“Pseudo Campaigns”, an alternative to the new “Battle Rating”

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

So I’m just gonna say it, I don’t like the “Battle Rating” system coming in the upcoming major update to completely overhaul the game. The universal faction tech tree, matchmaking keeping as many players together, and merging all map pools to really drive home the world war feel; are really great and I think we all mostly agree on the that. Most of the debate here has been about the Battle Rating.

I think the Battle Rating is archaic, convoluted, and will over complicate the game. To give an example, is the late war Berlin Kar98k going to have a high BR so it appears on Berlin, or is the BR going to be stat based so it being a simple bolt action mean it has a low BR since the higher tier meta tends to be Semi-autos and Autos. Is the Tiger II going to have the same BR as the Berlin Kar98k so they both appear in Berlin. How about the Panzer II. How will it work with a late war bolt action, late war tank, and an early war tank. Will we get matches in Moscow with Berlin Kar98ks and Panzer IIs because they are relatively “less hard hitting” than other content despite the Kar being a late war Volkssturm weapon.

An even more egregious issue is because the factions are going to be mixed, we will may end up seeing Italians in Berlin and Moroccans in the Pacific. It’s very funny that while the devs dispelled the fear that we’d have Soviets on D Day and Italians in the Pacific, which I knew wouldn’t ever happen; we get blindsided now with Italians in Berlin and Moroccans in the Pacific. Lol

I think a much better solution(s) to these issues as well as being less convoluted than the BR, would be “Pseudo” Campaigns, where our squads are set for specific maps, locations, settings, zones, etc. It would still have the leeway of the universal tech tree while keeping only very specific content locked to specific locales to maintain some level of authenticity. When the new map rotation drops you on whatever map (or campaign as they’re known now), we have whatever preset we made. And just like the current campaign system, we customize our squad composition, loadout, and customization, and vehicles for that map set (basically campaign). So the new matchmaker sends you to Tunisia map → your Tunisia set, Berlin map → Berlin, Moscow map → Moscow.

For example, in the upcoming faction tech tree, if you unlock the MG42 you have it available in all applicable “campaigns” like Normandy, Berlin, Battle of the Bulge, etc. If you unlock the MP 3008, it is only available for Berlin. If you unlock the Tiger II, it is available in only all applicable campaigns such as Normandy, Berlin, Battle of the Bulge, etc but it is NOT available in Moscow, Stalingrad, North Africa, etc. If you unlock the Tiger I it is available in Normandy, Tunisia, Berlin, Italy, etc but not available in Moscow, Invasion of France, etc. That way you only have to unlock one content once (unlike campaigns) but it maintains a level of immersion by not throwing anything anywhere.

The same would apply to Premiums such as in this case the Allied Moroccans. If you bought that squad, it would only be available in North Africa and Sicily. If you have that squad in your lineup set for North Africa (etc) and the new map rotation drops you there, well voila!

Think about it sort of like a checklist, you have a weapon, vehicle, Premium, etc unlocked and it is able to be used anywhere it’s checked off.

Now this overall idea of of “Pseudo” campaigns (or whatever) could be implemented in a few different ways.

The “Psuedo” Campaigns can be broad and cover a larger general theme or theatre, so:

• Western Front: Normandy, Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge, etc
• Eastern Front: Barbarossa, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, the Soviet offensives, all the way to the final eastern front battles before they entered Germany
• Berlin: only way to keep the Volkssturm content where it belongs
• North Africa: from the early war battles between Britain and the Germans/ Italians
• Tunisia: America’s entry into the war in North Africa and the Axis last stand
• Sicily: in a way it’s an extension of Tunisia but separate from the mainland Italy battles because Italy dropped out of the war after Sicily
• Italy: the Allied invasion of the mainland to all the fierce fighting at Germany’s vast defensive lines to the war’s end
• Pacific
• Blitzkrieg- the early war German invasion of the Low Countries and France
• etc

And obviously content is cross “campaign” when applicable. So a Panzerwerfer 42 can be used in both Western and Eastern Front campaigns (as it was in real life) but the Moroccans can be used in Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy

Or the Pseudo Campaigns could be a bit more specific so:

• Normandy
• Market Garden
• Battle of the Bulge
• Berlin
• Moscow
• Stalingrad
• Soviet offensives
• Kursk
• etc

Or it could be a bit of a combination of the two, like you have the Pseudo Campaign Western Front and then tabs or something for specific zones so D-Day, Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge (so your squads are customized for winter).

The factions would have to be somewhat separated to keep a small level of authenticity, so America- Europe, America- Pacific, North Africa/Sicily- Allies, etc. That way we don’t end up with Italians in Berlin or Moroccans in the Pacific

Another question would be to what level we have the sandbox of this game. I love this game because it’s a WW2 sandbox with so much content covering a wide period, but everyone has different standards. The Pacific was the first campaign that was going to cover the whole entire theatre from beginning to end so we’d have a mix of content from the early M2 Stuarts and Ha Gos to Chi Ha Kais, eventually Shermans, to experimental Japanese rocket launchers, etc; and I love the campaign. As a whole this game is a sandbox with everything from the well known to rare, prototype, and experimental….and I’m fine with all that clashing together but we all draw our lines differently. So say the devs were to implement a system like “Pseudo” Campaigns that would maintain some level of immersion. Would you be fine seeing King Tigers in Stalingrad because it would be under the Eastern Front “campaign” as it was used in the later battles there, just like the Pacific’s standards; and you would’ve unlocked the Tiger II to use it there, in Berlin, Normandy, etc. Or have it handled in a different way.

Overall I think “Pseudo” Campaigns or something similar or better fleshed out is a better alternative for the new game overhaul than Battle Rating. I am willing to bear with the BR and see how it goes but like with many things this game is still in development so we’ll just have to see

[Recker0315]

This doesn’t seem like a good idea, first of all you could only play certain combinations of equipment. Second and most importantly making weapons ONLY available in certain n campaigns would further divide the player base which is the sole reason brs are being introduced

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

@Recker0315

Second and most importantly making weapons ONLY available in certain n campaigns would further divide the player base which is the sole reason brs are being introduced

How would it divide the player base? The universal map rotation will still keep all players together so you could have Tunisia → Pacific → Stalingrad → Berlin → Normandy → Pacific → Moscow, etc

And the vast majority of content would still be broadly used and only very specific content would be locked to specific areas. So you’d still have the Tigers in Normandy, Berlin, Italy, Tunisia, Market Garden, etc; but you wouldn’t have to bother with seeing Corsairs fighting Bf 109s over Battle of the Bulge. You can have the MP 717 in Stalingrad, Kursk, Budapest, Berlin, etc but just can’t use it on D-Day or in Italy. You can have Italians fighting on the Eastern Front but not defending the Reichstag. In before, “well actually”. Even if there happened to be one squad of Italian soldiers fighting in Berlin then they’d be prime for a Premium or event squad but I don’t think it’s worth adding the entire Royal Army to the defense.

Plus I think this idea is a lot more simple and practical than a complicated fluctuating BR

[SilentHaven]

I am excited for the (BR) Army Rating changes.

I think having better equipment really does make a difference. If two teams of equal skill faced off against each other, the one with better equipment will win. I feel the only ones who do not want the rating system to be implemented are those who liked having an advantage over others.

Having a rating system will help make mid tier vehicles viable again, since they will not have to worry about facing equipment that completely out class it all the time.

It will also encourage all those mid tier, rarely seen weapons to be used more often. Since players will have no other choice if they want to slot into a rating.

[GemZhou]

@Recker0315

would further divide the player base which is the sole reason brs are being introduced

I think that concept of historical accuracy and immersion could be implemented in a more practical and compromised way:

@GemZhou

This concept is good but different presets make it to complicated and unfriendly to new players. maybe a better way to achieve that concept of “realistic weapon appear in realistic map” is add soft constraints to matchmaker, so if you got certain equipment, you are more likely to be thrown into any one of corresponding maps which historically these equipment had appeared. (Soft constraint means that it may be disabled if matchmaker fail to generate a feasible match in certain time.)

So by this, no more different queues are introduced, this only let players with suitable equipment be thrown into corresponding map first, but if there not enough active players to fill the match after certain queuing time, other players at similar BR but different equipment may still be thrown to that map. If more players chose “join any side”, this soft constraint is more likely to be satisfied.

[GemZhou]

@GiltBurrito7238

Plus I think this idea is a lot more simple and practical than a complicated fluctuating BR

For the BR system, the developers think it is easier because they can learn to War Thunder from the same company instead of start from zero, so that is not quite easy to revert at this stage, and if the BR-weapon-year-map correlation is done well, there is generally historical accuracy in most cases. The more practical way is still trying to improve it by add (maybe soft) constraints to matchmaker, to remove/restrict certain (generally rare) violation of historical accuracy, which these constraint could employ the concept of campaign which is a specific set of equipment correspond to a specific set of map (at a specific year and BR interval).

[mergenthewise]

I think it can be like
You have 3 rifleman full with k 98
Then you added tiger 2 as vehicle → sent to berlin or any late war map
Like warthunder shows its br stats, additionally showing “x year of war”
To not overcomplicate thing three periods are enough
Early late and mid war
I think it can be like 39-41
42-43
44-45
You have early war stuff → sent to every maps
You have mid war stuff → sent to mid and late war maps
You have late war stuff → sent to late war maps.

[mergenthewise]

I really want to use just 3 basic rifleman squad all have bolts with m13, halftrack, spaa etc… kind of things.
Im tired of must-spam op things like ju 188 all the time

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

@mergenthewise

You have early war stuff → sent to every maps
You have mid war stuff → sent to mid and late war maps
You have late war stuff → sent to late war maps.

I will say this is an interesting concept. I like it more than the upcoming BR. It would be neat to see things like the Panzer II be available in later maps, since Germany continued to use it in limited roles like defending air bases. I just have a little soft spot for it, and I could imagine being the crazy guy bringing this to Berlin

When you think about it, a small tank that doesn’t have the huge profile of the Tigers and Panthers and can dash around streets and rubble would be pretty strategic.

[robihr]

@GiltBurrito7238

I think the Battle Rating is archaic, convoluted, and will over complicate the game. To give an example, is the late war Berlin Kar98k going to have a high BR so it appears on Berlin, or is the BR going to be stat based so it being a simple bolt action mean it has a low BR since the higher tier meta tends to be Semi-autos and Autos. Is the Tiger II going to have the same BR as the Berlin Kar98k so they both appear in Berlin. How about the Panzer II. How will it work with a late war bolt action, late war tank, and an early war tank. Will we get matches in Moscow with Berlin Kar98ks and Panzer IIs because they are relatively “less hard hitting” than other content despite the Kar being a late war Volkssturm weapon.

this was explained. there will be soft HA setting so late war kar98k will still be low BR and will be put in game with other low BR weapons if possible. if not possible it will just be put in game with low BR. nothing stops pz2 being in berlin with other low BR weapons.

@GiltBurrito7238

An even more egregious issue is because the factions are going to be mixed, we will may end up seeing Italians in Berlin and Moroccans in the Pacific. It’s very funny that while the devs dispelled the fear that we’d have Soviets on D Day and Italians in the Pacific, which I knew wouldn’t ever happen; we get blindsided now with Italians in Berlin and Moroccans in the Pacific. Lol

ffs it was already told that this aint happening.

@GiltBurrito7238

I think a much better solution(s) to these issues as well as being less convoluted than the BR, would be “Pseudo” Campaigns, where our squads are set for specific maps, locations, settings, zones, etc. It would still have the leeway of the universal tech tree while keeping only very specific content locked to specific locales to maintain some level of authenticity. When the new map rotation drops you on whatever map (or campaign as they’re known now), we have whatever preset we made. And just like the current campaign system, we customize our squad composition, loadout, and customization, and vehicles for that map set (basically campaign). So the new matchmaker sends you to Tunisia map-> your Tunisia set, Berlin map ->Berlin, Moscow map → Moscow.

no you dont. you understand that whole point of BR MM was also to simplify the MM while fixing some imbalance? and you still want to have complicated MM with dozens of campaigns with veteran skewed balance.

[mergenthewise]

My main idea about it is

1. in new system, newbies wouldnt see other maps unless they unlocked high end stuff and grind is slow
   Lets say they grindin for unlocking just tiger 2 but all their primary eqipment is still low br
   They will be decimated .
   In current system, any newbie can play any campaign
   So this will allow them to experience all maps even at earl stage of the game
   And we have br already so low br against low br in berlin
   Or other combinations
2. its not anachronistic:
   Seeing tiger 2 in moscow is absurd as scifi movie.
   You need some timemachine to do that.
   Seeing prewar stuff in later years is not.
   Was pz 2 standart issued tank in 1945 ?
   No but Germans COULD use pz 2 if they WANTED in 1945 in berlin since its prewar design anyway.
   I mean hell !
   Russian field guards at ukraine war still using mosin nagants in 2023
   Germans used outdated ww1 rifles widespreadly ( is this even a word in english lol ??) at the late stages of war.

[robihr]

@GemZhou

s. The more practical way is still trying to improve it by add (maybe soft) constraints to matchmaker, to remove/restrict certain (generally rare) violation of historical accuracy, which these constraint could employ the concept of campaign which is a specific set of equipment correspond to a specific set of map (at a specific year and BR interval).

do you even understand how complicated BR with current soft HA restraints is? here is simplified diagram. every black square represents a soft HA match that needs to be filled with 20 players every minute and half. if you add more soft constraints you are making this exponentially more complicated. even now it is questionable if soft HA will ever even work with number of players we are currently having.

[mergenthewise]

Mine is very soft

[robihr]

too much information.

[mergenthewise]

How ?

[robihr]

i really dont need to know about your softness or hardness

[mergenthewise]

What is too much about just having three period ? Instead of 6 campaign we already have ?

[GiltBurrito7238-live]

@robihr

you understand that whole point of BR MM was also to simplify the MM while fixing some imbalance?

Well technically matchmaking is 2 issues, human players and “difficulty” and I think we’re looking at this from different perspectives.

@robihr

you still want to have complicated MM with dozens of campaigns with veteran skewed balance.

I personally don’t mind dealing with higher experienced players because I like the sandbox chaos it brings to the game. Yes yes I know 500 kills xD spam and all but just like the current system I’ve always thought it’s cool to see a mix of players both new, mid, and experienced. It’s like seeing a Stuart and Tiger in the same match. Plus one side having higher level players doesn’t necessarily equal curb stomp. Just like Premiums or anything else. Matches are fluid

I view matchmaking more about keeping human players together versus difficulty. But I understand your point

[robihr]

r/woosh

[mergenthewise]

Thats not an answer