Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

  • "Carlos Danger" started this thread

Posts: 87

Date of registration
: Apr 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

1

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 8:44am

Team Stacking

This is sort of a bitch thread, but I'm starting to realize that one of the reasons why I dislike this game so much is how lopsided most matches are. I only play Operations (solo loser queue), and it feels to me that almost half of all games are won using only a single battalion. Works both ways. Sometimes I'm on a team that stomps the enemy and sometimes I'm on a team like from the match I just played. We got beaten on 64-player Amiens Operations in maybe five minutes - literally the game lasted the length of time it took for the enemy team to reach and cap all the objectives. It's frustrating and frankly not a lot of fun - even when I'm on the winning team.

Anyways, if this were a rare experience, I'd be okay with it, but I feel like this sort of situation constitutes an unacceptably large proportion of my matches, and it has a big negative impact on my playing experience. Anyways, I was wondering if you guys are having similar experience and if you feel like Battlefield 1's matchmaking needs to be improved.
'

Posts: 292

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

2

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 8:53am

This has always been a problem in any game. There's really nothing you can do to address this, certainly not forcing autobalance since it would only piss me off to be randomly booted off the team playing well to a team that isn't

What I can say is, BF1's Conquest ticket system is awful because a 100 ticket difference is a massive amount compared to previous titles. Me and my friends used to be able to join servers mid-game with a ~250 ticket deficit and say, "This is winnable, we can reverse this by capping some flags and holding it". The same deficit in BF1 means that we waste time in a losing game that is virtually unsalvageable

Posts: 15

Date of registration
: Dec 22nd 2016

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

3

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 12:31pm

I do see the "your squad has been moved to whichever side based on skill" a lot but you do still get teams that slam round after round.

I wonder if they actually take a skill rating per squad and try and get it as even as average as possible or not.

I guess the problem is sometimes there is just one key squad that no matter what team its on is winning, and me and my friends are placed against them as we're pretty great, but not pro so would make sense if everything is averaged that we would be against them.

Miffyli

Symthic Developer

(6,661)

Posts: 3,725

Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013

Platform: PC

Location: __main__, Finland

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 12:50pm

Like Ritobasu said, this seems to be an issue most public, multiplayer games share (however proper study could be interesting). My intuition says that people getting stomped do not want to spend time getting killed and quit the game, while winning team players stay.

This whole issue might root to something something human sociology though, as in it is not "fixable" just by limited tweaking of game mechanics (limited = does not raise other conflicts). Competitive games use proper matchmaking and statistics to mostly balance the games, but public games are uncontrollable.
Links to users' thread list who have made analytical/statistical/mathematical/cool posts on Symthic:
  • 3VerstsNorth - Analysis of game mechanics in BF4 (tickrates, effects of tickrate, etc)
  • leptis - Analysis of shotguns, recoil, recoil control and air drag.
  • Veritable - Scoring of BF4/BF1 firearms in terms of usability, firing and other mechanics.
  • Miffyli - Random statistical analysis of BF4 battlereports/players and kill-distances. (list is cluttered with other threads).
Sorry if your name wasn't on the list, I honestly can't recall all names : ( . Nudge me if you want to be included

Posts: 91

Date of registration
: Jun 23rd 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 8:26pm

I think a few things that compound the issue is the lack of a server browser for Operations and a lack of a live scoreboard in the server browser. When I play BF4 on PC, I use the Battlelog server browser to only join games that are just starting and have roughly even ticket counts. Thus I don't experience blowout games as often because I am able to select games that don't have that property, at least when I start. With console BF4 and BF1, I have no idea how a match is going when I join, so I've sometimes joined the game just in time to see the "You Lost" screen. It's annoying and a huge regression in my opinion from Battlelog's server browser in BF4. The lack of a browser for Operations also exacerbates the problem as it seems to funnel people into games that are in progress, which means that they are filling in for players who quit out of those games, which is more likely when one team is stomping the other. So the matchmaking system places people in rounds where they are most likely to find a one-sided match.

I've been playing a lot of Titanfall 2 lately, and in that game, there's only matchmaking, but if you're placed into a match in progress and on the losing team, the game will detect that and ensure that a loss in that match will not be recorded in your stats. Perhaps something similar could be implemented in BF1, though that wouldn't make the experience any better for the players stuck in the situation.

Posts: 103

Date of registration
: Mar 4th 2017

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 9:22pm

I've been playing about 6 weeks. This is my first experience with FPS and even game consoles (I got interested after we got BF1 for our son and now I play 10x more than him.)

I haven't noticed it gets too out of whack, but then I've never played anything else. I mostly play domination. If after 2-3 rounds if it's too lopsided either way, I just quit & look for another server.

I have to wonder, though, how a 10 v 10 domination match can end 100-5 in under 3 minutes. I look at the scoreboard and don't see a big discrepancy in ranks, unless a bunch of players are playing on someone else's account.

What fun is it to keep wiping out the other team in 5 minutes? Not that I'm anywhere near one of those dominant players, but who wants to spend more time waiting for the next round than they did playing the one that just ended? I don't

yugas42

Moderator

(1,387)

Posts: 1,494

Date of registration
: Sep 1st 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 9:34pm

What fun is it to keep wiping out the other team in 5 minutes?

You would be quite surprised at how much of it is the "grind more to grind more" mentality. I don't think many of them find it fun to completely dismantle a team over and over again, everyone is driven to keep climbing ranks though. Whether that is to unlock new weapon or just to be able to say that you're X level in Battlefield 1. It's a very Diablo-esque mindset but one that is very common amongst all games now.

Oscar

Sona tank jungle

(1,948)

Posts: 7,898

Date of registration
: May 30th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: SURROUNDED BY FUCKING MOUNTAINS

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

8

Wednesday, March 8th 2017, 9:35pm

As someone who plays as part of a moderately large group (ranging from 2 to 16 people on different days), I can tell you that a big part that fucks up balance is how teams are scrambled before a match loads because many players leave after the next round loads (since leaving while it's loading is still buggy and slow), and also players who leave their team and join the winning team. Then some more players quit the losing team and suddenly player count and balance has gone to shit.

Operations I haven't played much (a maximum of 20 or so), but I've only been put onto ongoing operations twice out of all of those. I don't play the mode enough to judge how frequent it actually is, but what I've seen is a few people's being put into a empty operation and then it'll slowly fill up and start the round.
Bro of Legion, the lurker ninja mod | Tesla FTW | RNG is evil.

Quoted from "MsMuchLove"

I find majority of the complaints I hear about this game somehow never appear in my games.

Posts: 3

Date of registration
: Sep 28th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

9

Thursday, March 9th 2017, 3:23pm

It's just annoying to see how often before a round has started in conquest or operations one team has 5 or more players than the other, and that (some) players that are joining in are put in the team with the most players, so teams are numerically imbalanced longer longer than necessary. In addition, the team with the most players also usually has more high rank players. The skill-based balancer doesn't work at all, the team with more high rank players easily wins most of the time.

  • "Carlos Danger" started this thread

Posts: 87

Date of registration
: Apr 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

10

Friday, March 10th 2017, 2:36am

This has probably come up elsewhere, but I remember back when I played Enemy Territory: Quake Wars that the game would give you the option to switch sides if the teams became too imbalanced and would give you a ton of points if you did. Might work for Battlefield.