well something that i noticed. whenever one team is filled with marshals and other with mostly silvers, people in silver team desert more. most often those people who desert have some gold rank (most often marshal).
so maybe hide ranks in match and only show them on end game screen?
… or remove them completely.
well if you ever worked for a corporation you will know how difficult is to remove a developed feature… nobody enjoys telling the higher ups that they wasted development time with some feature…
Enlisted had quite a bit of content/features removed during it’s development so one more won’t matter much 
either way i dont care… just that they arent shown ingame…
i wouldnt mind having them if they implement some good reward mechanism into it.
I don’t think hiding ranks would change much, it would just make the desertions that would happen right at the beginning when there’s still a chance of finding other humans to replace the deserters to after the first objective falls (or first pushes fail and momentum is lost when people start camping).
What I would suggest is a more rigorous rank system, instead of capping at 150 cap it at 1000 and just really good (or really addicted) players would achieve it. That would make the mechanic even more useful for future matchmaking purposes.
rank based MM would be absolutely stupid as is now. it would just match people who play much with other people who play much. it wouldnt take into account if this was players fully grinded campaign or if he is starting new one, nor skill level.
rank for now is just an accomplishment that you played a lot in that BP season. and that is why i am ok if this is hidden mechanism that gives you reward for playing. but for any other purposes it is useless.
Rank means nothing now and the reward is useless
The answer:
About equipment i don’t think that’s a issue, every starter plane can take out any high level tank, starter bolt actions are laser beams of guaranteed death, maybe map experience counts but a experienced player won’t take that long to figure it out.
Reaching 1000 rank points to cap it out would make it fairly difficult to unskilled but lots of free time kind of people.
What i really mean is instead of scraping the system we should want to improve it, fighting against it is a waste of development time and user energy.
and now you get into f2p 1 vehicle slot, some vehicles better optimized for some maps etc.
what about smg? or flamethrowers? or tanks? or planes?
no thanks. i hate grindy stuff. also you would eliminate 95% of skilled players. idk if i even have my points above 400 cause i quit a lot.
i think you dont know definition of improving. making the process more grindy isnt improvement. i cant think of any way to improve ranks without giving players better reward (like some gold order) for reaching marshal
f2p here, I deal with it, I know what I am talking about.
A noob with a SMG isn’t a threat to a experienced player with any equipment, ttk in this game is low enough to it simply don’t matter, in a matter of fact, high ping is a bigger enemy to me when fighting CQC than enemies with SMG or flamethrowers.
About tanks and planes, as the question above, the starter plane can deal with any tank and if a enemy plane goes after you well, bad luck, try again later, as I said, I just deal with it.
So what will be counted towards a matchmaking? k/d? Win rate? What? If anything I prefer the rank system that is a mixture of individual merit (could be improved by giving more points to player that got more than one medal or weighting the medals as a engineer and a fighter have entirely different weights on a team’s victory). You can also say that it can stay the same low cap but that would admit that me with 1300+ points am equal to the guy that just got 160 points after playing sniper and fighter all matches and got carried to the said rank.
What? What are you grinding? It’s a statics used to pair player with others of similar weight, it wouldn’t even need a reward other than bragging rights if you are into that. Several other PvP focused games have a tank system that separate the playerbase on pools. Speaking of it, do people that talk so much about matchmaking know how much more it would split the playerbase and make matches filled with players even more rare?
1000 aint enough. more. with a worth reward .
i know people with way… .way more
also, problema de capacidade.
Please no. I want to feel like i’m playing a game, not fulfilling a chore to make sure I get all the rewards.
so am i. and i dont want to play planes all the time. nor do other people. also depending on plane they require some amount of skill, so it is not for everyone.
just BS
what about your equipment? some equipment/level based system would be best. if you have squads with low level equipment, it would be best if they matched you with other low level equipped players. so you can have stuarts vs pumas, BA vs BA, low level smg vs low level smg. and end game fully grinded MM can have their own MM. that way you wont have situations when you start another campaign and you are utterly powerless against fully grinded players just cause you have BA or low level tank/plane.
i am playing for fun, not cause it is my job. i quit games cause there is no MM filter for modes/maps. getting to 1000 points would be a chore. and you would totally destroy any semblance of playerbase in weaker sides of some campaigns. with everyone going into dominant teams cause they cant afford to lose any point or everyone going into squads. it would just become sweatlord game.
ofcourse they know. and that is why most experienced players arent suggesting MM without first uniting playerbase. and for that to work you need progression rework.
Holy fuck, from the producers of “bolt action buff will help begginers”. Can’t wait to be guaranteed to be paired with begginers just because I know how to use basic equipment WAY better than them.
You Jay call bullshit but I really don’t think that moving mouse and clicking pixel is the skill this game requires, a begginer will never be as effective as I am with low end equipment and if I had to say what is a biggest threat I would say anytime, high ping.
I personally don’t like playing planes, I didn’t know how, I have been learning those last weeks honestly but still suck sometimes, but hey, I’m dealing with it and everyone can too.
Is already like that, what you are suggesting, equipment based matchmaking would just scatter sole of the “sweatlords” that didn’t fully grinded the campaigns between the newbies. My suggestion would at least pair them between each other at the cost of increased waiting times.
how about you just play BA. newbies are dealing with it, so why dont you? this is absolutely idiotic reason for why anyone should have plane when they only have 1 vehicle slot. they should skip all tanks before end game cause plane is better with dealing with enemy high level tanks.
you know that FPS arent invented in this game? beginners can be effective in weapon usage. just cause you get bots and console players you think that every noob is trash and not a threat to you.
why should you protect newbies from skilled players? this is casual game, not some high skilled competitive game. only thing they need is equal fighting chance with same level equipment. we dont need people sealclubbing low level equipment players with their tigers or whatever. and with what you are suggesting extending ranking to 1000 points everyone will just play for points and will never want to grind another campaign cause they will be scared of being in severe equipment deficit, or will just play stacked campaigns like normandy axis where victory is almost guaranteed.
anyways rank based MM is stupid and 1000 point marshal is stupid.
Not a bad idea, yet to perform such a drastic action you would need bigger community. Enlisted is going down with active players (strange, devs are makin such a good decisions, why is that)
Other case it would just cap high marshals with lower tier player cuz lack of playerbase creates such a gaps with system. But to perform such action would be justified in future if game performs better.
