Hello and welcome to My section in the forum “imagine if” where we are going to discuss if x thing is added, removed or reworked in the game.
Today topic is what if the skill based matchmaking is added to the Game (SBMM)
if You don’t know what is this i Will do a quick explation for You : )
The sbmm basically means that your mates and enemies will have similar skills, allowing You and your team to cooperate each other and have a real Challenge as enemies according to your in game skills
But this can be also problematic it can ruin the sastifising experience and make the Game more stressful…or not?
I’ll see your opinions below : )
Also dont forget to suggest me an idea for imagine if #9 : )
If there is a separate ranked mode fine, however sbmm does not belong in casual. If I play with friends that are different on skill level it’s bad for the group (someone will have a bad day). Sbmm has ruined the social aspect of playing online in place of leaderboards and ranks making games sweaty consistently. It enforces meta use and discouraged messing around and goofing off for the lolz.
Weapon level + military rank (non-current version) season remake
Low-scoring players with equipment level 1 to 3 are together
Players with mid-range equipment from level 3 to level 5 are together
(You must become an intermediate level to use equipment above level 4 to ensure skill isolation.
If someone can’t even do basic cooperation and contribution, they shouldn’t climb to higher levels to hurt other players)
High-scoring players stay together (the top few % at the end of the season get better rewards)
When you don’t want to run into negative teammates who are clearly not contributing to the win
Or when a newcomer encounters a fully equipped level 3 player
In a separate matchmaking system, sure. I don’t want to sweat my balls off every single match, and I don’t want to desert scum just to be able to relax for a match or two before needing to repeat. However, I do believe a ranked matchmaker would be fun
It is hard to tell someones skill in enlisted. K/d ratio is irrelevant as the user might be vehicle main or play against bots. Win percent is also problematic as it can be manipulated by leaving games early. Also sometimes you just get bad teammates and cant win no matter what you do.
i think in his other stats / vehicle kills, plane kills, rallies destroyed, etcetera probaly this system should recopilate all your stadistics also your win/looses will count your average puntuation per game and other factors too : )
I kinda liked the even fight style events, but some of the premade lineups were unironically cringe
I’d love to play them again if:
1 queue with SBMM
random faction and map
some limited veto power over faction/maps (let’s say 1 faction or a few maps)
tech xp you earn is global (so you aren’t punished for constantly rolling already researched factions)
for each “mapset” player makes a separate lineup (like old campaigns, but even more detailed, as each campaign had a few mapsets)
each map is limited to period/area correct weapons (no super low tier stuff in late war maps, no late war stuff in early war maps
For old players having to make 99999 lineups would be cancerous, but we already did it once
For new players they would just slowly unlock new maps and lineups as they play
I personally think the current ranking system would work fine. Right now it’s meaningless, because you can reach marshall in a week by doing PvE - in a queue where your rank puts you against stronger opponents bad people would get hardstuck.
It also rewards you for doing well individually, as you get more rating points if you get battle awards.
The only thing I’d change is to uncap it and give 1 rating point per battle award instead of just 1 point no matter how many you got. Desertions probably should take away more points as well.
Good players would quickly gain tons of score by getting 10 or more battle awards per battle, until they were fighting other people capable of going toe to toe with them. It’s markedly harder to rack up tons of battle awards in a really contentious match.
You could also re-define ranks - instead of set amount of rating points per ranks they could be defined as top % of players by rank score. Rough example:
Top 1% - marshall
Top 5% - general of the army
top 10%, top 15%, etc.
Under the hood you’d match people by their rank score. And IMO stacks would need to wait for an opposing stack so there is 1 per team