crimsonbomber said:
disposalist wrote: »
Rufusw5 said:
BF1 is a long way off dead, but I have to admit the team balancing can be pretty dire. I spent a few hours on it earlier, mostly server hopping trying to find a game that was at least somewhere near balanced. I’ve had many a full night with this problem in the past.
By balanced, I mean one where the team it puts me on are capable of taking a couple of objectives and holding at least one - really struggling with that today!
I hate the mid round team balance idea too, winning doesn’t really mean anything if you swap players around mid march.
BF1 is out of development now anyways, I just hope they figure it out before the next one, when it’s not hopelessly one sided it really is a great game.
Unfortunately, the balancing in BF5 is just as bad, if not even worse. People did think it was better, but then realised DICE had implemented a faked equalising mechanic that actually made things horribly unfair. It wasn’t a bad idea per se, just done badly.
Also suspicions that they are utilising a balancing algorithm that biases toward win/loss patterns and some idea of ‘player retention techniques’ rather than simply trying to make the sides a fair match.
Here’s hoping they do what they know they need to do to make BF6 balancing better.
-
Make the balancing mechanic transparent so people don’t leave just because they think balance is bad when it’s not.
-
Improve the lobby and joining mechanics so balancing doesn’t occur with players still leaving the game, etc.
-
Allow switching, but only to the losing/smaller side.
-
Have some kind of negative reinforcement for repeat quitting.
-
Have some kind of positive reinforcement for switching to the losing/smaller side.
-
Have regular mid-round balancing (with ‘reward’ for those forced to switch so they don’t quit).
-
Nothing too severe so that worse teams win, but have some kind of balancing mechanic other than switching (speeded up spawning, speeding up flag capture). BF1 behemoth was a good idea in this regard, but needed tweaking (and didn’t get it).
-
Don’t keep together random squads when balancing.
-
Put platoon squads in opposing teams.
-
etc
I know it’s a complicated issue, but there’s a ton of improvements they could consider and just don’t, I think because they don’t want to put off some players, but players need to realise that the fundamental aspect that dictates the quality of any match is balance.
You have some pretty good ideas.. Splitting the “platoons” is a good one.. That or make servers for only platoons that wish to play in full parties.. The argument about splitting the community could be made, but most people wind up leaving those games any way since they almost always are blowouts early on..
As to the behemoth, I think they do more harm than good.. I also feel that they (Dice) allowed team balancing to be more on the unbalanced side so that the behemoths were used frequently.. They spent time and money to develop and implement them into the game, so it makes sense that they would want them to be used.. You’re one of the more reasonable and level headed people who post here so I’d like to know your thoughts on my little theory..
I’m not sure DICE let balancing be bad so that the behemoths get used (balancing is just as bad in BF5 and was just as bad in BF4 and no behemoths), I just think they recognised that balance does go bad sometimes, so why not have something cool happen when it does. At least the losing team has some fun or maybe, if the teams were actually close in ability, but the game got imbalanced for no good reason, they might even have a chance to come back using the behemoth.
I do think the behemoths needed to be tweaked to work better (for instance, they should have had spawn-only non-gunning positions to encourage their use as transport).