Evidence of this has probably been experienced by most players when one team completely dominates the other. When this happens, it’s no fun to be on either team.
I suggest a simple solution: Give us players an option for which type of game style we would like to play: 1. Play to win, or… 2. Casual play style. This simple option would gather more like-minded people into the type of game they want to play. There’s nothing worse than pushing a point by yourself while the rest of the team is just hanging back sniping with no intentions of winning the game. A simple check box could easily solve this problem.
I think casual players would be satisfied with simple DM game mode, there could be a check box for ‘objective based game’ for those who want it and understand it.
I’d love simple DM too from time to time, no more stressful fighting for CP just chill and shoot stuff…
Well, there are different ways to make SBMM
You could try to make strict skill based matchmaker where everyone has the same skill level
Or you could make the matchmaker do some work and not put fake “br3” (single random br3 rifle and nothing else but starter stuff) newbies vs stacked br5 meta enjoyers
make sure both teams have similar gear level (actually do some heuristic of a player’s lineup’s gear level - not just count a single highest level gun they have)
make sure both teams have even-ish number players of same skill level (team 1 has 2 really good ones? Make sure team 2 has 2 really good ones. Team 1 has 4 really bad ones? Team 2 should also get around 4 lead anchors as well
sanity check that gear levels aren’t griefed by team 1 having 2 really good players with full gear while team 2s players with all the gear all the lead anchors
This is 100% a player fault problem. You cannot expect the developers to fix the players being stupid
I believe the matchmaking was supposed to be teams consisting mostly of I-II with 1-2 BR III’s on each team and IV-V with 1-2 BR III’s on each team. The low end and high end being most of the match and III’s being a little filler. This, however, is not how this has ended up in reality. To be fair though, BR’s are stupid in the first place so you all are just lying in the bed you’ve all made
Just no longer pretending the +2/-2 was ever reasonable would go a long way
Why not? We have the player rating - currently it’s rather mushy as you can farm marshall easily by stacking as 4 and picking the most overpopulated faction for undeserved wins. And even then usually people with higher ranks are at least competent on some baseline level
If matchmaker used player rating it would quickly align fully with actual player skill
Gear levels could be tracked with a heuristic of
Any vehicle counts as it’s BR rating
Each squad is a weighted average of each soldiers gear (higher BR weapon of either of the main weapons you can carry, special weapons should also be counted) Perhaps things like ammo pouches, grenades, etc should also slightly increase the gear score
Average the infantry squads to get a single score
Example:
Proper BR3 lineup should be around 2.5 to flat 3.0 score
Fake BR3 lineup could end up as low as 1.1 for example
This score does not determine actual BR you’re placed it, the 1.1 would still be matched as BR3…
You could do some simplistic formula to combine gear score with player rating - low gear score with very high player rating would still indicate a player quite capable of doing things to win. 5.0 gear score coupled with very low player rating seems like it correctly predicts the player probably not being very effective
It’s a matter of getting someone who actually knows statistics and math to mangle and normalise the “predicted performance” numbers into something linear-ishly comparable to one another @robihr ?
problem was never in introducing SBMM, problem was in not having enough players for faction vs faction, BR and SB MM. you can have 2 of those but not all 3.
this would be overly complicated. you would need lots of variables and then actually compute based on data to even come close to workable formula for something balanced. player rating isnt really good way to determine skill cause you can easily abuse it to earn medals and not lose player rating.
easiest way to get SBMM would be to remove faction vs faction or have forced join any, but that would lead to lots of unhappy people.
The first step towards making the game more balanced is to not allow 4 stacks in 10vs10 matches.
The second step would be to put the same sized groups in both teams. And not allow groups to play against teams that are made up entirely of solo players.
I hope these fixes will happen soon. Having some changes regarding stacks teased in the road map.
Yeah the other day I was in either a 3 or 4 stack as the…frick were we playing Allies? And we ended up fighting a LONE player. Poor sap. We genuinely felt bad for him. Few matches later and the enemy team had 3-4 players and the rest bots. It was rough…for them. Also entirely not fun for us. I like a bit of challenge in my gaming
There is a reason I don’t play warthunder and constantly fighting tanks I can literally do nothing about is one of them lul
Im genuinely curious how many there actually are. My biggest gripe with random faction was the fact it was putting me on ones I already finished while not awarding transferable XP. It’s something easily fixable.
The game needs to do something, it seems like it’s floundering a bit. And it really sucks when I go through footage I’ve got from the week and its game after game of “dear god, this is cringe, why is every game so damn bad”
I think even with current way of calculating player rating that would not be true when inflated player rating would land people in too hard matches for their skill level
Devs could also have a separate (not linked to rank) “player skill rating” where instead of being capped to two points (+1 for winnning +1 for any amounts of medals) you’d for example be able to get +5 for winning, +1 per battle award but losing gives you -5. Desertion doesn’t lower the rating (since it would lead to abuse as a way to smurf), there should be actual punishment for people constsntly leaving matches though
Someone with 70% win rate and who gets several medals per game would quickly end up with the rating in the hundreds
Of course it’s not perfect. But IMO it still would end up with way more reasonable matches. With stricter +1/-1 i wouldn’t even bother with the gear score stuff.
Even keeping the +2/-2 i think I’d just try having a “gear score adjustment curve” where (for example):
3.0 in 5.0 match = 0.7
3.5 in 5.0 match = 0.8
4.0 in 5.0 match = 0.9
4.5 in 5.0 match = 0.95
5.0 in 5.0 match = 1.0
Devs could gather data and adjust it better. Playing as 3.0 in a 5.0 match can be rough, I’m not sure it shouldn’t start at something like 0.5 lul
The end result would be for example 0.7 x “player skill rating” - and the matchmaker should try to find a person roughly in the same ballpark for the opposing side
i agree that we need some kind of SBMM, but i dont believe it to be feasible. if you force join any, you are basically quadrupling xp to highest tier. majority of veterans that have grinded all factions probably wouldnt mind this, but you would still have some that would mind. problem is with people who have lots of stuff/factions to grind and are mostly casuals/mains.
you could still get obscure medals to keep the rank, or you could desert e.g. 100 matches to get easier matches.
like i said way of implementing SBMM is not a problem. this is basically solved problem. problem is in not having enough players and guaranteeing same number of equally skilled players in both factions. while freely choosing faction in faction vs faction MM, SBMM is impossible to implement.
Why?
I think win rate itself is enough.
Just use some simple rules, for example, people with a winning rate >70% will only fight with other people with same win rate.
