REDSEC Sudden SBMM

Thing is in something like a BR or other deathmatch mode where killing/surviving IS the objective, what else can you do?

Also as you kinda point out yourself one man's normal/casual is another man's sweaty. We all have our definitions and thresholds of the term and its all often this vague idea that LARGELY comes down to "bro is better than me" when you kinda get to it.

For me a "sweat" is someone who watches all the guides and uses all the ultra-efficient metas and near-exploit mechanics in order to 'achieve'.

It means they play in a way that would suck all the fun out of it for most people, but since the only important thing to them is their stats, then it doesn't matter if it feels like a job.

Some people have called me sweaty in the past, but this is incorrect, I just hate when people play selfishly and do nothing to help the team. I do enjoy actually trying to do the objectives and, you know, play the game hehe. My stats are awful and I don't care, so I'm not 'a sweat'.

You can already see by movement of the players usually, who's really sweaty and no. And of course you get completely annihilated then right after and this keeps on happening match after match, after match for the whole session.

Well what do we truly define as sweaty?

Like... the point of the game is to win and that involves killing everyone so is it just that players have figured out efficient ways to do so?

Every single mode in this game is sweaty.  Redsec, gauntlet,  multiplayer,  casual and somehow even the initiation mode.

Le SBMM est prèsent dans le mode REDSEC, j'en suis sûr à 100%, il est au moins aussi puissant que sur warzone. J'ai joué à des dizaines de jeux avec ce système implémenté, je le connais très bien les premières parties en battleroyal et en survie était très agréables, au bout de 5/6 parties à faire top 3-4-5, le jeu devient injouable, tous les adversaires sont surpuissants, on ne peut plus se détendre. Moi et mes amis ne joueront plus à ce jeu en l'état 

Bad teammates is a real struggle lately, especially in Gauntlet! I keep getting people that refuse to play the objectives and would rather just camp and try to kill people or sit there and try to snipe the whole time. Useless! I have yet to win the final round out of the handful of times I've made it, because the opposing team is somehow way better every time too.

No u are not. I find myself with people in level 60 and above. On top of that it’s hard to win cuz the people I play with don’t focus on team work. I’m looking to form a team of good players like myself so we can have fun atleast. Add me up. YT__DonZor

They never said there is no SBMM. SBMM is part of matchmaking and is tuned depending on the mode. Everyone who played older BFs notices if a lobby has SBMM. If you really think there is no SBMM in Battlefield after all the drama with BFV ("we felt new players quit too quickly, so we made TTK longer"), you may believe into Santa Claus.

"The only time SBMM comes into play is when all of the first 3/4 criteria aren't met.   I think it's Ping, location, games needing filling, and then SBMM in that order"

So if there are plenty of folks with an adequate ping in your region, a server might well fill totally based on SBMM?

Anyway, I've read a dev say they don't do SBMM like CoD, they do team SBMM (or in the case of RedSec, squad SBMM), ie. the players are all assessed due to performance criteria, but that is used to balance one team against the other, not to make a whole lobby of people of the same skill.

You end up with teams that have a wide range of skill levels but each team should have the same overall ability so as to make the match fair, but each encounter might be far from fair.

What I think though is that they are employing some kind of win-lose retention-based algorithm.

It was only discovered - a few years ago - because EA patented the design.

It basically says that they think players play longer if they have certain win-lose sequence/ratio regardless of how fair the games are, so the algorithm makes sides depending on who they want to engineer a win or loss for, not on trying to make it fair.

The other attractive part of that for EA/DICE is that it is much easier to arrange a one-sided victory/loss than it is to try and arrange a fair match.

The bad part is that a lot of players would rather lose and have a close/fair game than win a boring one-sided match.

Certainly I've noticed that, even though BF6 doesn't allow team-switching and it punishes people who quit (no XP) and it re-forms sides every match, it still doesn't manage to have better balance than BF1 which didn't do any of those things.

This is why I'm concluding there must be something else at play other than wanting to make even matches.

Either that or their matchmaking system is utterly rubbish.

Neither is a good look for EA/DICE.