Re: How is the team balance going to be handled in 2042?

---

@carsono311 wrote:

@DingoKillrI hate to say it, but this all really sounds like you hate playing against a coordinated team and prefer playing solo most of the time.

Playing solo is fine of course, but from the beginning, Battlefield has encouraged team-play. In most games, as well as any real endeavor, well coordinated teams can accomplish more, and more quickly, than any individual.

I think keeping teams together is perfectly fine and preferable even. I would not want my group of friends, whether we are successful in-game or not, immediately broken up because the team balancer cannot match us against other teams easily. I would even wait longer for a match in that case, rather than be broken up.

As for 3rd party comms, that is what it is. Some people will prefer Discord to in-game VOIP. EA DICE is extremely limited on what they can do about that.

---

Completely agree. I wouldn't have played BFV fpr 600 hours, if it wasn't for me and my mates. We are not even tryhards, we just play as a team and welcome every random. Most annoying thing is to get swapped in different teams and to reload the round, because you have to queue again.

Everyone can just get on a discord or here in the forums and find some mates to play with. It is really not that hard. If players don't want to do that, they should not complain about players playing as a team. Sounds hard, but a lot of randoms are useless anyways. You don't even need to communicate, just stick together as a squad and follow the orders from the squad leader.  It really hurts seeing randoms in my squad, when me and my 2 mates or all Top 5 on the scoreboard, but the random is doing his own thing instead of just playing with us.

Which is why we need a internal NOT SHOWN skill ranking to be able to open a "Clansquad" up to 64 people and be matched against a little bit lower, same skill or alittle bit higher skilled players in BF2042. 

But thats what the community also doesnt seem to want. 

I wonder why it is working in CS GO (as example) for years having a skill group and finding enemys with the same skilllevel.

Sure, but we can agree that we dont need to put someone with 150-200 spm with someone who has 500  or higher spm. Or someone with 10h playtime with someone over 1000h playtime. 

Some kind of logic can be implemented here. 

I just went back to cs go a while ago, had no rank, played the first game in a solo q, got ranked at AK, and now im on global after 15 or 16 games. 

The "cheater" crying from the enemy team ..fabulous.

The did not get it, that i am an "old" global who hasnt played for 1 year, who just got a "starting" rank to make his way back to the upper ranks. 

---

@TickTack121 wrote:

---

@carsono311 wrote:

@DingoKillrI hate to say it, but this all really sounds like you hate playing against a coordinated team and prefer playing solo most of the time.

Playing solo is fine of course, but from the beginning, Battlefield has encouraged team-play. In most games, as well as any real endeavor, well coordinated teams can accomplish more, and more quickly, than any individual.

I think keeping teams together is perfectly fine and preferable even. I would not want my group of friends, whether we are successful in-game or not, immediately broken up because the team balancer cannot match us against other teams easily. I would even wait longer for a match in that case, rather than be broken up.

As for 3rd party comms, that is what it is. Some people will prefer Discord to in-game VOIP. EA DICE is extremely limited on what they can do about that.

---

Completely agree. I wouldn't have played BFV fpr 600 hours, if it wasn't for me and my mates. We are not even tryhards, we just play as a team and welcome every random. Most annoying thing is to get swapped in different teams and to reload the round, because you have to queue again.

Everyone can just get on a discord or here in the forums and find some mates to play with. It is really not that hard. If players don't want to do that, they should not complain about players playing as a team. Sounds hard, but a lot of randoms are useless anyways. You don't even need to communicate, just stick together as a squad and follow the orders from the squad leader.  It really hurts seeing randoms in my squad, when me and my 2 mates or all Top 5 on the scoreboard, but the random is doing his own thing instead of just playing with us.

---

Anything in BF4 can become “overpowered” if teamwork is involved.

And that is what makes the game great!  😃

I guess it's all down to numbers. What percentage of players are actively in platoons, I mean as in full on Comms etc and what percentage are essentially solo players who have various levels of squad involvement. I mean I personally rarely get on Comms these days as the better half and 7yr old would think I'm weird, and to be fair whinny 14 yr old kids do grate! But do try to stick to a squad play when In a good one.  If balance can't be had if a balancer rigidly sticks to keeping platoons together then sorry guys, tough, for the sake of everyone else if platoon squads are a minority which I'm betting they are.  Though with 128 players now, surely Devs can come up with a way of putting platoons into a server together.

---

@carsono311 wrote:

@DingoKillrI hate to say it, but this all really sounds like you hate playing against a coordinated team and prefer playing solo most of the time.

Playing solo is fine of course, but from the beginning, Battlefield has encouraged team-play. In most games, as well as any real endeavor, well coordinated teams can accomplish more, and more quickly, than any individual.

I think keeping teams together is perfectly fine and preferable even. I would not want my group of friends, whether we are successful in-game or not, immediately broken up because the team balancer cannot match us against other teams easily. I would even wait longer for a match in that case, rather than be broken up.

As for 3rd party comms, that is what it is. Some people will prefer Discord to in-game VOIP. EA DICE is extremely limited on what they can do about that.

---

@carsono311 Then you opinion of me is wrong.

You ask me if I want team play, while you want your friends together so you can rampage over everyone else and call that team play.  There is more to team then your friends. .  

My point about in games comms is not Voip there are other ways which DICE have ignored. 

The more I play Battlefield the clearer it is that any sort of team balancing is both easy and completely impossible.

It should be quite easy to separate the best squads to either side (ignoring platoons here). Squads 1&4 vs 2&3 would even sides up a bit and would give close games.

The impossible bit is you have a % of players who are unbalancable. They won't give orders, follow orders, play an objective, they could spend all the time shooting the sky. This is fine and people can play how they like but not too helpful if you want close to even teams. This group of players is not small.

---

@TickTack121 wrote:

a lot of randoms are useless anyways. You don't even need to communicate, just stick together as a squad and follow the orders from the squad leader.  It really hurts seeing randoms in my squad, when me and my 2 mates or all Top 5 on the scoreboard, but the random is doing his own thing instead of just playing with us.

---

Thank you for saying this.  Every single Battlefield game gets the same complaints about team balance, but it seems like very few people want to talk about how player attitudes and behavior during matches is one of the main reasons why games are one sided.  The only thing stopping solo players from being good teammates even with no verbal communication is that they don't want to do it.  All of the tools are in the game to give and execute orders while sticking with a squad without saying a word. 

Breaking up platoons in matches is wrong.  What the devs should be doing is encouraging solo players to do better against platoons by placing bounties on their heads.  If a team with 8 or more players in the same platoon lose.  The other team gets big rewards for defeating them.  There is so much that should be done to improve the platoon system in this game.  Only breaking up platoons for the sake of team balance discourages coordinated play and team work.  I can't accept that. 

@Skill4ReelBtw. I love good squad play and always look for that when I join a server.

DICE has tried to encourage team and squad play for years however and it’s not really helped much.

Apparently many people simply want to play the way they want to without having to bother coordinating as a squad.

@Skill4Reel 

Thank you for saying this.  Every single Battlefield game gets the same complaints about team balance, but it seems like very few people want to talk about how player attitudes and behavior during matches is one of the main reasons why games are one sided.  The only thing stopping solo players from being good teammates even with no verbal communication is that they don't want to do it.  All of the tools are in the game to give and execute orders while sticking with a squad without saying a word.

I fully agree with this point. A few days ago I played battlefield 4 again. While playing I realized that many times a team of 32 players only had 10 players playing to the target. While the rest only acted as a "camper" and did not conquer a flag And the other team did not have players with good elimination numbers, but they did have many points since they played to conquer the flags (as a team) .

I think that these players who do nothing unbalance the games much more than the organized squads. Since an organized platoon depends on a team to help them since there are 32 players on the team And a platoon of 5 or 4 players, no matter how organized, if the team does not help them they will lose the game in case the enemy team has majority of players going for the objective in conquest. 

( I know that everyone can play as they want, but these players who do nothing could receive a penalty or simply play another game mode that is not conquest) This is already a personal opinion.

---

@DingoKillr wrote:
@TickTack121you miss the point.
The complaint was not about team play.
You are acting like so many player on 3rd party comms thinking you a better team player and you should have rights over solo or randoms. Why what makes you better?

This thread is about fair balancing teams and for me DICE needs to stop making excuses of not providing in game comms while claiming BF is a team game.

---

I am not better by using "3rd party comms" but we are better by just sticking together. We don't even talk that much. It is more about swearing, complaining and some small talk. We are not even tryhards or something, no one complains, if someone can't compete with the better players. All that matters is that you at least try to play as a squad. In game voice comms are unnecessary, because you just don't need them. Everything is already there just like @Skill4Reel said.

If the game would let us switch team, we would move regularly if other "organized" squads are on out side. But thanks to Dice, that is not possible. There are also rounds, where you got 2 full platoons on a side, but it doesn't help, because the rest of the team stays in "no mans land" between the flags. This game is really not that complex. If you want to camp, then just do it next to a flag.

---

@DingoKillr wrote:
@TickTack121just stick together. 555.

That is funny just because your a platoon we need to follow you. Guess what maybe sometime platoons should follow others. You guys are acting like that platoons are the only ones that know how to play. Well you are wrong.

OMG players are between flags so they are bad. What is wrong with you.

Team play is not zerg flag run. Yet this what you and others asking for.

If BF is a team game some players are going to be attacking flags, some are defending flags, some are moving to attack or defend and some are going to be place that are going to do more for team play then you wish to believe.

Team play is not about platoons. After reading the comments here about how platoons players think of others. With that attitude DICE should have Start of Round individual shuffle.

---

No one in the whole team needs to "follow" me. But if 3 dudes in the squad are moving towards Bravo, why would you go to charlie? I didnt want to trigger your hate against "platoons" we can also just call them "my origin friend list". I don't want to attack you, but maybe you should just try what i am talking about.

I don't do "zerg flag runs", i don't camp i am just attacking / defending whatever me and my mates think is the best flag right now. If half of the team is capping one single flag, you just don't need to be there, because you will loose every other flag. Doesn't sound like a good trade, as this game is all about owning the most flags.

I didn't say anything about players between flags at all, i called some specific type of player: The one that never sees a flag, because he is sitting in no mans land all the time. There is just no need to do that. All i am saying is that the game actually provides anything to play as a team. You don't have to talk, you can ping, you can give squad orders, you can revive, everyone sees when you need health / ammo.

Again it is exactly like @Skill4Reel said, there are and will always be players, that just don't care about teamplay or squadplay. I don't want Dice to listen to them, because then i could play COD. I don't play in a "platoon" because i want to dominate everything, i play with some nice people, because it is fun to play with them.

---

@VOLBANKER_PC wrote:
Should clans wanting to play together on the same team have priority over everyone else on that server? Because a server wrecked by clan play is no fun - not for the losing team certainly, but not even for the winning side either.

I usually quit those steamrolled / steamrolling matches because they’re either frustrating (if you’re getting steamrolled) or boring (if you’re steamrolling)

---

I played a game of Shock Ops in Battlefield 1 last night where there were no platoons on the 40 person server but the game was full from the beginning.  I was playing solo on the defending team as I would assume most players in the game were as I didn't see any identical clan tags.  Do you know that the attacking team was stopped three times on the beginning map at the very first set of objectives?  Three battalions wiped out on two objectives.  This can't be blamed on a lack of team balance but rather more than half of the attacking team choosing to camp in their spawn watching their teammates try to capture objectives and fail as they were always outnumbered.      

Even when the attacking team would successfully capture one of the objectives.  Those same people that captured it would have to try and get the second one too because their teammates would not move forward and support.  I see more servers being wrecked by a bunch of people on teams that don't seem to be trying than I do by clans/platoons.  It is almost as if we have accepted that just being on the servers doing whatever even though there is a game mode with a score and a match in progress with teams is the normal way to play Battlefield now, and the people that are actually trying to use teamwork to win are messing it up for everybody.   Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else but me?   

---

@DingoKillr wrote:
@TickTack121just stick together. 555.


OMG players are between flags so they are bad. What is wrong with you.

---

LOL.  Look, man.  If players are between flags for an extended period of time as they usually are in maps like Amiens in Battlefield 1 and those flags are always controlled by the enemy.  Yes they are bad players.  This is usually why that top squad has so many points because while their teammates aren't defending or capturing anything because they are playing TDM in between objectives.  That squad is running all over the map trying to maintain objective control because they have to in order to keep their team in the game.