Game balance missconceptions

«1
canon35mm
236 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
I've noticed in game and on the forums people making claims about the balancing of games and wanted to put down how I understand the balancing system works and get everyone's input and experiences. I see a lot of comments about there not being any balancing or people don't really understand how it all works.

I play in a large platoon, a typical night of playing starts by logging on to team speak, I join my platoon mates through the platoon menu. I wait in queue and I usually get put on the enemy team. I can't switch sides at this point but if I hold off from deploying I will get switched automatically to my platoon mates side. OR I load in and when I die if there is room on their side I get put on that side. I don't think randoms know this. The game will switch platoon members automatically to try to consolidate the platoon, it's not always the platoon members actively switching.

If we join an empty server the balance system will try to split us up most of the time and will not let us switch sides until things even out. There is a way around this though, a player can back out of the server and try joining in again on the platoon or a team mate in the server.

Playing ops, when the map changes (same op second map), if too many of the enemy team leaves the match making system will split up the platoon again. A player can still back out and rejoin the server to get back with the team mates if they want.

Not all players in a platoon have to "represent" the platoon. Sometimes that person switching sides isn't just trying to get on the winning side, they might be trying to play with their mates on team speak or discord, but people do tend to switch to our side when they see us come in a server.

I know there are lots of different views on what a large group should do when a game becomes unbalanced. My view is that it is always more fun to play with your buddies. Splitting up the team while on the same chat server isn't fun and it's not as much fun playing against your friends (most of the time). The game encourages platoon play, people who take advantage of it will have an advantage in game so join up people. Start your own platoon, find a platoon. It makes a huge difference and puts you in control of how the server will populate and the balance.

Comments

  • aseveredfoot
    2467 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    We have just over 50 members. If we all hop into the same server we just tend to play on opposite sides for fun. Other times we just have several parties up at once and play in different servers.

    But we're all generally reluctant to stack a team up with 15-20 of our members because pub stomps just aren't that much fun for anyone. It's kinda funny once in a while but it's to be avoided for everyone's enjoyment.
  • trip1ex
    5227 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    same goes for just joining on friends. If I join on a friend and he's on the other side I will eventually get put over there automagically.
  • Iamaforkead
    483 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2017
    canon35mm wrote: »
    I've noticed in game and on the forums people making claims about the balancing of games and wanted to put down how I understand the balancing system works and get everyone's input and experiences. I see a lot of comments about there not being any balancing or people don't really understand how it all works.

    I play in a large platoon, a typical night of playing starts by logging on to team speak, I join my platoon mates through the platoon menu. I wait in queue and I usually get put on the enemy team. I can't switch sides at this point but if I hold off from deploying I will get switched automatically to my platoon mates side. OR I load in and when I die if there is room on their side I get put on that side. I don't think randoms know this. The game will switch platoon members automatically to try to consolidate the platoon, it's not always the platoon members actively switching.

    If we join an empty server the balance system will try to split us up most of the time and will not let us switch sides until things even out. There is a way around this though, a player can back out of the server and try joining in again on the platoon or a team mate in the server.

    Playing ops, when the map changes (same op second map), if too many of the enemy team leaves the match making system will split up the platoon again. A player can still back out and rejoin the server to get back with the team mates if they want.

    Not all players in a platoon have to "represent" the platoon. Sometimes that person switching sides isn't just trying to get on the winning side, they might be trying to play with their mates on team speak or discord, but people do tend to switch to our side when they see us come in a server.

    I know there are lots of different views on what a large group should do when a game becomes unbalanced. My view is that it is always more fun to play with your buddies. Splitting up the team while on the same chat server isn't fun and it's not as much fun playing against your friends (most of the time). The game encourages platoon play, people who take advantage of it will have an advantage in game so join up people. Start your own platoon, find a platoon. It makes a huge difference and puts you in control of how the server will populate and the balance.

    and I bet your not giving away your position by talking on ts to teammates?
    the game is unbalanced, not by team stacking like you do. but by the juggernauts being nerfed.
    the behemoths coming too late to balance the game.

    all the rest is just bad spawning. if you are losing you get bugger all spawn points, that is how the game works.

    penalised for losing, big time.

    all games are always not close and BORING
    and the mupps in the office, do not play the game.

    on fridays lol, .


  • BaconRebellion
    2465 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    canon35mm wrote: »
    I've noticed in game and on the forums people making claims about the balancing of games and wanted to put down how I understand the balancing system works and get everyone's input and experiences. I see a lot of comments about there not being any balancing or people don't really understand how it all works.

    I play in a large platoon, a typical night of playing starts by logging on to team speak, I join my platoon mates through the platoon menu. I wait in queue and I usually get put on the enemy team. I can't switch sides at this point but if I hold off from deploying I will get switched automatically to my platoon mates side. OR I load in and when I die if there is room on their side I get put on that side. I don't think randoms know this. The game will switch platoon members automatically to try to consolidate the platoon, it's not always the platoon members actively switching.

    If we join an empty server the balance system will try to split us up most of the time and will not let us switch sides until things even out. There is a way around this though, a player can back out of the server and try joining in again on the platoon or a team mate in the server.

    Playing ops, when the map changes (same op second map), if too many of the enemy team leaves the match making system will split up the platoon again. A player can still back out and rejoin the server to get back with the team mates if they want.

    Not all players in a platoon have to "represent" the platoon. Sometimes that person switching sides isn't just trying to get on the winning side, they might be trying to play with their mates on team speak or discord, but people do tend to switch to our side when they see us come in a server.

    I know there are lots of different views on what a large group should do when a game becomes unbalanced. My view is that it is always more fun to play with your buddies. Splitting up the team while on the same chat server isn't fun and it's not as much fun playing against your friends (most of the time). The game encourages platoon play, people who take advantage of it will have an advantage in game so join up people. Start your own platoon, find a platoon. It makes a huge difference and puts you in control of how the server will populate and the balance.

    All i read and toom away from your post is that you enjoy stacking a team entirely with your platoon against unorganized public randoms and stomping them.
  • canon35mm
    236 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    canon35mm wrote: »
    I've noticed in game and on the forums people making claims about the balancing of games and wanted to put down how I understand the balancing system works and get everyone's input and experiences. I see a lot of comments about there not being any balancing or people don't really understand how it all works.

    I play in a large platoon, a typical night of playing starts by logging on to team speak, I join my platoon mates through the platoon menu. I wait in queue and I usually get put on the enemy team. I can't switch sides at this point but if I hold off from deploying I will get switched automatically to my platoon mates side. OR I load in and when I die if there is room on their side I get put on that side. I don't think randoms know this. The game will switch platoon members automatically to try to consolidate the platoon, it's not always the platoon members actively switching.

    If we join an empty server the balance system will try to split us up most of the time and will not let us switch sides until things even out. There is a way around this though, a player can back out of the server and try joining in again on the platoon or a team mate in the server.

    Playing ops, when the map changes (same op second map), if too many of the enemy team leaves the match making system will split up the platoon again. A player can still back out and rejoin the server to get back with the team mates if they want.

    Not all players in a platoon have to "represent" the platoon. Sometimes that person switching sides isn't just trying to get on the winning side, they might be trying to play with their mates on team speak or discord, but people do tend to switch to our side when they see us come in a server.

    I know there are lots of different views on what a large group should do when a game becomes unbalanced. My view is that it is always more fun to play with your buddies. Splitting up the team while on the same chat server isn't fun and it's not as much fun playing against your friends (most of the time). The game encourages platoon play, people who take advantage of it will have an advantage in game so join up people. Start your own platoon, find a platoon. It makes a huge difference and puts you in control of how the server will populate and the balance.

    All i read and toom away from your post is that you enjoy stacking a team entirely with your platoon against unorganized public randoms and stomping them.

    If that were true I wouldn't have come on here suggesting other people organize. I think the solution to the issue of balance is for more people to get together. The game is more fun when you play with others, you perform better, and the game rewards you for doing it. When we play we hardly coordinate, I think most of the benefit comes from other factors like it encourages team support like repairs, revives, heals etc. Most of our players are still playing this game because we enjoy playing together not necessarily because its BF1. I know personally I would have stopped a long time ago if I wasn't playing in a group and I find lone wolfing it to be extremely boring now. I try to encourage people to get into platoons all the time.
  • FritzCT
    333 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The balance issues go way beyond Platoon members wanting to play on the same side (and of course why wouldn't they) whether done by DICE or by themselves.

    There is no misconception when the round starts with 6 vs 12 in Rush. Or when it starts with mostly Rank 20's playing mostly Rank 90+'s. It's nowt to do with Platoons, just poor balancing.

    To be fair it must be difficult for DICE to get this right with peeps leaving and joining all the time.
  • canon35mm
    236 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    FritzCT wrote: »
    The balance issues go way beyond Platoon members wanting to play on the same side (and of course why wouldn't they) whether done by DICE or by themselves.

    There is no misconception when the round starts with 6 vs 12 in Rush. Or when it starts with mostly Rank 20's playing mostly Rank 90+'s. It's nowt to do with Platoons, just poor balancing.

    To be fair it must be difficult for DICE to get this right with peeps leaving and joining all the time.

    I only really play operations 64 player servers so I can't speak to the other modes but from what I have seen the game does attempt to balance things out.

    It must be tough for DICE. If the only people wanting to play a game of Rush are a bunch of random level 20 players and a group of level 90 players what is DICE going to do? I think part of the problem is there are so many different game modes it splits up the player base, add in DLC issues and it can be tough to find the players to balance out. Then you have the issue of people wanting to play together and people dropping out etc. I don't know why we have 40 player operation servers and 64 player servers, just make 64 player servers imo.

  • olavafar
    2261 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I also play with the DADS platoon and can just confirm the way switching is done. We mostly have around two full squads in the evening playing. We prefer also to stack but if it results in a stomp we split and we do not stack up if we are split by the server. There is nothing as fun as knifing a friend in the platoon, with the obligatory "look behind you!" preceding it (due you TS delay your pray will not have time to turn).

    Sometimes we even move all to losing side if that is possible (it happens that the losing team becomes really short of players, QUITTERS!!!, and later in weekday evenings there are not so many new players entering servers.). This depends a bit on who is on though as some are more competitive than others and wants to win if they can. Also if one have had a really bad evening with losses all along, a stomp win at the end can be a comfort.

    Agree on the recommendation, playing together is a lot more fun than going loner.
  • bran1986
    5913 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    canon35mm wrote: »
    canon35mm wrote: »
    I've noticed in game and on the forums people making claims about the balancing of games and wanted to put down how I understand the balancing system works and get everyone's input and experiences. I see a lot of comments about there not being any balancing or people don't really understand how it all works.

    I play in a large platoon, a typical night of playing starts by logging on to team speak, I join my platoon mates through the platoon menu. I wait in queue and I usually get put on the enemy team. I can't switch sides at this point but if I hold off from deploying I will get switched automatically to my platoon mates side. OR I load in and when I die if there is room on their side I get put on that side. I don't think randoms know this. The game will switch platoon members automatically to try to consolidate the platoon, it's not always the platoon members actively switching.

    If we join an empty server the balance system will try to split us up most of the time and will not let us switch sides until things even out. There is a way around this though, a player can back out of the server and try joining in again on the platoon or a team mate in the server.

    Playing ops, when the map changes (same op second map), if too many of the enemy team leaves the match making system will split up the platoon again. A player can still back out and rejoin the server to get back with the team mates if they want.

    Not all players in a platoon have to "represent" the platoon. Sometimes that person switching sides isn't just trying to get on the winning side, they might be trying to play with their mates on team speak or discord, but people do tend to switch to our side when they see us come in a server.

    I know there are lots of different views on what a large group should do when a game becomes unbalanced. My view is that it is always more fun to play with your buddies. Splitting up the team while on the same chat server isn't fun and it's not as much fun playing against your friends (most of the time). The game encourages platoon play, people who take advantage of it will have an advantage in game so join up people. Start your own platoon, find a platoon. It makes a huge difference and puts you in control of how the server will populate and the balance.

    All i read and toom away from your post is that you enjoy stacking a team entirely with your platoon against unorganized public randoms and stomping them.

    If that were true I wouldn't have come on here suggesting other people organize. I think the solution to the issue of balance is for more people to get together. The game is more fun when you play with others, you perform better, and the game rewards you for doing it. When we play we hardly coordinate, I think most of the benefit comes from other factors like it encourages team support like repairs, revives, heals etc. Most of our players are still playing this game because we enjoy playing together not necessarily because its BF1. I know personally I would have stopped a long time ago if I wasn't playing in a group and I find lone wolfing it to be extremely boring now. I try to encourage people to get into platoons all the time.

    So you enjoy team stacking against public randoms is still all im hearing.

    Not everyone has tons of friends to play with. If they do they may not always be on at the same time. Or they may not have found a platoon that is all that active or they may not be on at the same tine there platoon is on.

    Whether you want to believe it or not, there are some glaring issues with the team balance system that are exacerbated when platoons stack the servers together. When a round starts 12-6 in Rush/TDM or 20-32 in Conquest, there is an abvious balance issue especially since players quit before the next round and the losing side never gets filled up in time before the new one starts. Or whats even worse is when a round starts as 15-28 amd **** players are put on the side with 28 before the short side starts to get players.

    Ive also been in games where one team has had 3-4 organized platoons going against a team full of randoms. Yes playing with friends is fun but even when i do play with friends its still no fun when its a bunch of randoms against a platoon.

    Unfortunately this is really common, at least it is on PC. You will get a clan or even two stacking one team. So of course every high rank that can will team switch to their side, all the while your side is stuck with a bunch of lower ranks with very little experience.
  • TickTak77
    4695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    To try and implicate platoons as the reason for the unbalanced team issue, COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that team balancing issues were apparent WAY BEFORE Platoons were introduced into BF1.

    Do platoons help the balance problem? No.

    Are platoons the reason for the balance problem? No.
  • canon35mm
    236 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    wrote: »

    I am not saying there aren't problems but I do think the problems get better if there are more organized people playing not less. The overall experience is better when people play together.

    I play in a public platoon. Anyone can join so we pretty much always have people playing 24/7 from different parts of the world. There is a core of players who are on the majority of the time with more transient players coming and going. No skill requirements, you don't need to be exclusive to the platoon, you don't need to represent, etc. but what we find is that when people come on and enjoy playing they tend to play more, level up quicker, get better stats. This reinforces the desire to play and maintains the player base. If you don't have a platoon like that you could join a few different platoons or start your own. Or if you would rather just play by yourself that is cool, but don't complain if other people do want to play together. It's not our responsibility to make sure you have a good time.

    I agree that the things you bring up are issues and I have experienced them too. The point I'm trying to make is that DICE has encouraged Platoon play and put this into the game. People aren't going to self balance in some altruistic way so that the teams are completely even. It is up to players to recognize that it is in their own interests to organize. I am trying to make that argument here. If all I wanted to do was stomp on n00bs I wouldn't bother. I would rather have many groups playing having a good time filling up servers than have half empty one sided boring servers.
  • Trokey66
    9101 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2017
    TickTak77 wrote: »
    To try and implicate platoons as the reason for the unbalanced team issue, COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that team balancing issues were apparent WAY BEFORE Platoons were introduced into BF1.

    Do platoons help the balance problem? No.

    Are platoons the reason for the balance problem? No.

    Many of those same people still played together before platoons so would still try to 'stack' teams.

    Platoon tags just makes it more readily identifiable.

    I am not in any way, saying that the balancing system in use is perfect, far from it in fact. But players have a major impact on it.

    Platoons (and party friends before that) CAN affect team balance.

    Mass exodus after a game CAN affect team balance.

    Team switching CAN affect team balance.

    More, and larger platoons COULD affect team balance.

    There are so many things the players do that creating an algorithm that ensures balanced teams every time must be nigh on impossible.
  • canon35mm
    236 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    TickTak77 wrote: »
    To try and implicate platoons as the reason for the unbalanced team issue, COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that team balancing issues were apparent WAY BEFORE Platoons were introduced into BF1.

    Do platoons help the balance problem? No.

    Are platoons the reason for the balance problem? No.

    Before there were 'platoons' people still played the game as groups or clans you just wouldn't know they were together all the time. Even now not all platoon members choose to represent their platoon with tags. I play with a group that doesn't have rules and I'd say 1/3 of the guys don't bother or they even represent other platoons. When randoms look at the balance they may assume it's a problem with DICE balancing when it's really just people playing together and there is nothing DICE can do about it without limiting people playing together.

  • TickTak77
    4695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    canon35mm wrote: »
    TickTak77 wrote: »
    To try and implicate platoons as the reason for the unbalanced team issue, COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that team balancing issues were apparent WAY BEFORE Platoons were introduced into BF1.

    Do platoons help the balance problem? No.

    Are platoons the reason for the balance problem? No.

    Before there were 'platoons' people still played the game as groups or clans you just wouldn't know they were together all the time. Even now not all platoon members choose to represent their platoon with tags. I play with a group that doesn't have rules and I'd say 1/3 of the guys don't bother or they even represent other platoons. When randoms look at the balance they may assume it's a problem with DICE balancing when it's really just people playing together and there is nothing DICE can do about it without limiting people playing together.

    You are very naive on the issue of team balancing in this game.

    There's nothing DICE can do?

    They could start with doing some really simple basic math. Something like...uhh....

    ...if there's a squad of 5, or a platoon of 10, on one team, maybe stop giving them randoms to join on their team, and instead start passing them over to the other team that is, you know, already outnumbered by 5-10 people?

  • canon35mm
    236 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    TickTak77 wrote: »
    canon35mm wrote: »
    TickTak77 wrote: »
    To try and implicate platoons as the reason for the unbalanced team issue, COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that team balancing issues were apparent WAY BEFORE Platoons were introduced into BF1.

    Do platoons help the balance problem? No.

    Are platoons the reason for the balance problem? No.

    Before there were 'platoons' people still played the game as groups or clans you just wouldn't know they were together all the time. Even now not all platoon members choose to represent their platoon with tags. I play with a group that doesn't have rules and I'd say 1/3 of the guys don't bother or they even represent other platoons. When randoms look at the balance they may assume it's a problem with DICE balancing when it's really just people playing together and there is nothing DICE can do about it without limiting people playing together.

    You are very naive on the issue of team balancing in this game.

    There's nothing DICE can do?

    They could start with doing some really simple basic math. Something like...uhh....

    ...if there's a squad of 5, or a platoon of 10, on one team, maybe stop giving them randoms to join on their team, and instead start passing them over to the other team that is, you know, already outnumbered by 5-10 people?

    You are making the assumption that DICE is giving the team with the larger number of players more players and more randoms. In my experience it is more likely people are switching or people are joining the game off of friends. I join games with my platoon some are representing others aren't and the opposition assumes that because there are people on the team that aren't representing that they are randoms put on the team by DICE. Randoms see a platoon join a game and they want to switch sides and DICE has limited that by not letting people switch sides when the teams are uneven.
  • Claypole1
    386 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I shouldn't have to join a platoon in order to have a decent game. I should just be able to just play the game and get matched properly.

    I don't expect to be put on he winning side, same as with BF3 and BF4. However, with those games the matchmaking seemed to sort itself out after a couple of rounds.

    With BF1, I find myself joining a team getting crushed. We then often go on to get crushed time and time again. The matchmaking issue goes way beyond platoons, unless being in a platoon beating up on a bunch of randoms is what this game is all about.
  • MurfCr
    1031 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I still want an answer to or an idea of this. On party chat and in squad, my buddy got switched to enemy team while still alive and right next to me. Now the only reason I know this is we were clearing A on Amiens he was next to me. I turned back and saw a Red laying down with rocket gun. Well I gave him a nice head shot to see it was my friend.
  • canon35mm
    236 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited August 2017




    MurfCr wrote: »
    I still want an answer to or an idea of this. On party chat and in squad, my buddy got switched to enemy team while still alive and right next to me. Now the only reason I know this is we were clearing A on Amiens he was next to me. I turned back and saw a Red laying down with rocket gun. Well I gave him a nice head shot to see it was my friend.

    gotta be a glitch I think. I've only ever switched while dead.
  • canon35mm
    236 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member

    Claypole1 wrote: »
    I shouldn't have to join a platoon in order to have a decent game. I should just be able to just play the game and get matched properly.

    I don't expect to be put on he winning side, same as with BF3 and BF4. However, with those games the matchmaking seemed to sort itself out after a couple of rounds.

    With BF1, I find myself joining a team getting crushed. We then often go on to get crushed time and time again. The matchmaking issue goes way beyond platoons, unless being in a platoon beating up on a bunch of randoms is what this game is all about.

    I see in your stats your win % is around 45%, you seem to be about an average player. If you were above average maybe you could get some more wins but in large servers you aren't going to have a huge impact on the overall course of the game I think. So what makes a good team and can DICE on average make things somewhat even? I think the fact that you are around a 50% win ratio is evidence that match making is giving you a chance to be on some winning teams. I know sometimes games turn into one sided beatings but I don't see a consistent way DICE can take individuals and consistently make two even teams when a good team will have many intangibles. Think about all the annoying things that happen in the one sided games, no one on your team is reviving, healing, repairing, pushing points, supporting one another. If you were to look at individual stats you might see that on paper the players can and should be able to do all these things but when put together for whatever reason they fall apart. On random teams one or two elite players can make a huge difference and your success will be a random roll of the dice to see if you are on that elite level players team, but a solid team can neutralize elite players through team work.
  • Claypole1
    386 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    canon35mm wrote: »
    Claypole1 wrote: »
    I shouldn't have to join a platoon in order to have a decent game. I should just be able to just play the game and get matched properly.

    I don't expect to be put on he winning side, same as with BF3 and BF4. However, with those games the matchmaking seemed to sort itself out after a couple of rounds.

    With BF1, I find myself joining a team getting crushed. We then often go on to get crushed time and time again. The matchmaking issue goes way beyond platoons, unless being in a platoon beating up on a bunch of randoms is what this game is all about.

    I see in your stats your win % is around 45%, you seem to be about an average player. If you were above average maybe you could get some more wins but in large servers you aren't going to have a huge impact on the overall course of the game I think. So what makes a good team and can DICE on average make things somewhat even? I think the fact that you are around a 50% win ratio is evidence that match making is giving you a chance to be on some winning teams. I know sometimes games turn into one sided beatings but I don't see a consistent way DICE can take individuals and consistently make two even teams when a good team will have many intangibles. Think about all the annoying things that happen in the one sided games, no one on your team is reviving, healing, repairing, pushing points, supporting one another. If you were to look at individual stats you might see that on paper the players can and should be able to do all these things but when put together for whatever reason they fall apart. On random teams one or two elite players can make a huge difference and your success will be a random roll of the dice to see if you are on that elite level players team, but a solid team can neutralize elite players through team work.
    These are good points you make, and they make sense if we apply them to what's happening in BF1.

    However, my win ratio in BF3 and BF4 were a bit higher than 50%. They started off a bit below 50%, but soon picked up as I got acclimatised to the game. As you say, I'm an average player, (as I was on the previous two games), but on BF1 I'm finding as I rack up the hours, my win ratio isn't improving.

    I actually think my win ratio is getting worse, my score of 45% is probably on a downward spiral. There's something not quite right with BF1, and I'm not sure what...
Sign In or Register to comment.