A tier proposal and reasons. Eat my shorts

Suggestions
1

So I spent a few minutes thinking of a more proper tier tree:

Tier 1:
All bolt actions. The performance is basically the same for all of them, this way people are not disincentivized to use the later proposed tiered ones.
All pistols. All pistols are not powerful enough to justify a higher tier and their impact on the battle is near 0.
All equipment. I only see one downside, grenade spam, but it would roughly be the same with a nine man squad all with one grenade.
All classes and all squads. Balance things around the weapons they use, not what squad they are.
Tanks: Already proposed tier 1 tanks are good. Pretty much all tanks that can be destroyed from the front or sides by an anti tank rifle belong here along with those that just don’t have a large enough HE round to do much against infantry.
Smg: Any smg that has less than 50 rounds in a magazine or a low fire rate, examples grease gun, mp3008, mp 28, mp 34…
Machine gun: Everything with less than 40 rounds per magazine.
Mortar: 50mm mortars.
Snipers: All except for the semi automatic ones.
Flamethrowers: the short ranged ones.
All AT rifles, not the warhead launchers though.
Planes: Ju-87, bf-109, Yak1…

Tier 2:
Everything else excluded from tier 1 can be used here save for the vehicles that belong in tier 3.

Tier 3:
High end planes and tanks are what makes tier 3 tier 3. Examples of vehicles that belong here: Panther, tiger, tiger 2, IS, IS-2, T-34-85, Sherman 76. Plane enthusiasts will know what belongs here.

Cons of having such a free system:

  1. Players who have played longer will have way better equipped soldiers than new plays. This isn’t too bad because the average life expectancy of a grunt in enlisted is about a minute. That and everything besides the large grenade pouch doesn’t really have much of an impact on a battles outcome. Equipment are more so quality of life insurance for a soldier that has survived a while.
  2. Players will unlock what they want first and never move out of tier 1. (Likely me)
  3. Tier 3 is basically just for the highly skilled and those who just unlocked the Tiger. Which may be a good thing as the highly skilled mostly use infantry and those with tigers are expecting to use them.
  4. There will be meta weapons that are overly used. Although, the performance of most weapons besides the few obvious don’t really necessitate overbalancing them to the next tier.

Pros:

  1. Players can easier justify buying equipment and weapons if they know that the mm won’t screw them over for using.
  2. New user friendly.
  3. Vehicles now face capable opponent vehicles, no more T-34 vs PZ 2 c or PZ 4 F2 vs t-60.
  4. Justifies introducing a historic game mode so people don’t have to see weapons from different periods of the war in the same match.
  5. Most premium squads and vehicles can easily get sorted into tier 1, 2 or 3.
  6. Far easier for the mm to find suitable players for a match and possibly leave room for player skill to be taken into account to.

Thanks for listening.

1 Like
2

I answered in another post and it seems its more adequate to put it in here.
Here is the copy pasta.

“Not very enthusiastic about this update, its confusing and it feels its going to be a shit show. GJ is trying to balance the matchmaking however its not gonna stop experienced players from lowering the gear to play in more accessible battles. I like sweaty games but 100% of the time I don’t think so. If I wanted that, I would do an enlisted tournament. I agree the BA tiers are confusing and out of context. Also, if you have high tier gear you might be limited to certain maps. I don’t like the idea of a “geographic restriction” based on gear. GJ should keep the match making as is for now and only advance the matches by Army. This would cram the player base in a more compact campaign therefore more players to match with.
An idea to make it easier for noobs is to do a match making based on number of battles and not on gears cause you can be a noob and have a premium squad and then what? he has no chance against veterans.”

1 Like