Since the addition of the new ranking system, I’ve been in quite a few matches where either my team or the enemy team has a staggering number of high ranked players fighting a team mostly of privates and other beginner ranks. This results in oftentimes matches being either a landslide victory or a defeat.
The solution?
Rank based matchmaker.
This basically means that the teams would have a fair number of ranked players. Let’s use the Marshal for example…
In this concept matchmaker I am describing, there would be no more than +2 or -2 marshals on an enemy/friendly team. This prevents matches with a team of almost all marshals from queuing against lower ranked players. And I say “matches with a team of almost all marshals” without exaggeration as this happened to me and is the reason I am making this post.
In summary…
Teams would have an even or acceptable amount of ranked players. This would mostly eliminate landslide victories/defeats which I believe is a major issue.
An example Match:
Allies
RandomPlayer1 - Marshal
CoolName2 - Marshal
Enlisted_Player3 - General
BestAtThisGame4 - Major General
InsertNameHere5 - Colonel
YetAnotherPlayer6 - Lieutenant Colonel
ProPlayer7 - First Sergeant
iPlayGames8 - Staff Sergeant
John_Doe9 - Private
LastNameYay10 - Private
Axis
RandomPlayer1 - Marshal
CoolName2 - Marshal (Notice the +1 Marshal)
Enlisted_Player3 - Marshal
BestAtThisGame4 - Lieutenant General
InsertNameHere5 - Colonel
YetAnotherPlayer6 - Major
ProPlayer7 - Sergeant Major
iPlayGames8 - Sergeant First Class
John_Doe9 - Corporal
LastNameYay10 - Private
We already see matches similar to this in-game, so why not make all matches similar to this. I believe that this will be healthy for the game as players will not be discouraged when they get a match like this.
Anyway, if you read all this, thank you for your time and I really hope this post reaches the developers. Have a great day!
Rank based MM is not good. Atleast current with current rank system.
Lets use normandy at axample. Lately at my time zone axis win 90% of battles and there is lot of bots in allied side. So even new player can reach rank of marshal without even shooting single bullet, he just have to play couple hundred games.
Meanwhile allies loses most times and can only keep their rank score if they get battle hero award.
That lead to situation where silver ranked ally player might have campaing maxed and have hundreds of hours in game while silver axis will propably be just new player
Sure those allied players would start gain ranks when they spank those silver axis players but what are all those axis marshalls doing? sitting in queue cause there is not ENOUGH allied players.
Also ranks are account wide, if those marshals from normandy go to other campaing that they never played they will take ‘marshall slot’ while opponent will get possibly fully kitted player cause there is marshall with starter squads in opponent team.
Please no! It dont work, A new player need less than 70 victory for reach the marshal rank, almost a week, in a week a new player still have the early campaign level and in the end have face only try harder because of the rank, ranked MM only make the actual situation worse
It needs something to balance teams but the current ranks are more a measure of time spent and quality of team/opponents than individual skill. However not as easy as some have made out - the 150 skill points would need 75 consecutive wins and battle heroes unless I’m mistaken (considering its -1 for a loss) - near impossible I think considering how much is out of your hands.
But then it’s new - I’m sure it’ll get refined. The event leaderboards are much more in-depth - would be good to see a bit more like that built to the ranking system.
Definitely agree teams need to be balanced somehow - but having the players available at the right time on the right team in the right campaign is probably not that simple.
Maybe add a ranked match option that doesn’t allow you to specify a side or a campaign, but instead compensates with boosted XP (help with using unlevelled squads) and points towards your rank and the rank prizes. Similar to the event not so long ago, but with your own squads - that made for some great matches. This would also make matchmaking more possible and more accurate if done with event style leaderboard scoring.
on the other hand, i rather see more batles like this one. with or without skill base matchmaker.
the only matchmaking the game needs, its for low level players. for 10 or so campaign levels. after that its war. war aint fair. imo ofc.
either way, first they have to make it so players can join ongoing matches (optional) if someone leaves, and or a proper matchmaker that fills every slot even if it takes a few more seconds to do.
there is a WT devlog where they explain BR diferences and how boring the match would be if everyone was on a 0.1 BR diference (matchmaker based on gear ) and the game wouldnt be fun to play after a while since you would match against same level players over and over again making the game poor to deliver worth to play /challenge content.
Yeah I agree - I said the same, it’s a measure of how much time you’ve spent playing. A system more like the event leaderboards would be better.
As for match making - I take your point - however I don’t enjoy winning a walk over any more than I do losing one. Balanced and competitive games are the most fun and preventing quitting (both in single battles and the game full stop) is better for every single one of us. I never leave a match and love this game but judging by the number of disconnects you see and certain comments about the game there is no shortage of people who don’t stick around.
The same can be said about low level Vs high level - in time you’ll get there - it’s not necessarily a measure of skill.
I’d love to see - and will probably make a separate suggestion post - a “ranked match” option that removes the option of selecting a campaign or side in order to balance the teams based on some kind of skill score using some of the metrics like the event leaderboards as well as campaign level etc. That’s not to say you won’t come up against late game unlocks as a low level player - but you’d have the equivalent within your team - as well as skill based scores like recent battles scores/score per minute in battle etc that you get on the events.
Fair point! Maybe while the game is in beta it would be unable to host a matchmaker based upon rank. Possibly when the game is fully released.
Good idea! I believe this would allow for the more competitive players to have more competitive matches and allow casual players like myself to have more laid back rounds.
That poor private…
This is another excellent idea! This would really reduce the number of AI squads in matches.
the only issue on you aproach, as any aproach tbh on current game design, is that , as now, matches mean nothing than personal fun.
there isnt a outcome per match to a greater objective than personal gain. so players will leave as they please, as we currently do, and will be the same shit show as now…
basicly if i got it right, your suggestion goes around forcing players to play allies or axis at random (i wouldnt like that. neither most that have boosters to use on a specific side and or task to do) and basicly you want the concept of the last ranked event , but with what ever squad we choose. so basicly, a xp boost. nothing more nothing less. did i miss something?
isnt the fix we want… i m still not even sure what the “fix” we need is.
