Are you familiar with this? Sometimes I fight against 6 or 7 gold opponents and I have 1 gold player in my team. They usually destroy us then…
Is that because of the system or/and because some sides are simply played more often?
3 Likes
Mix of problems. Where are you playing? Some factions are under/overpopulated on their respective campaigns, which creates an inherent imbalance. It can also be related to time of day, for example Pacific is horrible for Japanese early morning euro times, but fine in the afternoon.
…And then there’s the fact that there is no matchmaking at all, you just get whoever is in queue right now.
1 Like
Bots achieve Gold Rang too
Europe. Yeah some campaigns/factions are absolutely no fun 
Even Chuck Norris would get in trouble in some matches 
2 Likes
Oh, I meant which campaigns, hahah
well this is more of a problem that gold players dont play underdog factions. and enlisted doesnt have MM. it just picks people that are currently in queue to make a match. so there can be 10 gold players or 10 silver players in queue, it will make match with what is available.
Currently, I play mostly Normandy as an Allied.
Normandy is heavily skewered in favor of Axis side in my experience. It is the only campaign where I play both sides a bit - And axis feels free, while US has my lowest winrate on any campaign at 56%. Everywhere else I’m around 70%, on Normandy Axis it’s 75%.
Matchmaking was never invented during WW2 anyway.
2 Likes
One side is always immensely more popular in all campaigns. Over time this only makes more people switch because they don’t want to suffer while also not getting any rewards. Sometimes it starts naturally (because of equipment or other reason), but ultimately in the end people intentionally stack on one side.
Things are actually not as bad as some think, but the amount of those who are highly motivated to win is always heavily skewed between the two sides of each campaign.
4 Likes
Then we need to change that! Let’s go to the underdog team! =)
I really wonder how you can make matchmaking of
30 veteran + 90 casual (team1) VS 10 veteran + 30 casual (team2)
Without making 20 veteran and 60 casual (team 1) wait 10min for ennemy players to join.
Few month ago the underdog was Tunisia Axis, and without any warning now the underdog is Tunisia ally.
How can you control this from a macro perspective.
3 Likes
I think the real solution (if we don’t want to have fully mixed battles) is to make losing rewarding and fun. It should equalize player distribution somewhat, but more importantly it should make player distribution irrelevant to enjoyment of the game. That’s easier said than done, though.
force people to play any… only way to have some semblance of balanced MM.
Automatic team selection or less XP for the team where has the higher levels. Or more XP for those who choose the weaker faction (but then would have to be displayed before the game).
It’s really frustrating when you look in the lobby and you already know that you’ve lost. When the opponent has 80% gold players. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
2 Likes
True and sad.
And because I only play Tunisia allies, I almost dont play anymore.
I always end up in weak teams against strong enemies who team up.
I dont know how to avoid this nonsense, which time to play, which server…
I already suggested that these golden ranks should be removed from the scoreboard. They do nothing but harm the gaming experience. One looks into the lobby and instantly geting demoralized. People very often leave the game after seeing all those medals. They should be visible only once the game is finished, at least.
1 Like
and bots should be clearly visible.