how about less ambitious
BR 1-2, 3-4, 5(with maybe extra 6). you are basically suggesting that they go from 2 queue per nation to 4-5 queue per nation.
agreed
bad idea. you would just make it complicated and could possibly make some players dictate maps they would be playing.
map veto system would be better idea.
they announced that this should come with merge…
somehow i think this will become new fix bipod meme.
not gonna work… people would just demand specific soft rules for every weapon e.g. volkssturm weapons making those rules irrelevant.
not gonna work. you would basically have berlin whenever 1 player has volkssturm weapon equipped. too much power for one player to have.
The higher number of queues isn’t really a problem with a “1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5” system,
because BR 2, 3 and 4 players can each service two queues at the same time.
So it should have more or less the same strain on the matchmaking system as the “1-2, 3-4, 5” solution.
This means people would only flock to BR2, BR4 and BR5, because they would never get uptiered.
And as another user pointed out, this is 3 queues exactly like this:
Because when you’re BR 2, 3 or 4 you could go both up and down tier.
I’m talking about that “Soft rule” they promised, not vehicles directly dictating map selection:
Let’s say you’re BR2 and queueing as Allies, and there are several Tunisia, Normandy snd Pacific games created near this time.
If you have LVT you’d be more likely, not necessarily, placed to Pacific, if you have a Crusader - more likely Tunisia, but without hard locks.
Well it’s a late war weapon, makes sense.
If one doesn’t want Berlin, they should just swap VS weapons for something else, there are surely alternatives available.
then BR1 should also get its separate MM cause BR1 will always be uptiered and BR5 will never get downtiered… i would also like more BR queues, but idk if playerbase could support it (without getting bot matches)
i havent done the math, but i could easily see 4 queues active when one nation doesnt have enough players to match the other nation.
you are not getting it. 1 player would basically force berlin for 19 other players cause of soft rule.
and how do you enforce that? probabilities? or if everyone has vehicles compatible with both campaigns you get specific campaign for vehicle that you selected?
much better option is actual map veto where all 20 players can choose map by votes on maps that they hate.
The neat thing about “1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5” is that “1-2, 3-4, 5” is a subset of it.
Even in the worst case, as long as “1-2, 3-4, 5” leads to acceptable waiting times “1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5” would end up assigning players exactly the same way.
It doesn’t really work like that. For example if there are a lot of Japanese players at the same time, most US players need to go to Pacific.
You cannot really soft-rule around that with the player numbers we have currently.
At most it could work with deciding between Normandy/Bulge and Tunisia.
that would basically be #1 test server MM. BR MM and map MM doesnt go together.
makes it very complicated MM rule and it could force players to some maps more often than not cause of select few players. when you have 10 US players, one player would be basically dictating what map gets played if other 9 players have neutral vehicles. not to mention abuse with stacks.
and why should other 9 (or 19) players be forced to play map/campaign that you like if they dont like it? at least with veto you could remove most hated maps from available map pool choice.
btw they could also add option put me in next pacific match no matter waiting time
will make some simulations later(probably not today) to actually see strain for both MM in real time scenarios.
VS weapons go to BR5 as meme weapons. No one would miss them at BR2, really.
And that test server was BS because it didn’t have BRs at all.
All I want is that if there are two matches being created simultaneously even before me, I’d like to go to the one that suits me better history and theater wise.
Who is being forced? I’m still confused.
My LVT wouldn’t force anything, it would be me who would be sent to populate Pacific maps more frequently.
this is not how nation MM works. it creates match based on player availability, it doesnt create match and then fills it with players (btw this is possibility on how they implemented the BR MM, but then it is stupid). cause it is queue it takes e.g. 10 US players and then matches it with either germany or japan depending on the rules in algorithm (like alternate priority, or queue size for nation or time first player joined in opposing queue or any combination of those or similar rules).
for this to work MM would first need to create match and then fill it with players that fit criteria.
battle of kassel seems plausible, since its very late war battle between america and germany.
for the german - soviet battles, the ideal battle would be the battle of halbe, since its basically a end of the war battle thats near berlin
there are a plenty of options for this, i was thinking of getting a mild introduction to leningrad, thus i thought of battle of krasnoje selo, or battle of sluck, or battle of mga, or battle of šlissel’burg, these are the 4 potential battlegrounds that surround leningrad. šlissel’burg could potentially be a 2 front battle for the axis
