad is clearly causing an imbalance, it should split it anyway. A clan pub-stomp is not a good game.

    Also, the ability to switch to the winning side is ridiculous. Players should only be able to switch to the losing side.

    There are basically lots of reasons that balance is often bad, but players are as much (well, nearly as much) to blame as the system. You can't balance campers, switchers and quitters.
    I agree completely.  I've payed in EU and US East, and often notice different play patterns.  For some reason US East it seems far more frequent that everyone sits back as soon as they have a minor flag majority - I found myself the only one attacking flags.  On EU, it's much more likely that the team keeps pushing forward.

    And the number of games where everyone gives up and whips out the sniper rifle, or just cannot see anything other than attacking head on rather than trying to flank is unreal - especially when they clearly not winning head on engagements!  Just the other day my team was about to get spawn trapped on Amiens.  I got to the B (enemies gimme was A) and started to take it.  Not one of my squad mates spawned with me despite them repeatedly dying.  I managed to defend the capture and then moved to A, and only 1.... 1!!!!! person spawned on B to keep it or assist in capturing C or A.  The rest just got murdered and pushed back to spawn.  There is absolutely nothing that the game can do about balancing if you have 30 players without any real strategic competency. 

    But well organised teams can easily flank and capture back flags to keep a game going, keep the game close, and sometimes get the turnaround.  Me and friends have often done this, it just requires determination and the smallest amount of strategic know how.

    I don't agree about squads being split if they are locked or not.  For me, the issue is that no squad should be retained between rounds unless they are in a platoon together or a party (as they have deliberately trying to play together).  Everyone else should be randomised. 
  • Titan_Awaken
    1344 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2020
    On a side note, EA just filed a patent for a matchmaking system based on “player retention” which is essentially a fancy way of saying time spent in game (google it if you’re interested!).

    Hopefully this will lead to better game balancing in future games. If we’re lucky we might see it in existing games like this one as well (assuming this patent leads anywhere).
  • disposalist
    8984 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    On a side note, EA just filed a patent for a matchmaking system based on “player retention” which is essentially a fancy way of saying time spent in game (google it if you’re interested!).

    Hopefully this will lead to better game balancing in future games. If we’re lucky we might see it in existing games like this one as well (assuming this patent leads anywhere).
    I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not hehe

    The matchmaking based on player retention thing is already suspected as a cause of imbalanced games. Its intention would be to ignore the concept of 'fair' teams and instead to rig the outcome by intentionally imbalancing such that certain players got the win or loss depending on what it considers a win-loss sequence that would retain that player.

    Though knowing EA and the way DICE is going, they wouldn't even be able to manage to rig an imbalanced match any more than they can ensure a balanced one.

    It certainly sometimes feels like the game is intentionally imbalancing to give the long-term players frequent easy wins. I very often see a team with many level 150 players go into a new game with the same huge majority of level 150 players (and, yes, being level 150 *does* mean you are far more likely to be a 'good' player. Experience is a very large factor in success in BF).
Sign In or Register to comment.