Merge is very flawed but overall a success

as long as people compare two different, non identical items, one will always be perceived as better than the other, as has always happened forever in everything, however small the differences are (we talking A having 0,1% more dps than B, A turning into meta and B being automatically trash tier and not worth using).

there is no escape from meta. the key is that the differences are actually in average so small, that a meta slave is not leagues above the casual fun seeker dude.

i dont think anyone should care if something is on average 5% better or worst than the alternative, and can go for personal biased and not quantified preference, like gun sound, sights, historic presence, color of the buttstock, whatever. if we go to 20% or 25% difference in performance, tho, things should be looked at.

just look at what is happening now. word of mouth established axis BR5 is OP, allies BR2 is OP. think a while what that will do to our population, going forward. are they really so OP as to move the entire tide of players one side of the other? yet that is what happened before, and will happen now. this hearsay system will give us no allied population in BR5, and no axis population in BR2ā€¦taking us back to square one.

except some outliers like the case with vehicles, tanks in particular, i dont think stuff is so extremely imbalanced as to warrant such an outcry.

we as a community with this BR balancing stuff are just like drama queens creating a drama out of nothing to play our part.

I donā€™t think you grasp what I was trying to say.

Itā€™s not about comparing US BR1 stuff to GER BR1 stuff, but about ā€œbest in slotā€. If you donā€™t know what best in slot means, better not comment.

I couldnā€™t care less for small arms balance. Tanks and planes is another story, but weapons ? as long as they can kill reliably I donā€™t care. I started Berlin against STGā€™s and FJā€™s, and still could kill them and steal their gunswith my lvl 1 BA.

yes, itā€™s not ideal against full auto spam, but I just played differently.

After many days of playing, I unfortunately have to correct my initially balanced assessment of the changes to the game caused by the battle rating system and its implementation.

Unfortunately, the exciting games felt at the beginning faded away after a short time as soon as the more experienced players closed the gaps in the research trees.

I currently see the current battle rating and matchmaking as a step backwards, as the current matchmaking only leaves 2 playable tiers. And in my opinion that would currently only be Tier 2 and Tier 5.
With tier 3 squads you can only use them to fill up the games with tiers 4 and 5.
In my opinion, the vehicles are not the problem of an imbalance; the principle of rock, paper, scissors still applies here. Through which these can be combated effectively. I think that the diversity has increased significantly, which is definitely positive.
My concern here is the often extremely unbalanced distribution of ground weapons.
My Tier 3 deck only allows ground weapons like an MP-40, MG-34 or G41. But by constantly mixing it up with Tier 5 with players who can come up with max settings, these games feel like the Battle of Endor (slingshot vs. laser rifle).
Should I really fight with an early war weapon against comparatively overpowering precision weapons from the later years of the war, or those that can carry even more ammunition than my machine gun can carry? Such as M2 Carbine, M1928A1 Thompson, or even M1928A1 Thompson 100 in the Ardennes or Normandy, or alternatively against weapons such as AVT-40, Fedrov Avtomat or AS-44 in Stalingrad or Berlin.
Do you seriously classify weapons that fire 600-750 rounds per minute in fully automatic fire mode as self-loaders, which can then be used by almost every soldier in Tier 5? Here we should think seriously about limiting such weapons and not encourage their use to create further imbalances.

Another complicating factor is that many players received a few starting vehicles and weapons before the big update that increase their battle rating, while 99% of their remaining equipment is at Tier 1 level. Players without a rank or with a rank of Private have not lost anything in Tier 3, 4 and 5 matches!
Is this really the development teamā€™s idea of a fair match distribution, or a better Enlisted? Are you actually playing your own game?

It is precisely these match constellations that often lead to the overpowering faction being able to run unchallenged across the map like in a jump and run game, hopping and firing continuously, and the players with inferior weapons being shot away shortly after spawning on the map and 0.0% can make game progress.
Unfortunately, I find these unbalanced battles extremely boring and would like to leave them immediately because they are a complete waste of time. :frowning: Many players then do this, which then leads to an even greater imbalance and further ruins the gaming experience of the remaining players. :frowning:

This means that in the end the only option left is to go into a game exclusively with Tier 2 or Tier 5 squads so as not to end up as cannon fodder here on the ground.
So somehow 3/5 of the game was made unplayable, and the update successfully removed it.

In my opinion, the previous campaign system was much more balanced.

I am also aware that the game is still a beta and that it may have one or two weaknesses or errors. And this situation is unlikely to change in the next few years/decade. I accept recurring errors that have since been fixed.
However, in the past and today the manufacturer already takes money for one or two little things in the game, and in one place or another not too cheaply. Before the update, I invested a few euros in the game because I enjoyed it. And the investment made sense at that point.
But now after the update I see my investment as a paying customer destroyed by the update because the items purchased at that time can no longer be played sensibly in the current constellation. Or itā€™s no longer fun. In short, as a paying customer I have different expectations

I apologize for my sometimes drastic choice of words, but unfortunately that had to come out of me.

1 Like

I completely agree with you, the BR/queue policy is the biggest fail of merge.

But I still naively believe this is not the final state. And devs will eventually add more queues.

I hope that there will be an improvement here in the future.
It would be an extreme shame to simply throw so much potential overboard and the previous attention to detail.
Many things in this game were tried to be as realistic as possible.
But then you simply ruin it with an update like this by turning the game on the left and trying (I understand who wants to, for whatever reason) to subordinate yourself to the mainstream market. So with those titles where the players move on from year to year and are not tied to the game in the long term due to the replaceability of the game (disposable goods).

My hope is also that my contribution will be read by the developers and that the feedback will be accepted and taken to heart. My aim is not just to criticize, but rather to express the desperation and resulting frustration regarding the current situation in the hope of being heard.

I think your assessment is very reasonable, I unfortunately came to a similar conclusion. The current state of the matchmaking really only allows you to play BR 2 and 5 if you want any kind of consistency in your matches. I hope this is fixed soon, so that more of the BR levels can actually be played without constantly being up or downtiered.