i just hope for new topics… too many topics are just repeat of old ones…
2 Likes
If someone is always getting weak teams, maybe he is the reason why his teams are always so weak.
2 Likes
This situation cannot be solved because you cannot prevent anyone from playing games, even if they are a novice.
But what I see more often is that there are always people using low BR weapons to play high BR, and I even always see KV-1 or even BT-7 in BR5. This is incomprehensible, why do they do such things that are not good for themselves and the team?
So one person makes the team automatically weak and doomed ?
Cool.
So why should anyone endure this?
From my perspective of European, yes.
1 Like
Skill based MM is a double edged sword, there was a loud minority calling for it in WoT. When they implimented an ELO system in skirmish battles (informal clan battles where some randoms can join in) the higher elo players complained even more loudly they had to try hard all the time, where previously they treated skirmish battles as a relaxing mode 
I see a lot of players in Enlisted playing BR2 with downtierd squads, 3 x Assault squads, LMG’s, Guerrillas and paras is very common lineup, probably not a problem if they’re uptierd to fight BR3’s but they’re often fighting BR1’s, and that’s just seal clubbing IMO. It’s no fun for new players to be facing these lineups, and it would be easy to make the case squads should also be matched to BR as weapons are to prevent downtiering, or alternatively making BR1 1 to 1 MM only.
I doubt SBMM would ever be implimented, but if it were, many more would complain because their stats would suffer as they face fewer noobs to farm. Calling for SBMM while downtiering into BR2 is the height of hypocracy.
1 Like
After being accused of making thigs up, before robihr posted the stats, I collected some results from yesterdays session, in most of these games the result was arguably determined by the number of Deserters, the battles seemed pretty even (i.e. not rolfstomps) the balance only seemed to swing one way or the other after desertions.
2/4 in the afternoon session, 2/3 in the evening session. This is a problem. It seems obvious to me this is not due soley to “lack of map/mode selection” or “roflstomps” which is also backed up by robihr’s during game desertion stats showing an average low teen to low 20’s% during game desertions.
I suspect it’s more likely deserters felt they were losing, even tho it was not obvious to me in these examples, so simply quit, either to statpad win% or they’re the type of person upends the monopoly board when they don’t get to buy Mayfair or Park Lane.
Sanctions will be well deserved IMO.
Please note that if you want to count the number of deserters caused by a map or mode, you must use the premise of ‘entering a bad map or mode’. The most intuitive way is to count the number of deserters who appear at the beginning of the conquest mode.
Well, how did they affect the result, especially since many deserters had low kill, cap and engineer numbers anyway?
In the case of SS1, both sides had an equal amount of deserters so in that manner, it did not affect much beyond that one US desert probably desert due to map or mode. And apparently, they were replaced by other players or at the very least they played better than the deserted humans, so nothing would have changed unless this 11/7 pleb was a secret gigachad.
SS2 also shows that 60% of your deserters deserted due to map or mode again, only by seeing their values being net zero.
SS3 shows a heavily imbalanced team given that only three people ever made it to CP in your team. This also means that your team entirely failed to get the first cp. Maybe these giga-chads with 2-2 and 6-2 KDs would have changed the tide, but I doubt that one. These deserters were bad and probably drained more resources.
SS4 again shows two German map-mode deserters. Your deserters also apparently did not affect your victory anyway, even without considering their low impact on the battle anyways.
Me stop caring about the match = team instantly loses. I am backbone of the 90%+ of the matches.
Some matches have just absolutely insufferable teammates that make me desert match instantly as cooperation is not possible and we would lose anyway so why bother?
Losing one point after another with zero defence is not fun. You can’t even drive apc/build rally before point will be fully captured.
So desert penalties will make me want to not play the game at all as MM is just dreadful way too often or just stack one popular nation which right now are Germany and USA.
well games without SBMM are boring regardless of BR. on BR5 and on BR2 situation is mostly the same cause you have similar skill level for both teams(usually terrible). having 1 or 2 more skilled players usually gives overwhelming advantage and having 3 or more skilled players usually leads to roflstomp.
game definitely needs some kind of SBMM, either elo(even sorted in 2 groups of good and shit players would be improvement) or at least equal distribution of good/bad players per both teams. sadly it is not realistic cause MM rules are too complex and we dont have playerbase for additional SBMM rule.
We don’t even have a basic stack amount mm yet…
Would be the bare minimum before thinking about sbmm 
1 Like
3 deserters/bots in both teams.
dont know what happened in the game, but enemy team had 4 players quit late game even though your team had more bots during the game. if they cant crush you with player advantage, then their team sucked with or without deserters.
2 useless players that quit late game and 3 players that quit early game(1 was replaced with human). maybe there was something that could have been done if they stayed, but who knows
kinda counter argument to your argument cause you had more deserters and still won…
did count on them by checking how many of them were replaced with human players compared to just bots. not perfect measurement cause MM doesnt always replace prematch deserter with another human, but it shows that conquest is by far most unpopular game mode.
1 Like
it is just my wishful thinking. considering complexity of MM rules i know that it is highly improbable for it to be implemented.
1 Like
I know…
The squad amount per side is relatively easy to implement however (and seen in many similar pvp games).
Should definitely be a thing, especially if clan things are implement
Yeah, clans and veterans should get their own game mode. Should stop most of the whining.
I don’t mind at all when clanners join… I just recognize it turns match into one sided stomps.
So stacks vs stacks would balance it out.
When I fight them (If I’m the mindset to, not too tired, else I find another suitable match) I know that 4vs1 I won’t do much… So I fly.
It’s more 1 vs 1 up there, or 2 vs 2.
Happened last time, I was with buddy @Myrm1don and we faced a 4stack of EVA. We knew nothing would work on the ground so we abandoned it… And EVA challenged us in the skies! It was really fun! The match was lost obviously but I don’t really care about that. We won the skies 
1 Like
well…we at least traded well haha…meteors and P-80s are tough to catch
1 Like
We still got a higher tally in the air didn’t we?
I even used the Narwhal for fun and got a few planes down with it.
(Perhaps I should’ve stuck with G10, Fiat55 and Jaboo tho)
1 Like