DICE, please take a look at the stats for game starts. Bad balancing is ruining many games
8984 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
May 2, 2017 11:52AM
edited May 2017
Sorry, I think it's a bit off to call "DICE" in the subject, but I feel it's important... It's nothing new and it's not been looked at or even mentioned re. BF1 to my knowledge. I'm a bit of a fanboi most of the time, but this is a really fundamental issue that seems to be being ignored (?). I'd be happy to be informed otherwise.
I often see something like this: -
Teams 12 to 20. Game counter T - 1:00.
Teams 16 to 24. Game counter T - 0:30.
Teams 18 to 26. Game starts anyway.
Teams 18 to 26. Game at 0:20. First contact at middle flag. Score at 2 to 6.
Teams 22 to 26. Game at 0:30. Middle flag fight. Score at 4 to 10.
Teams 25 to 27. Game at 0:40. Middle flag taken. Scores at 10 to 25.
...Someone switches to the bigger, winning team...
Teams 26 to 28. Game at 0:50. Middle flag held. Scores at 25 to 50.
Teams 27 to 29. Game at 1:00. Middle flag well held. Scores at 30 to 75.
...Someone switches to the bigger, winning team...
Teams at 26 to 30. Game at 1:10. Middle flag dominated. Scores at 35 to 90.
...People loaded into the bigger winning side...
Teams at 26 to 32. Game at 1:20. Middle flag occupiers push on. Scores at 45 to 100.
...Some people leave the losing side...
Teams at 24 to 32. Game at 1:30. Scores at 50 to 125.
...The rest of the game is a land-slide with a sequence of people loading into the losing side, having a bad time and leaving...
So the above is a made up example, but we all know it happens regularly. One and a half minutes in and it's effectively over. If you stay, it's miserable, if you leave you feel guilty for making it worse (well, I do).
I see some really big problems, but that can surely be fixed: -
Problem 1: Assigning players to a team when they haven't loaded
I'm being optimistic assuming that the game is starting badly uneven because the game thinks there are the same number in each team, but some are still loading. The problem with that assumption is twofold: 1) Loading times vary wildly and also some that are loading cancel or crash or whatever 2) People don't *know* players are loading and think it's badly balanced and leave/switch making things worse.
Fix 1a: Assign players to teams as they *finish* loading not when they start loading
Surely players can be assigned to teams such that they stay even?
Fix 1b: Don't keep random squads together
Sometimes the imbalance is because everyone is in big squads. To switch 5 players only evens things if the teams are different by 10. A very blunt tool. If it's not a platoon or party based squad, split them up. Balance is *way* more important than keeping random squads together. Perhaps allow randoms that fall in love and lock the squad to stay together. Most people don't care.
Problem 2: Switching to bigger/winning teams is allowed (WTF?!)
Fix 2: Don't allow it! Why is it allowed?!
I *do not* understand this. It's just *terrible* for balance and should not be allowed under any circumstance. If people want to play with someone they switch to the smaller/losing team or wait until they can be shuffled together in a new game. Balance is *much* more important than letting late-coming party/platoon members to join up a few minutes quicker.
Players should only ever be allowed to switch to the losing/smaller team (not even even teams). You can currently switch to a team that has 2 more players already!... *boggle*
Problem 3: No balancing on players leaving
Fix 3a: Auto-balance when players leave.
Yes, auto-balancing can be rough, but IMHO better than an unbalanced game. Any decent player will appreciate that losing a good game is better than winning a badly balanced one and when games are better balanced less people will leave in the middle anyway.
Fix 3b: Incentive switching:
If not auto-balancing then some kind of incentive/switching system should be added: "The other team is losing players! Press SPACE to switch and gain 2XP!"
Balancing is surely the most important and fundamental issue. No matter the game mode or the new weapon or vehicle or mechanic, if the game you play isn't even it's no fun, not for either side. I know it seems *some* people love to smash the enemy into the ground - no end of people typing "gg!" when it was totally one-sided, boring and awful - but those people aside, most would greatly prefer a balanced and challenging experience.
So, please DICE, have a look at your stats and see what happens with these games. I'm pretty confident if you analyse match starts, progress and outcomes you can see it needs attention.
Maybe it's really really difficult to address? It's really really important though.
I often see something like this: -
Teams 12 to 20. Game counter T - 1:00.
Teams 16 to 24. Game counter T - 0:30.
Teams 18 to 26. Game starts anyway.
Teams 18 to 26. Game at 0:20. First contact at middle flag. Score at 2 to 6.
Teams 22 to 26. Game at 0:30. Middle flag fight. Score at 4 to 10.
Teams 25 to 27. Game at 0:40. Middle flag taken. Scores at 10 to 25.
...Someone switches to the bigger, winning team...
Teams 26 to 28. Game at 0:50. Middle flag held. Scores at 25 to 50.
Teams 27 to 29. Game at 1:00. Middle flag well held. Scores at 30 to 75.
...Someone switches to the bigger, winning team...
Teams at 26 to 30. Game at 1:10. Middle flag dominated. Scores at 35 to 90.
...People loaded into the bigger winning side...
Teams at 26 to 32. Game at 1:20. Middle flag occupiers push on. Scores at 45 to 100.
...Some people leave the losing side...
Teams at 24 to 32. Game at 1:30. Scores at 50 to 125.
...The rest of the game is a land-slide with a sequence of people loading into the losing side, having a bad time and leaving...
So the above is a made up example, but we all know it happens regularly. One and a half minutes in and it's effectively over. If you stay, it's miserable, if you leave you feel guilty for making it worse (well, I do).
I see some really big problems, but that can surely be fixed: -
Problem 1: Assigning players to a team when they haven't loaded
I'm being optimistic assuming that the game is starting badly uneven because the game thinks there are the same number in each team, but some are still loading. The problem with that assumption is twofold: 1) Loading times vary wildly and also some that are loading cancel or crash or whatever 2) People don't *know* players are loading and think it's badly balanced and leave/switch making things worse.
Fix 1a: Assign players to teams as they *finish* loading not when they start loading
Surely players can be assigned to teams such that they stay even?
Fix 1b: Don't keep random squads together
Sometimes the imbalance is because everyone is in big squads. To switch 5 players only evens things if the teams are different by 10. A very blunt tool. If it's not a platoon or party based squad, split them up. Balance is *way* more important than keeping random squads together. Perhaps allow randoms that fall in love and lock the squad to stay together. Most people don't care.
Problem 2: Switching to bigger/winning teams is allowed (WTF?!)
Fix 2: Don't allow it! Why is it allowed?!
I *do not* understand this. It's just *terrible* for balance and should not be allowed under any circumstance. If people want to play with someone they switch to the smaller/losing team or wait until they can be shuffled together in a new game. Balance is *much* more important than letting late-coming party/platoon members to join up a few minutes quicker.
Players should only ever be allowed to switch to the losing/smaller team (not even even teams). You can currently switch to a team that has 2 more players already!... *boggle*
Problem 3: No balancing on players leaving
Fix 3a: Auto-balance when players leave.
Yes, auto-balancing can be rough, but IMHO better than an unbalanced game. Any decent player will appreciate that losing a good game is better than winning a badly balanced one and when games are better balanced less people will leave in the middle anyway.
Fix 3b: Incentive switching:
If not auto-balancing then some kind of incentive/switching system should be added: "The other team is losing players! Press SPACE to switch and gain 2XP!"
Balancing is surely the most important and fundamental issue. No matter the game mode or the new weapon or vehicle or mechanic, if the game you play isn't even it's no fun, not for either side. I know it seems *some* people love to smash the enemy into the ground - no end of people typing "gg!" when it was totally one-sided, boring and awful - but those people aside, most would greatly prefer a balanced and challenging experience.
So, please DICE, have a look at your stats and see what happens with these games. I'm pretty confident if you analyse match starts, progress and outcomes you can see it needs attention.
Maybe it's really really difficult to address? It's really really important though.
6
Comments
But " bit of a fanboi "... I can't agree with that.
Comment:
Problem 3 is hard to solve. Some players are very sensitive to being switched to losing side (not me, I often actively change when I'm alone), These will probably leave if switched unless a quit will be counted as a loss, which I'm not sure is a good thing. It has the potantial of killing a server quickly. I've experienced it when we had servers in BF4, if we moved anyone but a clan member (sometimes ther were to few of those) they got very upset. 3b might be the way to go though and its the best alternative I've seen sofar. Maybe ther shall be a 'game breaker' ribbon for the ones switching to losing team,and this team wins in the end, eventually leading to a 'game breaker' medal. You'd fool me for sure...
I do not support autobalancing mid-game though. That would certainly cause a huge outcry from players. Preventing leaving is a tough problem for sure. Maybe it could be that if you leave a certain number of games in a certain time frame, you are charged with "desertion" and you are demoted one rank.
The only thing I'm unsure of in your post OP, is autobalancing in the middle of a game. Yeah, some people might "appreciate" attempts to make it as fair as possible but being honest, I'd be pretty annoyed if I randomly get switched team as I'm playing. It just screws up the flow of a match IMO.
As for switching teams? Yes it is annoying and I am also guilty of doing it sometimes. If I'm playing on a team that makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to revive/resupply/heal or is filled with ~30-40% snipers I switch instantly or failing that I leave. Doesn't matter if we're winning or losing I just find that too aggravating to deal with.
I would welcome a solution to teamswitching that ensures that people who want to play together aren't prevented from doing so.
What if i want to play as an attacker for operations? I don't like playing as defenders. I normally switch into an attacker if i get forced as a defender. Is that a bad thing?
And that is exacerbated by the new vote map option when people realise they don't want to play the map that was just voted for.
Switching before the game starts would be fine. Switching after the game starts should never happen. And the game shouldn't start until the teams are numerically even, i.e., a difference of one at the most.