That’s wonderful. 
2 Likes
Please, let’s stay on topic here.
3 Likes
would it average out the equipment you use since i use larp squads such as in berlin where my germans are a mix of whatever i throw on them ranging from the kriegsmodel, vg1-5 to mp43s and fg4IIs?
1 Like
If like this then fine, flexible constraint to be disabled in case of too long queue time is acceptable. But Keofox looks like refusing to take any restrictions.
Which was pretty dumb because only like the top 3 Custom Games can get out of the bottom XP tier, as barely anyone played Custom Matches.
Which meant trying to make your own custom game and get people in was a bust as nobody wants to join an near-empty one as it gives no XP.
If they plan on making Custom Games the go-to location for Historically Accurate Battles, they really need to ensure it’s plausible to get a Cutom Game off the ground.
okay, but did you read my post? what exactly restriction it brings? with starter equipment you can play ANY of the campaigns so what is dividing the playerbase in specific? i did read keofox explanation thats why i asked, my post was a reply to his
I think it will use max possible tier, no middle ground here.
2 Likes
Plenty of people have offered alternatives. Me personally I think we should have a single type of queue, a faction based queue. Then for each squad you have you set up a seperate loadout for each potential campaign (map set) you are thrown into. The loadouts would have restrictions on weapons and uniforms (No winter uniform in non winter battle, no STG in Moscow, etc) After you set up your loadouts you will queue a match, and depending on the campaign (map) you get you will have a different loadout.
The cons are :
It can be considered tedious (doesn’t seem that tedious to me personally)
Can’t choose map or campaign (Litetally no reasonto change how Enlisted currently works if you are going to allow map/campaign choice)
The pros are :
The most unified playerbase possible (Other than letting people play any map as any faction with any gear)
People that care about historical accuracy will only be able to be triggered by the inaccuracies that already exist. (Actually the inaccuracies can be fixed with this new system)
The uniqness of the campaigns is kept.
Just because you equipt nothing by shitty Kriegsmodel Kars and MP3008s doesn’t mean you get locked out of Berlin because of low BR rating
10 Likes
I don’t think this is the best way (because I think its tedious and confusing like you mentioned), but I DO think this is a solution that is possible and would work with the game. So if the devs decide to prioritize historical accuracy, this is the way to do it.
EDIT: the other major issue is that you can’t quite choose what you want to use. Like if you unlock the Tiger and want to use it, youre at the mercy of the matchmaker. You could just get Stalingrad/Moscow 3 games in a row and not get to use the Tiger
4 Likes
Guys, we could give it a chance… only the ones who take risks can win big prices right? 
I am also sceptical about the update, but there is a chance to increase the playerbase, so it COULD be worth it.
Also, i was a little afraid of the campaigns being merged into fractions because i prefer to select maps and the year i want to fight in, but the new nations save us all a HUGE amount of time…
Do not forget, you have a REAL life as well- do not waste it grinding too much. It is a fair trade, i support that update 
7 Likes
I’m not saying its the best solution either, its just what I, and others, can come up with
1 Like
Because it’s still a restriction i’ll quote your part again: “you can only choose side you want to play BUT you keep historical squads and let them use only equipment that is revelant to related campaign”.
This is even more complicated system because you need write “tags” for every gun and make “tags” for campaigns to use them, it’s will still diverse players a lot.
4 Likes
You’re likely right about the playerbase thing, but I guess none of us know for sure the stats. I’m optimistic and like to think the playerbase is healthy, and will be even moreso after these changes, so it kind of feels like having a ranked and standard queue separately would be justifiable, but perhaps not. I just don’t want to feel as though I have to play at one of 2 extremes only, i.e. dunking on new players or having to sweat hard against the experienced ones.
No problem, I don’t think you came off as hostile! I understand what you mean haha. I agree the same about those that want to just play against people who they can beat and not “more difficult matches”, I would just rather have the choice of sweating or not sweating, but still have fun games nonetheless. I would sometimes love to play sweaty matches, but other times when I just want to have some fun and mess around with friends, some “less sweaty” matches, but with whatever equipment people want to use (or something along those lines).
3 Likes
that doesn’t sound like a good idea if that is the case
1 Like
okay but you have separate setups for each campaign, it is not a restriction because any match that needs the player could get any player because he have starter eq which is for whole faction in each campaign, restriction is when MM rejects one player because of his equipment, in this idea it doesnt happen
I mean, it’s kinda obvious, don’t you think? If you’ve unlocked the StG-44, you’ll be matched with people with the same level or equipment, or similar at least. It doesn’t matter if you have only ONE with that weapon, you’ll have to grind in order to get more assault troops for the squad.
Anyway, this is my guess, I’m just trying to use the obvious way of thinking, 'cause I refuse to think that the software they’re going to implement is that complicated.
1 Like
Sure but even in BR system you are at the mercy of matchmaker. Maybe you equipt Tiger, and LOVE Berlin, but hate Normandy. You could still get 3 Normandy matches in a row. In this case sure, you get to use your Tiger which is cool. But you hate Normandy, so still not cool.
3 Likes
literally this
What difference would having completely maxed out Germany units have to just playing Berlin Germany? As your system is just going to restrict me to Berlin anyway?
What difference would having completely maxed out American units have to just playing Normandy Americans? As again, it’d just restrict me to that anyway.
What difference would having completely maxed out Soviet units have to just playing Berlin Soviets? As again… it’d just restrict me to that anyway.
All that system does is roughly half the playerbase split. The low-end equipment players will be spread out but the high-end will still be just as restricted.
And sure, that would probably have a noticeable benefit now but just 3 ‘campaigns’ down the line and we’re back where we started by having 6 splits.
Well, im going to repeat myself again, the more restrictions you adding the less MM is effective, even if you adding average tier of all your gear, so still gonna diverse a lot of players. F.e for example someone took gear on 6.3 br someone took on 6.0 or 5.9. If mm using strict rule to not match them together, then this players gonna wait a longer time to find a match and maybe even complain when their battle will be not so balanced as they expected
2 Likes