Actually on many rental servers the admins would have taken steps to balance the teams, like moving squads between rounds so one side doesn’t get stomped over and over again.
Needless to say your claim that a good player can’t end up on a bad team is foolish.
To some extent this is not an accident. I’m seeing clans or platoons who are very good at getting all their pals on one side so they can pubstomp the other team round after round. This is even happening with members of different clans, they’re mixing and matching players from the two groups within squads. It’s a safe bet they’re on each other’s friends lists and all use the same VOIP channel.
As to why you get placed on the weak team, if that team is getting crushed then players will be bailing out, and if you join late you’re going to be placed on the short-handed team.
BFV needs a team scramble between rounds, keep squads together but shuffle the squads between rounds.
I have no clue about the details, but the general principles stand to reason: We have matchmaking through which most of the people enter. When enough players in one region want to play Conquest a new server opens up. Either then or even before there is a selection that takes place that decides in which team you are put in depending on some form of algorithm for “skill”. So the game tries to balance the round by some arbitrary number.
Obviously this system is not flawless, because player performance depends on so many different things in Battlefield and even a small change can have an outcome. What if the pro pilot does not get a plane? Or someone who always plays frontline medic picks up a sniper rifle? Maybe someone drops out and is replaced by someone far better/worse. Or a group of friends join their mate through Origin. In these cases the whole matchmaking process is bypassed, and that is why we see lopsided rounds.
But people act like suddenly very round is lopsided, which is just nonsense, or they always get put in the “bad team”, which happens to lose. Just look at everybody’s stats around here and you will see a winrate of 50%ish. The better you are the better your winrate will be. In OP’s case it is 80%, which is absurdly high and basically means, he quits most rounds where he is losing, himself creating a more lopsided game and playing a major part in creating what he calls “trash teams”. He blames balance as an issue, but he is the problem he is describing. OP wants to only win, he said it himself, he would pay before to play on servers where auto-balance was removed for him.
Somehow people glorify RSP for the exactly the wrong reasons. You think matchmaking is crap? Well half the RSP servers did not have an auto-balance plug-in at all. Most servers were handled by a clan, and usually they weren’t exactly fighting each other, they would stack their squads and teams, which is fair enough. But that did not create balanced rounds either. Yep, plug-ins were used, but they were far from perfect, sometimes they would pull you out of your squad of mates mid-round, or would balance, at the end of the round, when half the people leave. When one squad, which, was perfectly normal on Conquest 32, carried a round, it did not matter on which team said squad was on, it was them, who were winning the rounds. @parkingbrake I say players get put into a team for a frickin’ reason. And that reason is being balanced by some arbitrary number. This means OP is part of the team. If he leaves, this balance tips and then people come to the forum and blame DICE for creating such a horrible game.
I said earlier, I don’t mind loosing. My problem is that most games that I join, my team is getting utterly destroyed on every level. I’m fine playing a round and loosing by 50-100 points when alteast my and enemy team are taking flags and having a fight. But in today’s reality, my team will always be loosing by 300-400 points while being spawn locked. Thats why I leave most of the time. Don’t believe me? Cool, add me on Origin and lets do social experiment. Randomly join 10-20 different servers via match making with intervals of 3-4 hours, and see how many times our team will be getting completely wrecked.
I do not need bloody proof, your BF3 quitrate is 35%, while your win rate has been 80% over the course of three games. You hate losing, you quit the game when you see a tendency. For comparison’s sake look at StodehTV’s or DRUNKKZ3’s winrate, that is around 60ish, and they have a tendency to break games. Mine is around 60ish. Parkingbrakes winrate is at 48%, I could look up anyone else in here and we would be moving around the 40-60% mark. This means that the darn matchmaking is working decently enough.
I actually did it, I gathered all the data from players in this thread, and guess what: The lowest winrate is 45%. 3/4 are sitting between 45-60%. Another four or so in the 70s. And yet these people come into the forums and claim that they are “always put on the losing with all the bad players”. Now truthfully, for every guy that has a winrate of 70% there must be a guy that has a winrate of 30%. However, I do not see them coming to the forum or a guy sticking up for them in this thread.
Let me give you an example: Say your teams value is 32000 through the algorithm, same with the other team. Our OP is pretty decent so he is worth about 3k. His team gets a bad start, there are a thousand possible reasons, he quits because his team is trash, or because his cat just puked on the floor, or he had a blackscreen of death. His team is now 3k short. Who created the imbalance now? DICE?
.
And yes, there is the conquest catch-up mechanic, nobody knows how it works, but assuming from this thread, every round ends in a landslide, the effect must be marginal. In any case, a winner emerges. It was rather big at release and beta, but now I daresay it is only a slight boost, to again, keep people from leaving and creating more lopsided games. The point remains: Do not leave your team and then come to the forum to complain about team-balance.
Blackscreens or crashes happen all the time, but they would not have effect on your win ratio in the long run. If OP or I, or you had crashes ever so often (and assuming they do not count as a lose) you would still win x times and lose y. Also frequent crashes as a problem of a certain platform does not create imbalance either, because most likely, everyone is equally affected. If x amount of people crash during a game, it will fill up again from the pool of available people.
Yeah players are always leaving and joining and are then matchmaked, if one is worth 3k points and leaves the game will let the players in queue join. That is flawed, but what other system would there be? If it is the end of the round, it will try to match players so that again it evens out. But that can not be flawless either. However, this was no different on RSP servers at all.
As far as catch-up mechanic goes, it was captime and vehicle respawn timer, that I know of. That is probably still in there, but I doubt it turns rounds anymore. It is more a psychological thing when you take three flags where you would before only been able to take two. It creates a bit of momentum and therefore legthens rounds, nothing more.
i know that the playerlevel doesnt tell much about skill, but when i see a team in squadcombat that has 7 players under level 15 i KNOW they get their ¯_(ツ)_/¯ handed to them by the full stacked lvl 50 enemy team. its a matter of experience and it has to be balanced. sadly it doesnt
When the game was released the games were much better balanced than now.
After they adjusted the ‘catch-up-mechanic’ the game has become much more unbalanced.
The ‘catch-up-mechanic’ is somehow stupid, but perhaps it really was the best solution?
I thought it was a cheesy mechanic at the time, but now I would rather have that than what we have now. They could perhaps tweak it so we will get something in between now and how it was in the beginning (the team with the best players should still win).
I know how it happened. Because your skill is way higher than the rest of your team. You basically compensating the teams.
You are so good you get in the bad team everytime.
This is the theory yes, but in practice it is severely limited by the relative small player population and its tendency of prioritizing your getting into a game in about a minute. In the vast majority of cases a waiting player will be placed in a pre-populated server, and the skill component of the matchmaking algorithm is reduced to determining the team (assuming both sides have room). Thus skill distribution in matches is wide, and good players will be put on the weaker side. As it should be.
.
The quality of the skill component could only be analyzed by looking at freshly spawned server instances, but this data is hard to come by (outside of DICE). So it is of relatively little interest, as the majority of matches will happen on pre-populated servers. For this purpose DICE has a pre-round balancer (and in BF1 experimented with a mid-round balancer). However, the pre-round balancer seems to be far less aggressive than in BF1. It does swap squads, but it seems to only do this under conditions of severe imbalance, if even then.
.
Furthermore, when it acts on an imbalance, it doesn’t go far enough. Yesterday I was stomping with @bran1986 and @TyroneLoyd on Frontlines, and just our squad got swapped. But the new team was so outmatched that we managed nothing to stem the tide. So what I would like to see is full team randomization that breaks up squad and rebuilds the team compositions from the ground up, only retaining friends inside squads. Platoons/parties bigger than a squad can only be divided among the teams.
I think that friends and clans are simply having easier time getting together because the recent patch solved the match making issue of joining friends who are in full squads.
.
Until the game has once again autoadmin like in BF4 where it will say “the score difference was too large last round, the teams will be scrambled next round” you will have lots of cases where you will get frustrated if you are trying to win.
.
17% for BF3, obviously I can not say anything about the rest, as the stat sadly was not present in recent games. Now, how do I know OP tends to leave? Well I extrapolate from known behaviour, he claims to be put into the losing team all the time, yet has a winrate of 80%, and that is constant over the course of the last games. In any case OP is a reason for lopsided games, but complains that he is losing too much. I merely illustrated that fact.
. @MachoFantast1c0
Yep, there are a dozen ways around the matchmaking. Something no algorithm can ever calculate is being in TS with a mate let alone a whole squad. Joint teamwork effort is another thing that can vary greatly from round to round and dependent on a thousand things. The algorithm is just trying to cope, but it has severe limits. RSP would not save us there either, because any third party program will encounter the same problem.
Personally I am against all forms of matchmaking, I just want to battle the general lack of knowledge and bias, which brings people to complain on these forums. Just by going through the stats of the players here, the matchmaking system works just great and there is no room to complain about. Alas until a guy with a 30% winrate starts a thread like this, who can actually be taken seriously.
Absolutely not. If you call your team trash, then you are missing that you are part of it as well. Players have that funny tendency to always exclude themselves when something bad happens to them: “Oh, I only lost because I have an SMG.”, “Where is my team? I am always alone at the flag!”, “Anybody can kill with a bomber, that is just so cheap.” Nobody ever says: “Man I should not have taken that engagement.”, “I shouldn’t really walk all the way to F flag, I can not be supported there.” , “That bomber pilot is really good, I need to get in a fighter and try to take him down.” This thread is an awesome showcase of this behaviour. You are on the team for a reason, if you team loses it is your darn responsibility, too.