Again, map like/dislike system could be added, but this system does not affect the core “issue” of getting a random map at all.
Moscow would be a different star rating than Normandy. You would have some influence towards what campaign to play, but not full influence just like you don’t have full influence now.
Again, demonstration squads can let you play the later campaigns until you progress to them.
I don’t see how this would be an issue with how War Thunder doesn’t have significantly longer or shorter matchmaker time at different tiers.
Which will never change no matter what kind of matchmaker you use, outside of ELO? Skill differences are a non-issue to me.
If we don’t have a large enough playerbase to support this system, we would not have a large enough playerbase to support to existing system either and the game would be dead.
Generally they rely on OP equipment. The skill gap between a newbie and experienced player is not super huge in Enlisted, as there aren’t enough nuanced game mechanics to take advantage of. But even then, they would be an issue with the current system and any other matchmaker system as well.
If you got a better idea, feel free to make a post.
So far this is the ONLY system that can handle the nuances of upgraded weapons and premium soldiers without punishing or rewarding either.
“War isn’t fair”, Keofox said.
This system will probably be the closest we’ll ever get to a “fair” matchmaker.
Atm how I see it maxed out MP41s would be 5-6 stars. Again, max star spread would be 2 (ideally less), meaning that you would never face them as newbies.
i mean, making a matchmaking per equipment and soldier’s level start could be a solution.
but i’m aware and i’ll admit that i’m a seal clubber my self.
to be honest, not yet. but if the equipment and level system goes live, i can be classided as one.
for the simple reasons that, unlike many others, whenever each wipe started, i always kept my soldiers like i got them, until i had enough orders and upgrades to make in order to make them a stable squad.
as such, newer players that are going to face people like me, they are going most likely to hate me, and the game for allowing me to do so.
i’m afraid that there are no " right " system.
you can actually live your life, and get over with that sentences.
insthead of trying to make fun of him.
and people clearly stated that this game hasn’t be to be fair about faction differences.
You answered it yourself. I wouldn’t post a matchmaker suggesting if I hadn’t thought about potential better systems. I personally think this will be better against seal clubbing etc than the current system (in addition to the entire list of other benefits), at the downside of not having direct access to late campaigns.
Actually this time it was just a reference.
And faction differences have nothing to do with match balance.
The cycle is like this, and I’m just using these matchups as an example:
-new players arrive wanting to main Germany in Berlin
-Germany loses 90% of the time in Berlin
-new Berlin German mains eventually migrate to the Tunisia campaign because they’re tired of always losing.
Because of that cycle, Berlin German teams can’t retain players so there’s a lack of mid-high level players to compete with the higher percentage of mid-high level Berlin Russia mains. The new German players don’t stick around to level up, while the new Russian players do.
Once again: Only “solution” to seal clubbing would be an ELO system, which doesn’t really work most of the time because smurf accounts also exist. Even more so in a free to play game. Name any online PvP game where smurfing/seal clubbing doesn’t exist at least even a little bit.
Oh and games without a matchmaker at all don’t count. Seal clubbing and imbalance is even worse there.
which gaved me an idea where i’ll start by putting some foundation.
one of the main way to unify people in campaigns that i could think of, are rewards.
and above all, battlepass. if we can tweak the battlepass in order to have shared rewards and having the ability to somewhat progress one faction of the same team ( axis / allied ) in more than one campaign, people are more interestred in playing other campaign as well.
now, before you’ll even talk, i’m awared of the various issues.
I see your point in case there would be far too many campaigns, however, forcing people to play on campaigns they absolutely despise is only going to make them leave at the moment they don´t get their desired campaign… Want to punish such person for not playing Moscow if he joined the game because he is interested in something else or found Moscow infuriating? Sure, give him “crewlock” or something, but then said person would straight up ALT+F4 game (or at least I would if I came to play Winter War but end up sticking with Moscow entire evening…because RNG and unpopular Moscow campaign, for example).
Also disallowing veterans to access lower campaigns or forcing them to have stockpiles of “bad” equipment, because their gear is too good would cause discontent as well (at least that would be one of my main problems with that).
You see, that is the main problem with this idea, you are forcing people to play something they absolutely don´t want to and just giving the the ability to “”“lower”"" (not like it actually works) chance by disliking courtesy.
You have given all this much thought, and I´m actually trying to find out how to make this work, but I´m just not convinced.
Perhaps if it would work the same as “choose any faction” but campaign-wise, or “choose preffered campaign” it might be easier to chew through because then people would still play (or at least should) majority of battles they queue for in campaign they want to play, but occasionaly matchmaker will get them into different campaign if there is no other choice. It is true, that leavers will keep leaving, but perhaps if they would get most matches in campaign they want to play, it will be easier for them to stay on different environment from time to time.
Well at the same time, looking at War Thunder, forcing people to grind for ages to get top tier actually somewhat works, even though I do not want to admit it.
Alternatively, we could largely divide all the gear per nation into 3-5 categories and offer those as different “starting points”, so you could start at 8-star gear for example. But then you would be extremely limited with your choices and would lack upgraded 5-6 base star weapons as part of your lineup.
And so far, in WT, i see more people quit from getting wrong maps than from facing wrong enemies. So I think that if we fix up the bad maps, the dislike of playing a certain campaign will definitely decrease.
It somewhat work in WT, but that is because of the narration that top tier is desired goal while veteran have freedom to move anywhere around br´s no matter their level.
Also this system is often criticized and one of the reasons why gaijin releases broken top tier premiums (quick immoral buck for ability to get into desired “goal tier”). That also makes top tier extremely elitist and toxic… Now imagine Normandy and Berlin being pure toxicfest filled with unfortunate uptiered noobs because reaching “top tier” is something not a majority of playerbase will be able to do.
Again, in case of WT those people won´t leave because they are already psychologicaly tied to wasted time, money and fact there is no alternative.
Again, to iterate this:
Uptiers with this system should in no way get nearly as compressed as war thunder. War thunder’s issue lies completely with the mismanagement of the system, instead of the system itself.
The problem are the stars here. Perhaps if current progression system wasn´t tied to gambling (and with BP we have evidence that gambling is going to stay as important part of logistics), purposefully downtiering would work also if combined with “preffered” options.
So question might be… how to solve the equipment problem…
It might take a lot of work… but what about automatic scaling system?
Lets say you have elite equipment carried by elite Helmuts and Ivans… but you want to play let´s say Moscow (while I don´t see a reason why sane person would do that).
Step 1: Choose Moscow, set it as preffered and queue
Step 2 (done by system): system would automaticaly scale you in the “middle” tier stars needed to queue in Moscow. If player wants to play “lowest tier” of Moscow, then he would have to grind basic “bad” equipment.
Of course if another campaign in that “br bracket” (lets call it for what it is) is in the “dire need” for players, such person would participate there instead (despite having “preffered” campaign). However, I believe that on start there won´t be many campaigns so it is not likely to be happening regularly.
The point is it couldn´t unless it is applied together with scaling, as an exception in case player wants to go for specific star, not automatical middle of chosen campaign bracket (scaled one).
As for hoping logistics might still not be tied to gambling, I´m skeptical, it is pure utopia.
BP introduction of silver tickets already proven, that devs want lootboxes to stay, the best that can be done about it is to remove their monetization.
Era-based progression and matchmaking is one thing, but you’re also talking about “gear score”-based matchmaking.
I don’t think the latter is a good idea for a game where you have to arm dozens of men for battle. Meanwhile the former can lead to eventually all battles being fully or partially mixed, just like in WT (outside of themed events).
Mixed battles may be an inevitability, though, if the game wants to survive for more than 2-3 years. It’s a horrifying thought, but current campaigns system does not look feasible in the long run. It’s too annoying for people playing multiple campaigns with the same nation, and will inevitably lead to certain campaigns continually bleeding players to a point of becoming nearly unplayable.
No, I do not want mixed battles. This system is made to allow crossovers between different campaigns to give the developers more freedom with minor campaigns etc.
