I think it’s pretty clear that there are major issues with the current matchmaking system. Having the BR 3 slot be a floater that can make its way into either tier 1-2 or 4-5 only resulted in a compounding of the existing playerbase and balance of power issues.
Axis players queuing into tier 3 can be guaranteed either a win from lack of opposition in 4-5 or a downtiered game they should be able to win easily, whereas soviet and allied players queueing into tier 3 can be guaranteed an uptier that they are bound to lose due to the imbalance of power (+2 uptier).
This results in players choosing less and less to queue into specific BRs that they know are misbalanced, which is the exact problem the merge sought to fix. Ideally players should not be discouraged from queueing into any given BR, and this is exactly what is happening for Soviet and Allies players. Bandaid solutions can help this problem like giving a bonus to the side in a tier that has a smaller playerbase, but over time these quick fixes will not solve the problem.
In my opinion, separating the matchmaker into BRs 1-2, 3-4, and 5 separate is the best way about solving this problem. This way, new players are not forced into fighting players 2 BR levels above them making them more likely to enjoy the game, and 3-4 players are able to fight other players that are on their level in gear giving them a balanced, interesting and challenging experience.
In my opinion, Tier 3-4 has the most balanced weapons, tanks, and planes WHEN IT IS FACING tier 3-4. With good anti-tank weapons on all sides and no massive disparities in tank power from the exclusion of tier 5 tanks, no select fire rifles or ARs, machineguns that play similarly and do not have any massive advantages over one another, and a variety of submachineguns that all have upsides and downsides and can fit the slot in unique but never inferior ways, having a separate Tier 3-4 matchmaker would allow for one of the best experiences that enlisted can offer. This would give the player great variety in gameplay and the freedom to take their best weapons to battle without being penalized for it.
The 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 system is my preference by far. It makes the middle BR’s the most game versatile while BR 1 is set perfectly for newer players and BR 5 is set perfectly for top tier.
I disagree with using those 4 matchmakers. I believe that the power imbalance from 4 to 5 is too large. This places a player that has a lineup of SMGs and Semi auto rifles against a player with ARs and select fire rifles and it keeps that player fighting in that same imbalance for far longer as the xp requirement in tier 5 is so much greater. Keeping 3-4 separate from 5 ensures that players with smgs and semi autos fight other players with semi autos and smgs and allow for AR players to fight other AR players.
Additionally, the best anti tank weapons for Axis and Soviet are only introduced in tier 3, so if you have a tier 2 player fighting tier 3 there is a major imbalance of what they can do against tanks. Not to mention that the power difference from tier 2 and 3 for smgs and lmgs is greater.
I also mean to say if you want to fight against tier 5 as a tier 4 then just throw some tier 5’s in the mix. If you want to fight with 3-4 then have a mix of tier 4 and 3 weapons. Same with the other lower tiers as well.
Sure, but in the system you propose, a tier 4 player has no ability to choose not to fight tier 5. There are a lot of players that have max level gear, so tier 5 will be filled up far more than mid tiers and as a result queueing into tier 4 will almost guarantee you get placed with tier 5 with a larger portion of both sides being tier 5. You see this with the current matchmaker if you queue tier 3 soviets.
Tiers 1-2 and 3-4 are very balanced, but due to the insane BR compression at tier 5 if you mix 4 and 5 you will have a massive disparity in power. You could have seen this before the merge in berlin as newer players are essentially fighting with tier 4 weapons against tier 5, you didn’t see tier 5 losing in that scenario and you don’t see it now.
Ok then to which case having 1-2,3-4 and then 5 being it’s own thing is more called for than a 4 queues system I had. However I feel Stalingrad, Moscow, pacific and Tunisia should be in queues 1-2 and 3-4 as to 5 only being Normandy and Berlin.
I agree with all except for the Moscow queue as I feel Moscow should be both 1-2 and 3-4 that way if say if the suggestion about the weapon BR’s listed on my post ever come true, Moscow in 3-4 could also see the ppd usage it at first saw before the merge. I feel Moscow in both 1-2 and 3-4 would have a variety in game styles. So 1-2 would see bolt action gameplay as 3-4 would see some mid-high tier machine guns and smgs as well as some semi auto rifle gameplay.
I definitely see what you’re saying and I love moscow maps so id like to see them more, BUT think about this. Moscow maps are big and open technically, but the real gameplay paths you take have a lot of cover. Hills, village houses, trenches all funnel the actual fighting into small close quarters areas and only a couple different places are really out in the open. This means that if you allow for really good smgs like the baretta or ppd 71rnd in there you’re gonna just see absolute stomping from whoever’s the most equipped. You saw this before merge really bad. TLDR smgs are really powerful in Moscow.
On the other hand, most of stalingrad’s points are out in the open and while theres a bit of cover, there are really good long range lines of sight toward where everyone is moving. This leads bolt actions to be really powerful in that campaign and you saw that pre merge.
I think because of this dynamic, the more interesting path for player choice would be to say hey, if you want to take bolt actions into a tier 3-4 game you’re gonna do just as well as if you took the best SMG you have in that game, and on the contrary if you want to take the weak smgs into moscow you’re gonna be doing just as well as everyone else with bolt actions. I think this dynamic is more interesting for the player overall.
Now that is also true. Despite how beautiful the Moscow maps are, I’ll still easily come to understand why you say Moscow should only be 1-2. I think overall you have a more flexible way of thinking about this by taking the maps retain into consideration.
I’m going to jump in and provide the argument for 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5.
Under this system what you have are, basically, 5 queues of BR1-5, but you have 4 overlapping areas which you can mix and match from. By having these 4 overlaps you can populate matches quicker with more real players while not massively up-tiering players against insurmountable odds. USA gets the Jumbo and the Sherman 76 at BR4 which can pen KT’s in theory, though it takes effort. Especially once the USA gets the Pershing & Super Pershing this issue of 4’s going against 5’s will begin to resolve itself. Soviets get decent tanks so it largely just becomes about balancing guns.
Also under this system, BR 1 and 5 become the queues for new players and top-tier players which means BR 1 newbies don’t go against BR 3 like the current system sometimes puts them and BR 5 doesn’t have to worry about bot lobbies because they’ll have some BR 4 players to go against. BRs 2-4 become the most populated tiers since BR 2 can fight 1 or 3, BR 3 can fight 2 or 4, and BR 4 can fight 3 or 5. This would create fuller lobbies and there wouldn’t be an incentive to quit for easier games like the current BR3 is fully incentivized to do since you’re not massively up-tiered or down-tiered.
Idk about that one tbh. I can see where you’re coming from but I feel 5 should be the one tier that’s it’s own thing. At least with battle rating 2 being a tier higher than one, you still have a chance to fight those guys who are at tier 2 if you’re using tier 1 stuff.
Yeah I can definitely see that. Since it’s overlapping, any tier basically has their in-betweens. And different maps being for each queue can make the game’s battles at least have some atmospherical uniqueness at the same time as keeping balance.
I’ll agree that would be the ideal solution, but I think DF is scared to add too many queues.
Under the old campaign system you had 2 queues per campaign. With 6 campaigns that’s 12 queues total.
After the merge we have 2 queues per faction (1-3 and 3-5). So overall that’s 8 queues. If we add another queue to each faction (eg. 1-2, 3-4 and 5, or 1, 2-3, 4-5) that would add up to 12 queues again. Overall worth it I’d say.
While having 4 queues per faction like you have suggested (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5) may well be a good idea (and is hopefully something we can see as the player base grows), it would total up to 16 queues total with the current number of factions. That number also only goes up if other factions are added. I have a feeling DF would be very hesitant to add more queues than they would have had before the merge even happened.
This is also why, as much as I want to see them added to the game, I doubt we’ll be seeing China or France added to the game anytime soon.
Granted, with the overlapping BRs separating the player base would be less of an issue as with other systems, so it isn’t really a 1:1 comparison.
Honestly I disagree with your point about that proposal leading to decreased matchmaking time or making matchmaking better in any way. Adding any additional queues will separate the playerbase further and while something like that may be ideal if we split tier 5 in two and had millions of active players, unfortunately you have to consider the playerbase we do have and what kind of gear they have and tend towards using.
In that system there would be no reason to queue into tier 4 if you can queue tier 5 and most players right now who can queue tier 4 have maxed their faction and can queue tier 5 with a full lineup. Additionally, since there will always be far more players that have maxed gear than there are players working up to max gear and are currently in tier 4, a 4-5 queue will basically only have tier 5 players in it, meaning queuing tier 4 is a guaranteed uptier and players will tend not to queue tier 4 after long enough. Once there is nobody queuing tier 4, tier 3 will become a guaranteed downtier, giving you the exact same problem we currently have with this matchmaking system.
As I see it, your proposal could only be beneficial for tier 1 players when compared to our current system by only allowing +1 uptier for them, but separating into 1-2, 3-4, and 5 does the exact same thing while only adding one additional matchmaker and gives players an actual reason to queue in 3-4 range.
