[BF3] Why your balance system sucks

[LeRoiLambda]

Hey TBG Admins and Players,

First off, I just want to say this isn’t a rant, but more of a friendly suggestion from someone who really enjoys playing on the server. Thanks for all the hard work you put into keeping things running!

That being said, I’ve noticed a few issues with the current team balance system that I think are affecting the experience, and I’d love to share some thoughts on how we might improve things.

The problems​

1. No incentive to use !assist
   So the !assist command is there, but hardly anyone uses it. The problem is, there’s really no incentive for players to switch to the losing side, especially when it means the game gets harder for them. Plus, this gets tied into the surrender system, which often fails to make a difference. When that happens, players get stuck in one-sided matches, and the idea of using !assist just feels like another ineffective feature.
2. Flawed surrender command
   The surrender command only triggers a team scramble if the vote passes, but that’s often not the case. Many players on the losing team might not know how to vote or how to use chat, so the vote fails, and the imbalance continues. This leaves players feeling like they don’t have any control over the situation, and it definitely makes the idea of using !assist less appealing.
3. No proactive balancing
   There’s no system in place that actively addresses imbalances during a match. If one team is getting steamrolled, there’s no automatic balancing or movement of skilled players to help the struggling side. As a result, matches can drag on, becoming really frustrating for everyone involved.

Some suggestions​

1. Introduce an automatic assist system
   • Automatically add the top 2 players from the winning team to the assist list.
   • Limit how many players can switch at once (maybe just one or two) to avoid flipping the balance too much.
2. Let admins take more control
   • Some admins currently don’t have access to balancing commands. Giving them that power, or encouraging them to use it, would help balance matches a lot more effectively.
   • Admins could manually switch skilled players to weaker teams or encourage them to use !assist to keep things fair.
3. Build a BBC (Better Balance Culture )
   • Creating a culture where experienced players are expected to help balance teams, similar to what servers like TNT do, could make a huge difference.
   • Regular reminders during matches could help players understand how important it is to keep things balanced, and it could lead to better matches overall.
4. Forbid hovering and kill farming

Why this matters​

At the end of the day, balanced matches make the game more enjoyable and keep players coming back. One-sided matches often lead to frustration, rage quits, and fewer people wanting to play. But with a few simple changes, we can make the server more fun and fair for everyone.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this feedback, really!! On my side, I’ve previously managed communities as an admin and moderator, so if you ever need an extra hand, feel free to reach out, I’d be happy to help

Looking forward to the discussion!

Your King
LeRoiLambda

 

[ThrowingWrenches]

The balance on BF3 has been a problem for several years even before custom servers. Take Kharg Island for a prime example on the RU side. When they get pushed back it’s nearly impossible to get out.

I agree it would be fair for people to use our !assist system but we can’t force it as I believe it would be a negative effect on our server.

Imagine you’re the top player on your team and you worked so hard to to help push the team back after a stand still then you get automatically balanced. Would that not be irritating?

Also there is a !surrender option you can encourage players to use to just end the round in situations like that (like last night on seine crossing).

Auto balance is already an irritating experience for players as I see complaints about it daily on BF4. Enforcing an auto balance to long time players who are doing good at the top of the scoreboard in a game that is dying more and more each month would not be in our best interest in my opinion.

And lastly we are accepting new members and are more then welcome to apply on our join us tab and I really appreciate your feedback and hope higher senior admins take this into consideration as well!

 

[pinchylillobster]

Speaking as someone in a clan that frequently swaps to the losing team in the name of balance, there is nothing more annoying than working hard as a team to do well, only to be forced to the losing team for your effort. It is not encouraging or the right avenue to take imo.

Personally I'm a big fan of offering incentives to assist, such as temporary VIP status (queue bypass, extra voting power, etc etc). It's a small benefit but just enough where people might proactively assist because they're getting something out of it.

 

[SRQea]

The existing balancer also keeps squads together. So if one squad is taking the top 4 spots and crushing. They won’t be broken up.

 

[LeRoiLambda]

Thanks! I really appreciate it.

I totally agree that balancing teams is tricky—especially on a server with a mix of beginners and experienced players. Forcing players to switch teams, particularly those who’ve been performing well, can definitely feel frustrating. That said, I wanted to share a bit more context based on my experience with servers like TNT and UKF.

On TNT, there’s a really unique atmosphere—players frequently use !assist, and there’s this unspoken understanding that keeping the game fun for everyone is a shared responsibility. If someone starts kill farming, other players gently remind them to think about others. It’s one of the few non-toxic servers I’ve seen, and I think this culture makes a huge difference.

As for the surrender command, I think it’s inherently flawed because it relies on the majority of players actively voting, which often doesn’t happen. This leaves the losing team in a tough spot—they either hope others voluntarily use !assist or endure the imbalance until the match ends. Even in extreme cases of imbalance, surrender only works if the vote passes, which is why I think relying solely on surrender isn’t ideal.

I’d suggest taking an analytical approach at the end of each match. For example, reviewing the score and performance metrics to determine if a scramble might be needed in future games. (I don’t remember which server does this, but I’ve seen an automatic scramble triggered when the score gap is too big—it worked really well.)

On the topic of top-tier players, I completely understand the concern about frustration. However, in my experience, frustration usually comes from being switched and having no chance to win. That’s why I think only switching one or two top-tier players—if absolutely necessary, and only when no one else uses !assist—could be a good middle ground. A well-executed comeback can feel incredibly rewarding

Your king
LeRoiLambda

 

[LeRoiLambda]

The existing balancer also keeps squads together. So if one squad is taking the top 4 spots and crushing. They won’t be broken up.

Maybe a potential solution is to have the system prioritize balance over squad integrity in extreme cases—like when a squad is consistently holding the top spots and the score gap is significant.

 

[Statistic68]

We've found that when we don't allow people to try to play with their squads/friends, the servers population goes down. If they do get split up, they spend the first 10% of the game trying to switch back teams to play with their friends. It's a trade-off. When I'm on, I try to remind people that the assist and surrender command exist on our servers, but as you said it rarely makes the vote count.

 

[Yekkz]

Okay but then you run into the issue of breaking up friends that play together, which in turn leads to squads not wanting to play on the server. There is no one way to make everyone happy in terms of server balance. Using the assist command could be incentivized but we still can’t expect players to use it that don’t want to.

 

[Yekkz]

Also as a note, all of our admins have the ability to move players in game, we just do not use manual balancing for the above stated reasons.

 

[RainMotorsports]

Maybe a potential solution is to have the system prioritize balance over squad integrity in extreme cases—like when a squad is consistently holding the top spots and the score gap is significant.

If a developer wants to put in the time we are always willing to consider solutions. I'm surprised anytime we see new tools developed for BF4 and BF3 is a larger waste of time for most people. Our in house development has been minimal since hosted Battlefield died but we have a couple of people doing great work that are already spread too damn thin.

 

[LeRoiLambda]

We've found that when we don't allow people to try to play with their squads/friends, the servers population goes down. If they do get split up, they spend the first 10% of the game trying to switch back teams to play with their friends. It's a trade-off. When I'm on, I try to remind people that the assist and surrender command exist on our servers, but as you said it rarely makes the vote count.

Okay but then you run into the issue of breaking up friends that play together, which in turn leads to squads not wanting to play on the server. There is no one way to make everyone happy in terms of server balance. Using the assist command could be incentivized but we still can’t expect players to use it that don’t want to.

While it’s great to keep squads together, unbalanced matches drive away just as many—if not more—players. Frustration on the losing team leads to rage quits and server population drop-offs. A squad staying together doesn’t outweigh the impact of half the server leaving because the game isn’t fun for them. A better trade-off would be finding ways to balance both: letting squads stay together and ensuring matches remain competitive.
At the end of the day, I think we’re both aiming for the same thing: a server that’s fun and keeps players coming back. Squads are important, but competitive and balanced matches are what make people stick around long-term.

Maybe a potential solution is to have the system prioritize balance over squad integrity in extreme cases—like when a squad is consistently holding the top spots and the score gap is significant.

Which happens everyday

 

[LeRoiLambda]

For example:

Battle Report - Battlelog / Battlefield 3

Battlelog is a free social platform that ties into Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 3 and lets you socialize, track stats, plan your next game, and more from your web browser!

battlelog.battlefield.com

Battle Report - Battlelog / Battlefield 3

Battlelog is a free social platform that ties into Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 3 and lets you socialize, track stats, plan your next game, and more from your web browser!

battlelog.battlefield.com

Battle Report - Battlelog / Battlefield 3

Battlelog is a free social platform that ties into Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 3 and lets you socialize, track stats, plan your next game, and more from your web browser!

battlelog.battlefield.com

Battle Report - Battlelog / Battlefield 3

Battlelog is a free social platform that ties into Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 3 and lets you socialize, track stats, plan your next game, and more from your web browser!

battlelog.battlefield.com

These games were played back-to-back today, and the same pattern occurred yesterday and the day before. All of them were heavily one-sided, and despite my attempts to launch surrender votes in every game, they failed every time.

I understand the importance of letting squads stay together, but this shouldn’t come at the cost of consistently unbalanced matches. Like I mentioned before, balancing squads and match quality doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

[Yekkz]

Let me put it simply. Our server is one of the only left in BF3. The server rules, balancing, map rotation, etc have been the same for a long time and the server stays populated. Yes it might suck sometimes, but with the ever dropping player count in BF3, there is no reason to change.

 

[JohnBerry13]

so yall already talked about thems squads not breaking and all that, wrenches said the karg island example being nearly impossible to get out, and that happens on many maps no only karg tbh, then if yall not gonna break squads to mantain population, then why not use the nuke option, votenuke, or auto-nuke or whatever, after certain time of baserape, it is extremely common to have rounds where a team caps all flags early and then its a 40 min baserape!! with little to no assists....

 

[ThrowingWrenches]

That’s what the surrender vote is for , I think we’ve clarified everything here.