that is ±4 BR if you mean one queue. and calling it ± BR would be a mistake if you mean to have fixed number of queues.
or if you want ±2 BR it will be 3-4-5, 4-5-6, 5-6-7 for queues with BR 5. and that is 3 queues just for one BR tier.
if you are BR5 ±2 means +2 and -2 its the range,
BR5 +2 is BR7
BR5 -2 is BR 3
so you can be match with BRs in this range.
how in the hell are you not understanding simple math?
its not even Math at this point, its just counting 2 bloody digits.
2 Likes
tbh i thought it works this way, but everyone use it +1 or -1, so i’m confused too.
listen, right now we have ±1
which means when you go look for a match, you will look for your own BR - and hopefully get matched into that BR, but depending on active players you might get put into a lobby with players that have either + or - one rank in BR.
That’s how it works.
people are complaining right now because BR 3 got the exception of being already ±2. which means BR 3 can fight against all BRs.
with my proposal you would get 10 BRs, but double the matchmaking range - effectively having the same ranges of gear, just a bit more refined.
br now has 2 queues:
1-2-3
3-4-5
3 is fluent, it can be put into early and late war br.
what you’re proposing is a lot more queues.
or else show me based on numbers just like i did.
1 Like
->devs: *makes 10 tiers
->community: *complains " ToO mAnY"
->devs; *reduced to 5 tiers
->community: *complains: "tOo FeW "
welp…
i’m neutral. but like…
you guys are somewhat asking what they originally went with:
yet majority of the same people that are asking this, bashed their heads back then.
2 Likes
tech tree ≠ br
1 Like
actually.
yeah.
but we could have turned those brs into tiers like they somewhat did in the previous test though.
and, to be fair, i believe tiers should become the actual brs.
at least you would have both the diversity people ask for in terms of equipment, but wouldn’t get you too far of uptiers and downtiers etc.
1 Like
It confuses me too, but I guess it has to be that way. Weak weapons in high br, how else to express that.
okay, I really don’t know how one can not understand this, but here you go, I guess I have too much free time.
And also to be clear, this isn’t about the number of actual queues, because that’s not how MM works, its not that simple.
10 BR system example:
Your gear is BR5 - you look for a match - you will be matched in BR5 if there are enough players - there aren’t enough players? now you will look for players in close BRs - you can only be matched with players that are a maximum of 2 BRs different from you - there are very few players looking for BR4 and BR3 matches but alot of players looking for BR6 and BR7 - a game is created with BR5 - BR7 being played.
The range that you can encounter is ±2, thus the matchmaker has the ability to put you into a match with players from BR3-BR7, but the actual game will stay with a small BR difference because the other players also have that same limitation.
However this does not mean there are now “more BR queues”
its just depending on active players you will get matched up or matched down. Like if almost no one plays mid BR matches and you pick gear from BR 4 - you will be playing with BR3 and BR2.
while if you pick BR 6 - you will be playing with BR7 and BR8
1 Like
Regarding BR ranges, couldn’t we just set things on a timer?
Assuming 10 BR:
Within 15 seconds, the BR bracket is +/- 0.
15-45 seconds, the BR bracket expands to +1/- 1.
45-120 seconds, the BR bracket to +/- 2.
120+ seconds, the BR bracket is loosened to +/- 3. The limit.
3 Likes
yeah, that makes alot of sense, especially when you can actually see the stages of matchmaking during your waiting time - so that you really don’t want to play with other BRs, you just simply requeue again.
we agree on this, but you fail to understand how ±2 actually work. it is either +2 OR -2.
so you either have tiers 3-4-5, or 4-5-6, or 5-6-7 with BR ±2 on t5.
let me explain this to you simply:
for t1 ±2 BR is: 1-2-3
for t2 ±2 BR is: 1-2-3, 2-3-4
for t3 ±2 BR is: 1-2-3, 2-3-4, 3-4-5
for t4 ±2 BR is: 2-3-4, 3-4-5, 4-5-6
etc.
no we dont. currently it is only high low queues without any ±BR.
you are literally repeating what I am saying, what’s wrong with you?
1 Like
Well. Iirc I proposed a VI system and I think 6 tiers three splits and maybe ability for example II to face III and IV matches could work. Whats the point of 10 Tiers if due to lack of players you end up with soften it up as with current blueprint? Also, a X Tier tech tree could lead to people grinding months just to got a MP43.
Current issue of V seems to mostly rely on Tier III being handed around like a *hore and either face UP or OP gear.
Tier X is for better times when we either have more players and/ or pre- and/or post-WW2 stuff.
1 Like
so you agree that this is correct?
then try counting how many queues you need:
this is already the case.
Well. It can be worse I guess.
1 Like
not sure i have seen that.
hard to keep track of threads in the forum these days with so called " solutions " and half CC with daddies and attitude issues acting up. ( i must say, that it is somewhat fun as pitiful though. but i’m almost over it. )
not really.
i don’t think it would have made a difference.
no matter 5 or 10 tiers, the grind would somewhat remain the same.
10 tiers would have allowed ( i think ) to still face bots and not players.
while make matches more surgically and “self-contained” from others.
or maybe not.
since we never actually got to see what it would look like.
most of it are just speculations.
true.
i’m not entirely sure why that hasn’t changed yet.
is it really difficult to make 12 23 34 45 ? 4 matchmakers. i doubt we’ll lack the playerbase to sustain at least those.
unless we’re on the last legs.
which i’m not aware of it to be honest.
i mostly play enlisted to turn off my brain anyway.
perhaps.
it depends more how you wanna look at it.
could be the " balance " fever dream though.
as… you know what you’re getting and somewhat face.
instead of being half way there and being putted up agains latter tiers.
*cough *cough.
2 Likes
Its months old. Good ol times.
1 Like