The current BRs/queus policy is not honest with players and my suggestion related to it

Suggestions
12

As @guardianreaper0 said, in theory ±1 BR MM is actually just a cosmetic/psychological thing.
If my suggestion was implemented, there would still be vehicles in the same BR that have a BR difference in WT.

If you remake my 5 BRs into even more BRs, and left the same number of queues. Nothing would change, you would just have end up with a ±1 BR MM

That’s why I think ±0 MM is better. It is more obvious at first glance and easier to balance.

I don’t think 3 queues significantly differs from 2 queus. And thus I don’t think the balance would be good enough.
Number of queues is main factor of balancing, not BRs.

13

in paper, we might have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 BRs, but the sad truth is it isnt even 3 queues. its only 2 queues that overlap.

1 Like
14

go reread those topics. they never complained about playerbase division, but about endless grind with 10 tiers. they made it perfectly clear that those 10 tiers were never about BR, but just about grind.

for me it was funny how people complained about 10 tiers but didnt complain about same number of weapons on 5 tiers.

15

Whoever is going around on a censoring crusade can you knock it off and you’re not even censoring the right things

2 Likes
16

Yeah I felt like that message never even needed to be censored to begin with.

2 Likes
17

Somewhat true. However, this next one is irrelevant but i barely see any purpose in using anything but tier 2 and 5 weapons and vehicles. Tier 4 there’s no other purpose in using tier 3 or 4 weapons I feel when 3 is just a gamble of being down and uptiered and 4 will always get stomped by 5’s of not used correctly. I’d like to see a “1-2,3-4 and 5” system so there’s purpose for for all the tiers and they have at least a respective queue. But that’s just me.

18

The big reason for the merge was to reduce the amount of bot matches, especially in certain campaigns. The BR system originally (if you look at the first test) was to have historical accuracy on maps to a limited extent more than the balance but due to player response was changed to the current system to focus more on weapon balance. To ignore that the big reason is to reduce the number of queues that players had to make for more full matches than we had is a poor one in my eyes.

The main thing is that the playerbase is smaller than it needs to be to support the most optimal system for balancing without having a ton of bot matches. Bot matches were killing the game in the long term. So … it would heavily depend on the playerbase growing in size. This is likely the reasoning for having BR 1 and 2 and BR 4 and 5 effectively the same … expandability once the playerbase grows in numbers.

This means that we need more players … this means the most pressing concern is not the BR system in of itself, though it is important … but the NPE of the game. I have come to this realization after trying on a fresh alt account. So any expanded queues need to (IMO) take into account 2 main factors:

1: New Player Experience / Retention
2: Playerbase Size to Support Without Bot Filled Matches

Any suggestion that does not take into account these 2 factors are just wishful thinking in my eyes.

So lets think about this clearly. The end goal here is absolutely good. having well balanced matches. but we need players to support it first. We need to take steps to the end goal rather than another club that we did with the BR change … granted I do think the new system was great for the betterment of the game, regardless of the issues we have with it.

My suggestion is as follows, focus on NPE … Introduce an expanded New Player queue that allows them to grow within BR I without being seal clubbed unless they are partied with non-new players. Next we need them to stay once they hit low BR matchmaking. This is where many blame BR III armor (armor is the where I see the complaints … not the small arms or planes). But the way I see it … BRII does have answers that can front pen all of the BRIII tanks including the KV-1 and IV J…moving around these to unlock earlier could be an option.

Once the playerbase is ready (IE we have enough to support it) we introduce a new queue to the mix, but have an option in settings to allow for uptiering for those that wish it without them needing to change their loadouts.

Alternatively, there is the curveball option. Get away for matchmaking and go to server browser of old. Make a system that you just join with a certain BR / BR range based ont he server allotted (think the custom game browser but have standing servers for people to join, and allow joining as a group). This would also be appreciated for the other older gamers here :stuck_out_tongue:

19

I do understand you. But I don’t think bots are bigger issue than low number of queues.
Especially since even now, lot of people can’t tell difference between bots and casual players.

And in fact, there’s no real big difference between them. If this game attracted a lot of new players now, it wouldn’t improve the quality of the team.
That’s why I think it is less relevant issue than fair equipment balance.

This game has extreme number of casual players. It is literally f2p and on console, so that’s no surprise. And it has no ambition to have any kinf of skill based MM.
Meaning, quality of teams will always be unbalanced. And it doesn’t matter if your team is made of bots or casuals.
Faction bias will prevail.

I think the argument “game needs more players and everything will be better” is false.
Only significant number of good players would solve quality of team balance issue.
But that will not happen any time soon. Since this game has no competitive ambition with such a poor equipment balance.

20

Well the game went from 12 sides queue’ing to 8 sides queue’ing per server + console lock.

If we split to 5 BR’s (one for each) it would be 20 sides queue’ing. So that leads to the question. Have your games felt better than pre-merge, the same, or worse. For me, they’ve felt better. Which logically, would mean that the game would be worse if we expanded without the playerbase to support it.

Its not just game needs more players and everything will be better. Its that the solutions need more player input for them to work, otherwise why play a multiplayer game when (and im being hyperbolic a bit here) its just 4 players in a lobby and the 16 bots.

Casual players can get better, and especially in lower tiers, it has much to do with not having a firm grasp on mechanics and not having well equipped squads yet. But if you curb stomp them constantly, they will just leave.

Both issues are important, and need to be worked in conjunction with one another rather than just one over the other. That is my point.

21

It felt same in the matter of team quality. Most matches aren’t fair and one team will just complety dominate the other. It depends only on one thing, which faction is more popular atm.
Literally nothing has changed in this manner.

But I am speaking from PC player playing on EU server only perspective.

And I have waited even 2min+ in queues when I wanted to play popular faction.

That’s complete disillusion. Majority of them will not.
This was beautifully displayed on WoT. There were a lot of players who had ovwe 40k battles (one battle takes ±7 min, max time is 15 min)
And they averaged dmg such that they could do 1-2 hits in a whole battle.
That was their average result.

Yet another completely false argument. Most of casuals do not even care if they are losing or not. They can be absolutely excited that they managed to kill one moving character in an entire match.
Most of them do not have competive mindset. And I believe they’re not evwn registering loss/win. They simply do not care. It is not the reason why they choose to play games like this.

People are consistently yelling about how they have full teams of bots. But when you check the replays, you find that most were just not very skilled players. And they had 1-2 bots on the team max.
People literally can’t tell difference.
All they see is that their team sucks and the opposing team is absolutely crushing them.
So they just think “uh, just a team full of bots again” and go rant on forum.

22

OK, Im on PC on the US server mainly myself. . . so our experience could absolutely differ.

I said they could, not that all of them would, or even the majority would.

But, those that do can become good players adding to the community as a whole. Like you mentioned we need more good players. Casual is but a mindset not a skillset … at least in my vocabulary, which could be why we may be speaking past each other on this point. . .

Most of the people talking about bot filled sides are experienced players, not casuals, casuals that I know usually just claim hacking from my experience, and if they are viewing it in that light, then yes they will leave. But again, culture is different, so you may have a different experience which is fine.

I will leave you with this question: What do you feel about getting rid of matchmaking in its entirety and just have a server browser / join random server in BR, where the official standing servers just have varying BR / BR spread restrictions and also allow for team scramble votes (maybe on the vote thing)?

1 Like
23

Yes, you hit the nail on the head.

I do not agree with this. According to stats @robihr has provided, number of bots in matches has significantly reduced.
https://forum.enlisted.net/en/t/enlisted-stats-postmerge-edition
Yet people still acting like they’re the only real player in match and so.
And everytime I’ve checked it, they have always confused real for bots.

I think it’s getting to be a kind of crowd psychosis rather than an objective reflection of the current state of the game.

I’ve completely given up on the idea that teams could be at the same skill level. I think it is unrealistic.
And I would rather see proper fair BRs and adequate number of queues, than some half-baked solution which would not solve neither equipment balance nor team skill balance.
It is way easier to make fair equipment balance than creating proper skill based MM. Especially with playerbase this game has.
Even games like WT or WoT do not have proper skill based MM. And quality of teams is often very different.

2 Likes
24

This is more FPS players as a whole and not just Enlisted XD myself included. But perception does judge the world, logically or not,

1 Like
25

I lost a whole bunch of matches lately, specially because there are a big bunch of players that perform worse than Bots.

I try, but no one can carry a match solo against a decent team.

But this is just the way it is, I don’t see how me complaining about it would matter.

1 Like
26

That’s exactly my point. It doesn’t matter if they’re bots or just very bad players. Nothing has changed after merge in this matter.
Faction bias still exist. Teams are not balanced skill-wise.

Therefore, I don’t see why we should limit ourselves to a low number of queues when they hasn’t solved anything anyway.

1 Like
27

Imagine players that only play as fighter pilots and land often at the top of the score board because they intercept incoming bombing runs.

Effectively every AI squad is more contributing to victory than those pilots - but with a MM system that is score base you would have those AFK farmers be at the top of the ranks.

So a MM system could never really work with points, so what about win percentage?

Sure, people that play certain support roles that are extremely helpful to a professional team will still lose when matched with poor teams.

The Idea of MM is stupid, and our BR system that filters newer players out should be enough.

2 Likes
28

Which is why there has been many suggestions to isloate BR I from the higher BRs at least until such time as the beginning players have unlocked and upgraded sufficient squads to go into BRII/III games against the nasty vets who have optimised their BRs down to the last AP mine and large grenade pouch full of impact grenades…

29

it is a sad state we are in, the developers got caught in the downward spiral of most economic business without even realizing they are.

the circle is painfully obvious to those that experienced before, be it in games, or in real life situations. it goes like this:

the product i am offering is not attracting new customers, and it is bringing me an economic burden i have to overcome.

the way i find to overcome it, is to reduce the amount of product offered, reduce the quality of the product offered, and increase the requirements to acquire such product.

that mentality, in turn, reduces even further the number of costumers interested in my product. as a result, i return to the previous step and further reduce the amount of product and its quality, and further increase the cost to acquire it.

the downward spiral is engaged, and steps 1 and 2 keep repeating, till the venture ceases to be profitable, which invariably leads to death for the business, shut the gates, lights out and we are done.

can it be reversed? of course it can. but not by reproducing the same steps 1 and 2. you need to really evaluate what is the product you are offering, and if its really worth for customers to spend the resources needed to acquire it.

that needs a certain degree of empathy (which is the ability or skill to see the situation from another person perspective, in this case, the customer), which sadly is not present in any and all developer interaction with the customers.

in short, we are totally fkd up and the game is, irrevocably so if not fundamentally changed, doomed to fail. the path is obvious, the result is clear, the end line is visible. its their fault for keep walking it, knowing where it leads.

30

support ±0 ideas.

31

I recently made a post closely regarding the situation of BR queues and even some of the weapons’ BR’s being changed.