Suggestions for improving team imbalances

The game is played by players who choose the camp they wish to play in. This basic design is an important part of what makes the game’s RPG element of “developing your favorite team” possible.
However, many players flock to the most popular team at the time, creating a chronic team imbalance.

I would like to offer four suggestions to remedy this situation.
3747A36F00000578-3742978-Here_a_marine_advances_towards_a_Japanese_pillbox_with_a_flameth-m-12_1471347837052

1. Implement a PVE mode.

One of the reasons people flock to popular teams is that players are looking for a casual mode. In essence, they want PVE in the first place.
PVE can separate them from regular matches, reduce team imbalances, or provide a place to play for those who are tired of playing on unpopular teams.

Any PVE mode is fine, but since there will be players who only play PVE, they should be able to use their own raised squads and enjoy it just as much as the regular game mode.

For example, create a PVE mode that appropriates an existing game mode.
Up to 4 players can participate on either side of AXIS/ALLIED. Eliminate teammate bots and play regular game mode against them with more bots on the opposing team.
However, vehicles are too strong against bots, so it would be better to allow them to spawn by spending the score obtained by infantry like in TITAN RISE, or to automatically despawn them with a time limit.
Depending on the difficulty of the game, if the game is too easy, the XP and silver earned should be about 30% to 50% of the normal match.
This means a bit more tweaking of the bot matches that can be played in custom matches to make them regular mode.

2. Matchmaker improvement

The current matchmaker seems to create matches with unbalanced numbers.
For example, if there are 5 players waiting in the US and 10 players waiting in Germany, the matchmaker appears to be creating a 5 vs 10 match. Let’s stop this.
Yes, I know. For a few minutes after the match starts, additional players can join in; even if the match starts with 5 vs. 10, if you wait a few minutes, it might become 10 vs. 10.
But there is no guarantee that will happen, so many players will quickly become deserters if the match is unbalanced.

Going back to the previous example, if there are 5 players in the US and 10 in Germany, all the matchmaker has to do is create a 5 VS 5 match.
The extra 5 German players should stand by for more and only join the game when additional members join the US.

Also, assign players so that they are as evenly skilled as possible.
This is discussed in the next section.

3. Better use of player statistics and skill-based matching.

If you have a group of people who have been playing the game for years on one side of the team and one side is full of beginners, a fun match will not be possible.
90% of the matches in this game are either overwhelming wins or overwhelming losses. It is boring.
Players of similar skill level should be placed on both sides of the team.

The “ranks” in the game currently indicate how many games a player has played in the season of that battle pass, not strictly player skill, but just matching the high ranks evenly on both teams would be a slight improvement.
This rank will become more meaningful, especially if the team imbalance improves to some degree.

In addition to ranks, if it is possible to get statistics on a player’s score from the beginning of the game to the present, this could also be used to determine skill.
Battlefield used to have servers that players were allowed to enter based on their SPM (Score Per Minute). Players of the same level would always gather there, and the battle would always be competitive.
Enlisted could improve the game by obtaining players’ SPM in the same way, evaluating players by SPM, and using it for matching.

4. Give extra rewards to “mercenaries”

We will give more rewards to those who check the “join any team” box. Yes, they already get bonuses for XP and Silver now, but we should give them more.

Some of my ideas are probably hard to develop, but I encourage the developers to consider them.
We need more players to make the game better. The game is P4F, so we can always expect many new players, yet the retention of new players is limited.
For example, new customers who play in Germany or Japan now will settle into the game, because it’s easy.
But those who start in the US or USSR will quickly stop playing the game. Because it is unreasonable.
A situation where only those who are part of the Faction trend can enjoy the game is not a good-looking game.
Let’s first give all players who join the game a relaxing and enjoyable environment in PVE. And make the matching more fair.
If you can do that, I am sure the number of players will grow.
I would like you to take a longer term view and improve the game.

:fire:Thank you for reading my long post on the infernal GoogleTranslate. :fire:
a27e6ddceba2af23dac68b7317519b48

7 Likes

I’ll say 100%. The bot controled ai are very strong. I played a custom ai match today and almost lost a defending game.(I was doing tank kill and pistol kill mission)

I think the maximum player for each side should be 4(size of a full team) unless we have a lot of players matchmaking at the same time.

dont forget that player should also get reward for joining an ongoing match.

2 Likes

If you play only with infantry, yes.
A bot, in essence, always uses cheat mode; it does Autoaim and always uses Wallhack. Because that’s how the computer recognizes us and sets its sights on us.
We need to make it “act” like a real person is playing so it doesn’t feel like one.
And game bots are not very good.
They are dumb and sometimes use blatant Autoaim. There are many situations they cannot handle.
For example, I am in an M3 Stewart and they can’t help me most of the time. According to the update the bot is supposed to attack tanks with anti-tank weapons, but they did nothing.
Currently, the rewards should be lower than in normal matches because there are so many ways to farm a bot opponent.

The number 5 is just an example. The main point is to match teams with fewer people, not to say that they should always be matched with 5 people.
If there are only three people on one team, it should be 3 vs. 3. If there are only four people on one team, it should be 4 vs. 4.
If there are 10 players on each side, then the matching should be 10 vs. 10.

Yes, it would require a little extra compensation.
And the “ongoing match” should be judged by the “progress of the game” in terms of tickets lost, CP, etc., not the elapsed time of the match.

The developers say that you can only participate in an ongoing match for a minute or two after the match has started (they mean that participating in an ongoing match does not interfere with your play).
However, it often happens that the CP is down to the second one, even though only a few minutes have passed.

Therefore, the developers should give additional rewards to players who participate in ongoing matches based on the progress of the game, rather than simply on the passage of time, or exclude the results of that match from the statistics.

2 Likes

While I agree with many things I think an ongoing counter showing how many battles were won by each side so we can know which side needs more people.
Not to turn it into Helldivers but being able to choose something resembling a front could help us find veteran heavy fronts to oppose.
My second half of my suggestion is iffy but I think we need to know the ongoing fight at minimum.

2 Likes

I agree with many of the improvements suggested here (several of which are mentioned several times over time on this forum)
I also want to add that don’t forget to include the BR of the players in the equation that analyzes the mach making (and according to the opinion of many in this forum, the current BR queue would need to be adjusted as well because I consider it a bit unfair for example that a BR1 vs BR3 or a BR4 vs BR5 in the current state)

1 Like

Yes.

Yes, please but I fear that the logic needs to be changed. Today it seems only to be based on time. For example, if I have US, USSR and Germany at BR2 and Japan at BR5… “Join any team” will put me in BR5 Japan at least 8 out of 10 times (as it is probably most active in queues of those choices… as people want to bot farm). But it’s the most over-stacked dunk win of any of the four choices and deserves NO xp bonus. Join any team should be straight up random or there should be some other option. It’s really pretty broken the way it is now (I use it and am not impressed).

2 Likes

The game has gone through many changes and many players have invested a lot of time, there are many variables and it is a complex issue that is difficult to find a solution that solves all the problems without any being harmed by the change.

I hope that the solutions respect both those who pay and those who only invested their time and willingness to improve the game.
Please do not mistreat the players by giving them a bad experience, because we all have better things to do than have 10 games in a row where the “match making” seems like it was done on purpose to torture the players of the losing team.

1 Like

Ive been wanting this for a while. 1 for 1 matches. But i was thinking more the surplus pop can just be put against bots (PVE). No wait time, since thats what they worry about so much

2 Likes

constantly joining games almost over all lots of defending game as Germans in every match its defend defend boring game
limits on players using artillery - needs to cycle through squads cos ive noticed i cant calling artillery i dont get a chance to use it or use planes wtf i going on 4 games all defending

1 Like

its one sided every game – its not balanced its laughable -time join games 23 secs join the game half the battles over whys their such a lag on joining games

join game new squad not in contact with enemy not under artillery 2 men die AI die every time 5 man squad is now 3 by the time it gets into a battle why are members of my squad being killed off without being shot at i don’t understand it its every single game i can be arsed send a report where they want so much info screenshots and then they say not a bug so why to bother - its a life story to File a problem - prob dump the game for the squad - its far to expensive to buy add ons $40 a time and no sales

1 Like

Due to the production team’s reasons, the game’s balance time is very long, resulting in a shortage of players in the weaker factions of the game. The production team did not take any measures to save the lacking player factions, only leaving the weaker factions without players. Not to mention the strong camp using BR3 to beat up other weak camps and other reasons

1 Like

The update only enabled us to command bots inside your own squad to attack tanks with AT weapons.
It did not say that normal AI will be able to do that by itself that aswell.
I know that this might sound stupid but the update blog did not explicitly mention that bot squads would be able to use their own AT weapons (only your own if you give th order).
So odds are that bots useing AT isnt fully implemented yet but I could be wrong and just thought it was a player every time they did use AT.

why is someone reminding us about this guy? i mean no offense but we all know he won’t come back (unless he actually do i would be surprised tbh)

also no someone push this up before i comment dont think people dont see it, they do they just ignore it that all

1 Like

Necropost. Closed.