not really. lots of players are shit in this game.
there was difference. from what i saw in other thread map selection is hard rule. so you can end up as only 1 human player in match with 19 bots.
devs more or less announced flexible BR MM. so if there is not enough players on T1, they would match T1 and T2 together (or multiple tiers). not to mention you were not hard locked to one campaign with tiers, but you could end up with T1 on berlin. that would mean more human players per match and not average 40% of bots per match like we have now.
This just reads like you haven’t looked into any of the details of how the test server implementation currently is. At the moment, tier 3 gives you automatic preference for tier 5 maps (which i think is bs) - meaning that tier 3 matches hard with tier 5, not soft actually. So should be great for unifying playerbase?
Also, at no point was it explicitly said that “tier 1 was planned to match with tier 2 in soft br” - this is just an assumption on your side, we dont know how they planned to handle noob tier vs others.
i am not going over old topics/posts but what was basically said if there is not enough players in your tier in specified time, MM will loosen restrictions and search for players in other tiers. i just made example with T1 and T2.
Yes, i read that as well. However it was a general statement, not necessarily something that would be applied without exceptions (for instance, with t1). We simply dont know.
i am not talking about exceptions, but general MM how it was announced.
this system on test server is basically just campaigns version 2 where they fix some stuff, but leave lots of other stuff unfixed that should have been fixed with BR MM.
multiple grind will be fixed, but you will need to grind more weapons to get to end game ones.
you remove OP equipment from early war campaigns, but you lock gear behind certain maps.
there are still unbalanced equipment matches cause of equipment lock e.g. t-34-76 vs KT.
playerbase will still be divided into 6 separate campaigns
it is not fixing playerbase side advantage for certain campaigns
That’s not true since future campaigns will not divide playerbase.
Effectively there should be only 3 BR
Low
Mid
High
And you can simultaneously use several different campaigns for one queue.
For example as US
You could queue into two campaign at one time reflecting your gear/equipment. Which wasnt the case before.
And for example battle of bulge campaign would be added into mid BR and high br bracket. Again, not separating playerbase. Just new addition to already existent BRs.
It just needs to be done well and be properly balance at some capacity.
It doesn’t have to be perfect since enlisted is extremely casual and non competitive game.
New campaigns would be added only to already existent BR brackets.
Plus they could add few generic maps to more campaigns simultaneously in favor of variety.
It’s still very different to current concept since the game will not bloat. And hopefully, it will attract more players.
it will divide playerbase cause you can make setups for one specific campaign. thus they will need to run 6 campaign queues. you will only get larger roaming playerbase with multiple campaigns selected.
Doesn’t really matter since that’s only soft rule, effectively doing setup for specific BR, not campaign. The player (sadly for him) could possibly end up in different campaign if needed. It just need to be same BR.
The soft rule is only of immersive reason when its possible.
but you still involved BR in your idea which currently isnt included. this is how originally it was supposed to work (more or less), but they changed it to this campaign focused MM where you could get specific campaign and not multiple ones.
That’s not really true. If the idea they did was properly balanced, BRs would still be a thing. Just not visible at first glance, not official.
Campaigns were BRs. And some of them should share the same number.
And until we’ll get more campaigns, there’s no other solution than to make some of them 2x for two different BR bracket.
Otherwise balance will be pretty poor.
It’s good idea to make BRs “visible” but the current concept still stay as it is.
i know what you want to say, but it is different cause of selection of campaign. with e.g. early BR you could have multiple campaigns and you would be put in relatively balanced match with other early BR players, but with multiple campaigns you have multiple BR in that spread so you could be put in high BR match with early mid BR.
also i am talking about speccing your loadouts so you only end up on 1 campaign so game would then need to run 6 separate queues which would basically mean you havent gotten rid of extra queues that will fill matches with bots.
The spread shouldn’t be so huge it would ruin balance
Or just completely get rid of spread between campaigns. Making them effectively all on same BR.
But this would eventually end up on creating meta on every BR. Which would be pretty uninteresting and meh.
well prewar kar98k, mas-36, sd.kfz.234/2, pz3 j1, pz3n, pz4 f1, pz4 H, panther A and G are for 4 campaigns, vg2, pz4 f2, pz4 G are for 5 campaigns.
i know this is viable for a change, but just look at the difference you can be put in if you make some multi campaign squad based on this. sd.kfz.234/2 in same match as panther G? bolties vs full auto rifles?
I think this shouldn’t be even possible Since 5 campaigns means basically all BRs.
They did decision they will balance equipment via maps. And then introduce strong equipment which can be used in all campaigns? Doesn’t really make sense.
It’s obvious, lower BR equipment will always be possible to take on higher BR. Meaning you could be able to do sich bizarre things like equip your Pz II crew with mp717 and end up on street of berlin. But that’s your decision for which you’ll be punished. Since everyone around you will be using way stronger tanks.
But letting obviously strong thing to be in newbie maps is just bad balance. There’s no legit logic behind it. Since you’ll be always take worse equipment to higher BR maps if you are willing to do so.
