Re: Why would I want to play against a player with level S690?!!!

@bitcloudrzrEmpty lobbies can be solved with bots. A bit better bots than now, but still it is within reach.

My point is - if your are ok or like playing with such up-high players - it should be up to you - just disable SBMM.

For majority or the beginners and occasional player such skill differences is a deterrence.

In any sports, there are leagues. You never put amateur football player to play against a pro. He will be crushed and will stop playing this sport. 1% of who want to become pro will push through and try to learn. And only 1% of them will become pros, others will quit.

That’s how it works in real life, free-for-all approach in Battlefield is a gimmick for a limited audience.

Team balancing may be a solution, but again without bots it will work only on Friday and Saturday evening when there is a spike in concurrent players count so BF has someone to pick from.

And based on BF5 and 2042, I don’t see the balancing happening any time soon.

---

@bitcloudrzr wrote:
@YLD_foxTeam balancing ensures that the game will try to even the game to stop blowouts, BFV did not have team balancing and 2042 does not seem like it does either which is the crux of your problem. Having an even amount of skill levels on each team is proven to keep games and combat engagements competitive.

---

Yes, the lack of SBMM is the root cause

I see. if team balancing is defined as, for instance, where the total sum of skill levels (not XP levels) is approximately the same on both sides - then it makes sense. Formula can be a bit more complicated but with the similar goal.

I am not advocating for battle-rating bands where you play only with people of your skill level.

It is ok to play with people that are one or two levels higher or lower than you as long as the teams have a fair chance to win.

If the other team has someone with a very high skill level and your team has someone with similar skill level, or a few with a bit smaller levels then the chances should be fair.

Handicap points is another system used in sports to make competitions fair. With that system, player with lower skill (not XP) level gets more points for the same achievement (frag, damage, etc) than a higher level player.

---

@YLD_fox wrote:

I see. if team balancing is defined as, for instance, where the total sum of skill levels (not XP levels) is approximately the same on both sides - then it makes sense. Formula can be a bit more complicated but with the similar goal.

I am not advocating for battle-rating bands where you play only with people of your skill level.

It is ok to play with people that are one or two levels higher or lower than you as long as the teams have a fair chance to win.

If the other team has someone with a very high skill level and your team has someone with similar skill level, or a few with a bit smaller levels then the chances should be fair.

Handicap points is another system used in sports to make competitions fair. With that system, player with lower skill (not XP) level gets more points for the same achievement (frag, damage, etc) than a higher level player.

---

I understand where you are coming from, but the idea of there being handicaps for one side or the other is ridiculous. 

And again, you're failing to acknowledge how players would be rated for "skill", this isn't a TDM game where the only stat that matters across most/all modes is K/D ratio. There's so many more statistics that are as, if not more, impactful in a match. Plus vehicles and everything else that can drastically swing a person's stats depending on the match, map, teammates, and other team's ability [or lack thereof] to counter them. 

I've been in rounds where my squad is in one of the EBLC Rams for the entire round, because we communicated, brought complementary specialists and gadgets, and knew how to keep moving and work together. I don't see how you'd matchmake for that circumstance, when we play infantry our numbers are pretty solid, but not obviously as good as when we use vehicles well. Plus being revived doesn't show on your scoreboard anyway, so you can find people that are 30-1 as infantry, because they had actually useful squadmates/medics that helped keep them alive (and vice versa)

If this game had 50-100x the playerbase [which is actually a realistic number that other games accomplish] then maybe something along the lines of what you're looking for would be plausible. But when you're looking at, guessing, maybe 100k [on a high day] across all platforms (including previous-gen consoles which don't matchmake with current-gen+pc) you're not going to have  enough variation to be able to do that. 

---

@Anobix wrote:

... I understand where you are coming from, but the idea of there being handicaps for one side or the other is ridiculous. 

---

Sure, that's why such a "ridiculous idea" is used in many non-professional sports.

And, again, I am not saying that it is THE solution; it is A solution.

Better than a current state.

There are many other ways to solve it.

---

@Anobix wrote:

you're failing to acknowledge how players would be rated for "skill", this isn't a TDM game where the only stat that matters across most/all modes is K/D ratio.

---

You defined "skill level" as the K/D ratio and then provided a lot of arguments about why it won't work. I never said that skill level is K/D. There are many ways to define skill level, but it is a different topic. I can come up with several skill-level definitions from the top of my head, but EA should spend a few of their brain hours defining it better because they have real-world statistics. All formulas should be proven by stats and not guessed in the forums.

... 

If high rank kills me and if many times, I see an opportunity to learn from him. Ofc It depends where and with what.

I've been playing some different games where extremly high rank does some extremely fast and unseen stuff. That's what motivates me, "hey I wanna be that guy" "how did he do that?".