A Very Common Issue with Multiplayer Games These Days.

Hullo.

A Swedish footballer (soccer jtbc), Mats Magnusson, famously said: "I don't care if my team wins or loses, as long as I score". I'm kinda of the same mind. If I play solo I join lobbies late and those lobbies tend to stay the same without any reshuffling. So the same team get's stomped again and again. I don't really mind it as long as I am that single thorn in the enemies sides.

Team balancing is important though and I'm sure many would agree that getting stomped all the time only creates frustration. It seems a hard nut to crack though. I reckon it's never going to be perfect so my "thorn mentality" is just my way of coping with it. 

SBMM isnt quite as easy as it sounds in a game like Battlefield.  Even if you had teams of similar skill, this wouldnt stop some matches being one-sided stomps- just less frequent.  Some players excel on certain maps but struggle on others, or you could get a couple of ace pilots or tankers on a team, and not to mention fully miked up squads.    Plus what stats would you use to define skill?  SPM is a fairly decent measure, but even this can vary wildly depending on game modes, so you'd have to apply some kind of weighting to each mode.  

Ideally you'd want a good mix of skill levels within each team and not just a server full of try hards or 'useless noobs'.  Novice servers are a good idea for the completely new people to get their heads around maps and mechanics but probably the best way to ensure fun and varied rounds would be to totally scramble the teams if there were a 2 or 3 stomps in a row.  However this is unlikely with the way the game promotes squads and friends list, and too many people quit servers after one bad round. 

I agree that a total scrample is best way to go. It should of course respect squads. For refinement it could also include some kind of measurement of player levels. so that accumulated level on each team is as close as possible. While level doesnt exactly say much about skill it does say much about experience and in 9 out of 10 cases i bet the level 100 is a better player than a level 50. There arent that many level +300 around so experience will be pretty fairly distributed between teams.

A low hanging fruit would be to populate the teams quickly after (or before) start of a round. Sometimes there can be 5-10 more players in one team for too long before teams filling up and then the short team are just behind from the start and never recover.

This is something I have talked about before. 

The imbalance of good is also subjective if you have players with fully upgrade path adds to the domination. 

Take players who spend more than half their time in planes, they would have planes fully upgraded.

Now the BF sandbox now gives that player a bigger advantage. This is where I agree with you as a few of them tell everyone that they should do the same time(while they still improve) to catch up. 

I don't think skill balancing matching is good way either. A pilot v infantry only can have different skill set but if the pilot can't get a plane would they have lesser impact.  Squad/team supported player general have skills points too does that make them better, of course not. 

Yes,  BF has became more competitive and look how that turned out. 

BF needs better upgrade path,  less gunho competitive setting and player count balance would make it better. 

I think it would be very hard to balance matches by skill level.  And until the software can balance the player counts there is no sense in trying to balance by skill level.

Right now they cant even get the team player counts balanced before the match starts.  And even during the match,  the player counts on each team can be horribly lop sided.

So lets get the player counts balanced and go from there.  

Certainly in Battlefield, game generated balanced teams are nigh on impossible to manufacture because of the myriad of different playstyles opportunities across vehicles and infantry depending on game mode.

There are simply too many variables to account for.

That said, and I am with OP to a very large degree, I would rather lose a well fought match than win a stomp.

Stats are also a major problem in my opinion, too many people worship at the alter of the Almighty KD and will do anything to get that extra +0.1 on their ratio. I don't play the game to get a high KD, I play for the laughs. Granted, being negative can be frustrating but on the whole, as long as I kill more than I die and win more than I lose, no matter how small the margin, I am happy. 

Alas, gone are the times when a group of lads (and indeed, lasses) joined up together to crack open a beer, have a laugh and play the game for fun.

The super leet MLG sweaty tryhards led by their YouTube overlords have turned online gaming into something a lot less fun than it used to be. 

So , why did you , or I , or anyone join an FPS in the first place?

If it's for what I think it was , well , there's our 'problem' .

No one wants to let happen to them what we'd like to make happen to them .

Our 'happiness' is actually something that everyone tries to avoid .

Some even get way better at this than others .

Whattaya gonna do?

I'll tell you this :

Whatever it is , it had better be better than a better .

If not , then it surely was fun trying .

@JuanchopeStu 

What platform are you talking about by chance? I've played both titles and each community in my opinion is very VERY different. I haven't noticed much more than a common tea bag and/ or message on console after 400K kills, but PC, man, chat is non-stop.

Not to hijack your post, but in opinion the more common issue in modern video games is aim assist.