The essence is incredibly simple. Share online even more. More specifically, it is divided into three “groups”, the main purpose of which is to soften the game for “weak”, “simple” players:
I) Create a new system in which players must play… a hundred battles, yes, it’s probably a lot, but at the same time not very much. During this time, statistics should be collected in which you can
calculate the estimated efficiency of the player by win rate, or by k\d. I’ll probably choose k\d.
II) 1. Players with a k/d less than one remain in the first group (in which everyone must start).
2. Players with a k/d of about one up into the second group.
3. Players with k/d two and above up into the third maximum group.
4. Few examples:
If the player has been in the last hundred battles (including the old ones) played in the third group at 1.9 k / d, then he falls into the second group.
If a player has played 3 k/d for his hundred battles, then he up into the third group immediately, but if he lowers his k /d by 2.1 in the last ten battles, he will return back. Etc. All these numbers are conditional and, of course, subject to the calculations of our excellent developers.(Start with the potential profit that you lose by scaring weak players)
Minor clarifications:
Killing bots that belong to a bot-player(Don’t try to pretend that’s they non-exist) should not count. Deaths from bot-players and their bots as well.
Bot-players should be stronger with each group up.
Players should not see their group “rank”. (so that there are no unnecessary complexes and bragging and this other self-opinion bullshit)
Campers are campers, there is no way against them. But it seems to me that they themselves will be eliminated.
All numbers indicated here are conditional.
Probably it will divide online even more seriously, but it will be able to save a lot of soft weak players who are hard, tire and lazy to play against squads of cyberpancakes. And such players are the majority. They don’t must suffer, they must have a fun and deliver to u money, remember that, snail.
Maybe it will unactual after merge. But nope, it will not.
Well, I realized that the winrate is much more reasonable to use than the k/d, since I forgot that you can arrange an unhindered carousel of vehicles here. Thanks for the reminder from below of this topic, in view of this, the concept does not change, because the essence is not in numbers. Here the point is to divide the players according to a conditionally defined skill for their sake and sake of devs(and their wallet). For which, in the case of using a win rate, an honest balance of players is also required ((3p+3 p)+(7b+7b) not (3p+7p)+(7b+3b) for example. p - player, b - bot-player).
With the merge we get teh BR system which probably is about accurated as just KD related skill system.
While obviously the BR is not a scale of skill in any manner but quite obviously counts quite well how much you have spend time into game and arguably have somekind of idea what you have to do.
While the KD based system wouldnt take in account variables.
Such as sniper getting 3:1 kills in ~100 games and another guy getting 60:20 kills and playing objective.
They would both be “equal” in this KD based system.
Thus I dont think using just 1 scale as way to count people “skill” is viable.
Should be combination of many things, score / per min / engi & team points and so on.
And even such would effectively rule out a great pilot that has been keeping every enemy tank / pilot in bay thru entire games.
Thus as said, I dont think dividing people in categories by looking at 1 stat only works.
KD doesnt mean anything if one player can wipe out entire squads with tank or where it is a bit more extrem with pilots.
Even if a bad pilot only kills 10 people for each time his plane downed he is still thrown with the elite of the elite of the playerbase. Even if he cant hit the broad side of a barn with anything else.
I agree. It is definitely impossible to judge by one thing, however, the algorithm should be quite simple. Here we need 2-3 main points that would influence. But I didn’t write about it, so that’s my problem.
But the main point of the topic is that no one feels good about the fact that beginners and bad players play against squads from the Middle Kingdom. Neither the players nor the developers. But I do not know about the players playing in squads and destroying any random gathering, maybe they have fun to amuse their self-esteem.
simply no. this is casual game and we dont need skill based MM. and even if you want to implement skill based MM you wouldnt have enough players for every skill level. at least in BR MM you can get players there with or without skill.
Yeah, on the other hand, good players meet so often only because the online game is small. Also true.
But they also scare new players, sometimes. Although yes, BR can solve this problem, partially.
lets say i killed 10 and 10 times killed before
during match, i sacrificed myself and my squad to delay incoming enemies to defuse bomb.
my bots couldnt kill anyone and i just manage to kill 1 guy because 3 enemy sqauds overwhelmed me .
but
my sacrifice worked, we gained seconds before explosion and we destroyed the last target and won the match.
but my k/d ratio decreased
now
am i a bad player or a good player ?
do you have any idea how many bots and players you can kill with a sniper ?
my record was 37 (with bolt action sniper)
There will definitely be some veterans who play low BR but at least they will have low BR gear instead of end of campaign weapons like STGs vs bolt actions which is what we have currently.
It’s definitely going to be better for new players.
No thanks i hate SBMM it ruined LoL, Dota 2 and Cod and now you want to kill Enlisted too? I just watched some videos about MW2’s SBMM and it’s just dreadful it has dynamic damage (4 headshots still doesn’t kill a dude), dynamic hitboxes (dude get’s damaged and killed even tho he ran through 5m of the hard cover and then teleported back to get killed) it also has tracking of your kills and dmg every spawn + match so it will make you play against better/worse players on average after every match it’s the commie paradise and utopia that wouldn’t exist, is this what do you want?
I don’t want every game to be full of sweaty aimbotters that kill you across the map, this is a casual game not esport trash that every game need to become you zoomers have no chill.
I want my games to be unpredictable like good old public lobbies. Besides it won’t work for a game like Enlisted since you will have so many BR levels so most games will be the same as today with 40% of the players being bots. With SBMM you will never improve since you will be in vicious circle of 50% WR and 1.0 KDR against players it’s not fun it’s irritating and if you start playing better you will also meet even better players every match till it’s the point where you play in esport tournament with no way to breathe and no rewards. Leave this weird thing to games with rank play not casual matchmaking games.
And how would you calculate games like this?
Even if you cut it by 5 (usual squad size) it will mean i had 6.3 KDR it’s just stupid. Or a Sniper or camping tiger or AA truck that wouldn’t die even once in a game and get 120 kills so he has 24.0 KDR according to your rule.
Anytime someone brings up “CaMpErS aRe BaD” argument, you automatically know that you are solely focused on run-and-gun gameplay, and I find it EXTREMELY difficult to agree with anything that pushes for the game to lose even more of its strategic elements.
I’m getting SBMM vibes hope they won’t and I think they most likely won’t you know why that means again there will be a case where a player who is not good will eventually by sheer patience unlock his beloved IS-2 or Kingtiger if he gets good during that time he will be placed in group 2 or 3 and can’t play his tanks why? because he can’t survive in his tank for more than 1 min max(Will not be enjoyable) and in case he had rock as a brain and couldn’t improve he would stay in group one now a new problem arises since he is in group 1 most of the player have rock as brain and he will have kind of an equipment advantage(even if there is a tank in enemy team that can kill king tiger or is 2 these players will whip or throw pz IIs at him like current enlisted where in Stalingrad people throw pz IIIj at kv1s) and that will create an unenjoyable experience for the enemy team so BR system is good and tbh great
Man a question are you trying to say veteran players shouldn’t have fun ? Should they always sweat? do you think thats enjoyable ? every now and then even veteran players need a breather and they also need to enjoy the game
Most people dislike skill based matchmaking, especially in a casual game, would be totally unnecessary to implement this since the merge exists, BR’s + skill requirements would lead in a playerbase that’s far too divided.
Their next requirement would be removing squads vs solo players, and then premium players only playing against other premium players and we would end with situation worse than we currently have.
And such probably wouldnt affect “most” people in any manner if there was a somekind of proper matchmake the average casuals would be fighting each other just like they do now ?
And this isnt exactly first time people have asked for somekind of matchmake that even attempts to make somewhat balanced games, regardless of casual nature of the game.
The way I see the current game its either roflstomp or get roflstomped which arent exactly “fun” in
long run.
That I can agree with and hope the upcoming BR system brings atleast somekind of balanced games.
Doesnt necessarily have to be hard rules, just that matchmake would first try to find most suitable players against each other if due to lack of players or what ever reason this isnt possible then the next best option and so on.
