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.
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.
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.
