The horrible state of the matchmaker (Not a rant)

Suggestions
1

I’ve seen a few topics get put up about the horrible state of the matchmaking, and I’ve seen the same amount of posts be shut down because they’re just vulgarity laced rants, so now I’m going to try it.

Basically, the matchmaking is utter garbage. High tier, high caliber players comprising an entire time vs casuals like myself and new FNGs who just learned there are a few other commands other than the fire button. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to determine the outcome of that match.

So there’s the issue, here’s the suggestion. Gaijin produces a game with a matchmaker based on the tiers of vehicles. Why can’t they apply the same system based on the “Tier” of the player? Make it to where a player whos say, a Major, faces a maximum of one rank above or one rank below his/her station. Go to +/- two ranks if sufficient players can’t be found, but that would be the absolute maximum, and try to match like for like. If we have four majors on one team, have the matchmaker do it’s level best to match that amount for the other team. With variations again based on player availability.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start, I think.

3 Likes
2

I’m afraid they never will invent a matchmaker because it will only increase the time queuing. And that is what they fear most and it’s definitely not along with their business model.

The game is designed to appeal the low-span attention and throw you quickly into battle where you shoot and interact constantly and get stimulated.
The big narrative is progression and level climbing and short queues are one of these quick fixes and shortcuts (besides gold/battle pass and premium) players need/desire, demand, or whatever to persist.

Everything is so calculated, the skull that pops up when you kill someone, the XP shown for every task fulfilled, and now even the headshot-ping.
Ppl like that, I like that. It makes you crave more.

The whole game is like a huge stimulus Tivoli awards you for being so good and encourages you to quickly play another battle and another.
there is no time to waste …

2 Likes
3

While I agree with the psyop you’ve presented here, I disagree it’s part of their business model. Again, Gaijin already has a matchmaking system in place for Warthunder and it’s various branches of vehicles you can command and it’s wildly popular. The same goes for Gaijin’s competition, World of -insert your game here- over there at Wargaming. Again, matchmaking based on tiering, wildly popular.
One can also look to Mechwarrior online whos matchmaking style, based on player skill as they participate in the game. Once again, popular and successful.
Furthermore, if the idea was matches now now now regardless of the quality, why would they give you an option to play as Soviet or German team only? Why not just toss you in with whatever weapon set is available on whatever side is available? This would also certainly decrease que times.

No…I don’t share your view. Sorry

4

Can’t see why not introduce a matchmaker other than what I stated.

I hope you are right and i’m wrong.
Been asking for tier-based MM since my first battles.
Only time will tell.

5

Its needed now more than ever, now that theyv’e came up with a tangible ranking system for a potential matchmaking script to be able to group players into lobbies by.

If you are indeed right about their intentions and everything you presented, I suppose all well and good. The problem is, eventually lower level players and casual players will get tired of being killed constantly and accomplishing very little in the process. They’ll get tired of seeing that “DEFEAT” banner after every match. Darkflow and Gaijin have developed a game in a market already awash with FPS style shooters. Players will start going elsewhere.

I’m willing to wait an extra minute or so in a que for a good match rather than being haphazardly tossed in against a team full of people that live, bleed and breathe enlisted all day every day and be mowed down before I can even begin to get started.

1 Like
6

I agree that the match maker is unfair to new players. The problem is that the player rank carry over to different campaign independently of the campaign level that have been unlocked. I’m a Marshal with level 39 unlocked in Moscow Allied but I’m still level 1 in Berlin Axis.

7

Yeah, the eventual matchmaker should be based on what level you unlocked in that specific campaign. The ranks will still be unnecessary gewgaw, only for display - like they are today.

1 Like
8

Generally players will play on a side where one of 2 things are occurring:

  • Either they have a lot of progress in that campaign with that faction.
    OR
  • The balancing in that campaign is currently utterly broken, making it very easy to farm a lot of supplies (logistics orders) for use in other campaigns. (This is a very common occurrence with newer players.)

Here is the best solution I can think of, in 3 parts:

  1. Remove the OP game mechanic changes. By this I mean both sides have the same capture times, and same number of reinforcements granted for capturing objectives on maps that both sides can play offense or defense. If it’s a map that one faction is always attacking and the other is always defending (like D-Day invasion) set the amounts accordingly.
  • My reasoning for this is Tunisia for example. On maps that both sides have lobbies of attack and defense on, Axis currently captures way faster and gets back 250 reinforcements, whereas Allies only get back 150. This causes a lot more people to run Axis rather than Allies, abusing the difference in addition to having more players.

  1. If the lobbies are uneven in number of players, the side that has fewer players gets a bonus to xp/points according to how many players less they have. For each additional human player that the other team has they receive +25%. They could take this even further and account for the overall rank points difference between the teams and apply more bonuses that way.

  2. On the campaign selection screen, indicate which campaigns are in need of players for balancing, and which side is short on players. This serves a dual purpose. If players are looking for easy games against bots and low number of players, they can choose to be on the populated side. However, with the score bonuses mentioned above, playing as the underdog faction may yield even more rewards.

This way, players get to choose how they want to play as far as matchmaking, but the underdog factions are incentivized as to where they will inevitably get more players coming to help them out trying to get the extra rewards. This is the most fair way I can think of for them to do matchmaking.

2 Likes
9

Better be careful with “ranting” about a legitimate issue"…
The truth is frowned upon.

However, I’m on your side.
And I have provided proof of broken matchmaking and an otherwise BORING gaming experience for people who are being asked to spend $30-$60 for individual premium squads.

Here are score cards of my most recent games, which are great examples to prove OP’s point.

(I do not care about my own stats. These score cards are for everybody to review in the context of balancing, quitters, and A.I. controlled squads.)

1st scorecard: The TOP player on the opposing team, only managed to kill 5 enemies. This match lasted 9 minutes and 41 seconds and was entirely a waste of time.

54
541920×1080 187 KB

2nd: There are 5 Marshals vs 0 Marshals

26
261920×1080 148 KB

As you can see, we got our asses handed to us. This was another lop-sided match that was BORING

61
611920×1080 143 KB

Then there are games where you play well… but your team is composed of both new players AND A.I. disguised as human players (both of which, are completely awful).

14
141920×1080 139 KB

Or maybe you are placed on the team that does the stomping
These matches are essentially farming on one side, while the other side is completely slaughtered (this is not a fun experience for new players)

11
111920×1080 193 KB

Same situation for this match… very boring because the other team was composed of new players and A.I. disguised as players. (XP farming for my team)

13
131920×1080 140 KB

Another boring match… It only took 13 minutes from start to finish. Complete Slaughter.

3
31920×1080 174 KB

*Same Story…*10 minutes 56 seconds

5
51920×1080 132 KB

9 minutes 20 seconds…

6
61920×1080 160 KB

7
71920×1080 155 KB

6 people quit before the match even started (an indicator that people do not like that map or game mode)

8
81920×1080 181 KB

From a gamer’s perspective… why should anybody waste their time with this game, when you can literally look at a samples of recent scorecards that show unbalanced matchmaking (match-after-match-after-march-after-match).

How do the developers expect to keep this game “above water”, when they discard all of our ideas, and have chose to do NOTHING about this very serious issue that the community has been stressing about?

@CCCP_PaPaSha hope this helps build your argument. :slight_smile:

I can always provide more scorecard samples if people want to dispute the facts.

2 Likes
10

What are you on about?
Can’t name one single player who dispute these obvious facts.
And more or less everyone agrees that a matchmaker should be implemented.

And pls don’t provide more scorecards. Contributes nothing.

2 Likes
11

Keyword here is "IF

12

no one will

1 Like
13

Sure it does. It proves OP’s point.

It’s the proof in the pudding.

I’m sorry that you personally do not like it, and feel the urge to express your OPINION to me.

Of which, i do not care.

1 Like
14

I know they won’t…

But they will certainly channel their anger on to me… for whatever reason.

lol

15

Well, no one is going to disprove it.
Everyone agrees upon this matter but you probably missed that.

Ofc you care about it, because you are an attention slut.
Sadly you suffocates every topic you get involved in.

2 Likes
16

You’re “the one giving me attention”…

so I’m not sure what you are going on about?

Am I not allowed to participate in Enlisted’s forum?

Am I not allowed to participate in community posts?

While you appear to be standing on some pedistal, claiming “this” or “that” about me…

You’re tripping dude.

We literally would not be having this discussion, if you hadn’t initiated the conversation by saying:

From my perspective, as someone who would like to see this game become BETTER…
You are are only giving me more fuel to the fire.

You are not going to “make me shut up”… when you mean NOTHING to me.
You’re just a name on this screen, who is trying to bully me in some way or another.

And you can fuck off.

17

And the best part is…

I’m going to rent space in your mind as you stew in anger over this brief conversation…

You could have simply said nothing, or contributed SOMETHING of substance.

Rather than making it personal between us.
I don’t even know who you are.

18

Part of the style of Enlisted is the asymmetry between the different nations as well as the effectiveness of different gear. I’m not sure if an equipment based matchmaker is something that’d ever be added because of this and because of how the rank system works it isn’t the best indicator of skill.

It’s a hot topic issue for Enlisted but I’m not sure how the matchmaker should be adjusted aside from just setting a player limit ie if there’s 3 players on one team the matchmaker puts 3 players on the other team max.

Eventually I think it’d maybe be a good idea for a casual/ranked mode kinda like how war thunder has arcade and realistic battles. Casual would be all tiers, skill and equipment but your rank doesn’t increase or decrease and ranked would have proper equipment/skill matchmaking and your rank could increase there. Even if it’s just casual doesn’t increase rank and ranked increases ranked I’d imagine it’d get the sweats off the casual and newer players backs at least some.

1 Like
19

That’s why the only options seem to be:

-A complete overhaul of the game
-Or to do nothing, because it would change the game so dramatically.

The problem is, if nothing done… people will move on to new games/better games as they are released.
And slowly the existing population (in Enlisted) is going to die off entirely.

Until all you have left are the people who have invested hundreds or even over a thousand dollars in this game…

Quite the predicament

20

I think that number 3 is actually a really good idea +1