I thought OP said player count is not a problem? So you are saying that player count is actually a problem? So my player count concern is actually valid?
In fairness, BR 5 Japan is some of the most stacked BR in the game. Almost always it’s an easy peasy games where you get to stomp the horrible, horrible playerbase that is Soviet BR 5. Hence the abnormally high win rate on BR 5 Japan.
Of course, this does not mean that i support +/-0 BR match making. It definitely has more downsides than the upsides imo.
I am not sure if we have the understanding of stacked. But br3 is way most popular than any other br. If the advantage of br5 is that great, the population of br5 should be at least close to it. And Japan did have the best playerbase on br5, But I am talking about br for all faction.
BR 5 Japan still has the most stacked playerbase out of all BR/factions. Does that make sense now?
BR 3 is the most popular BR, you are correct. BR 4 is the least played BR of course. About the BR 5, actually people plays BR 5 a lot as well. But there’s a caveat. The most played BR 5 faction so far is the BR 5 germany which has more than 3 times played games than BR 5 Japan. What’s interesting is that Japan BR 5 still has the highest win ratio out of all factions/BR, with whooping 58.4 % win ratio while USSR just in the trash bin with only 41.8% win ratio. There’s a reason that why the veteran players intentionally play BR 5 USSR when they want to have some challenges.
And I am talking in general. So br only not specify to br+ faction.
I think we are talking about different stuff.
We are talking about the same stuff. I’ve been saying that the BR 5 Japan was and is the most stacked and easiest faction to play, in response to your ‘BR 3 is the most “stacked” and better BR for seal clubbing.’ Which is not true, BR 5 Japan being the easiest and can be backed up by the stats.
In conclusion: I don’t like it when someone with superior weapons/equipment beats me—which is only natural, and besides, they might even have better skills than I do! HAHAHA
How much seal is available for you to club in br5?
Br5 Japan is good players stomping less good players. If you go to br3 as a good player it will be good players stomping noob.
If my goal is to farm bad players, good teammates on br5 will actually stopping me from doing so since they took those kills.
You can win more doesn’t mean you can farm more.
More than BR 3 for sure, as long as you play BR 5 Japan which you apparently did?
This is not true. You said it yourself. BR 3 is the most popular BR in the game. This also means that the amount of decently skilled players are abundant on BR 3. BR 3 in general are evenly matched except Japan BR 3, Japan BR 3 suffers from low win ratio but other 3 factions have a comparable win ratio to each others.
This is not really a good argument. You played BR 5 Japan with the pre-made team. Your goal wasn’t really to farm but rather, your goal was to have as much easy games as much as possible if i were to guess.
But br3 were also dilute by the noob players while br5 is less diluted.
The last time I play with pre made team is long ago.
That is why I have concern on our understanding of the word “stack”.
No, I’m saying your complaint about the lack of players in any given match is nonsense because nothing would change.
Like i said, not when you play the very specific faction that has an abnormally high win ratio. There’s a reason that why people perceives queuing as the BR 5 Soviet is the ultimate “lose button”. Because in most cases it is, especailly against BR 5 Japan. I think you are underestimating that how bad the BR 5 Soviet playerbase are.
Okay, fair enough.
Who says nothing will change, if implemented such function, the problem might not only exist on wrong nation at the wrong time.
I will says the problem is cause by br5 Soviet player is also bad. So it is less related to br4 players getting uptier to br5 which is the point of this topic.
Okay, so back to the topic. 0 +/- BR match making for ALL BR seems bit too radical to me and i’m opposed to this to be implemented. We could implement the isolation of BR 5 for like a month of trial phase first and see how it would impacts the game.
1 Like
I will say this is a fair compromise. But I wonder how well it would go. The winrate of USSR and US is higher on br 4 while the winrate of Japan and Germany is higher on BR5.
So I guess the br5 players from USSR and US will go to br4, the br5 Japan and Germany will stomp even harder. That will actually make more punch bag for br5 Japan so the wild guess of OP is not really valid.
±0 matchmaking is the only way for me.
The whole point of having BRs is facing equally equipped enemies, to have an equal change in the fight.
Up- and downtiering spoils that.
Isolating BR5 will result in BR4 only facing BR3 and then BR4 will suddenly become very popular.
I have never played a single battle in BR1 or 4, just because of the up- and downtiering nonsense.
So it limits me to 2, 3 and 5 and completely eliminates 1 and 4.
I would like to play 1 and 4 also. Against equal BRs.
At least we should try ±0 matchmaking for a testing period.
Not sure if that will lead to the ‘empty campaigns problem’, I estimate that it will not.
1 Like
To my understanding, this is due to how the enlisted roll call count matches. If there was a BR 4 stuff in the match despite the match was filled with a majority BR 3 stuff, then the roll call still counts that match as BR 4 games. This explains that why USSR and USA having a high win ratio even on BR 4 despite there aren’t many pure BR 4 games in the first place. Pure BR 4 games also relatively rare as there are not many players playing the BR 4 in the first place and even then those few BR 4 players almost always gets dragged into the BR 5 games.
2 Likes
Fair point on the data
enlistedrollcall only covers a few months, so it doesn’t tell me what you played years ago. ——but I said “your last 242 games,” not “your whole history.” those last 242 games are still you, right now: 99% in BR5, zero in BR4. So when you tell BR4 players to “just choose not to play,” you’re describing a choice you personally make every single day.
And you actually made my point for me again 
A veteran can go to BR3 and farm clueless newbies." You just admitted the clubber exists — yojust insist he’s in BR3, not BR4. Whether the punching bag is BR3 or BR4, the matchmaking is what enables it. The exact BR doesn’t change the principle.
I’m not here to measure seniority and let’s be clear about what’s actually happening here
You’ve posted a handful of old threads to prove… what, exactly? Seniority? Let me read them back to you. Every single one is you arguing against something: against new campaigns, against a realistic mode, against anything that might split the queue. And he same argument every single time: “it will split the playerbase.”
Those old posts don’t actually support your current argument. What they reveal is a consistent pattern running through your entire history
You’ve opposed change in every single one of them. You opposed new campaigns. You opposed the realistic mode. You opposed anything that might split up the matchmaking queue. You were against it before the merge, and now you’re against ±0 too. Other than saying “no,” you’ve contributed basically nothing of value to anything.
So thanks to those old posts you made just to flex your seniority, I think everyone here can now see your behavior pattern: it doesn’t actually matter to you what the proposal is. You just always answer “no,” and the reason is always exactly the same.
And now here you are again, going against the crowd, deliberately dodging my points with all kinds of clumsy, reflex-defense nonsense — all while hiding behind that “veteran” badge. You never actually engaged with the substance of my matchmaking argument. You just pulled out that same “splitting the player base” card you’ve been playing since 2022.
Honestly, You can’t even stick to arguing the actual points.this is a complete failure of basic debate etiquette.
Now let’s talk about your behavior. You called me out for “personal attacks” just because I read your public stats. Those are just publicly available server data ——i think anyone has the right to look them up. If you won’t even allow that kind of criticism, then what you’re actually doing is textbook bad-faith debating.
You dig up irrelevantpld posts to establish your seniority, then ask “where were you back then?” — as if playing longer somehow makes a flimsy argument hold up. Now you’ve set up this gatekeeping rule where people have to have more forum history than you before they’re “qualified” to answer. Why do you keep dodging my actual proposal to ramble about all this irrelevant stuff?
If your concern about “splitting the player base” really had the basis you claim, I don’t think it would even take several months — just one month of test data would prove you right, and it would settle this debate for free. Yu’d win, with evidence, at zero cost.**
So why has this never happened? Unless you already know what the result would be — or you don’t actually want the answer,there’s no reason to refuse running the experiment.
Win ratio have nothing to do with how many br4 there are.