Im just saying, on a practical level if you look at the difference between BR 3 and BR 4…theres not much difference, so the disadvantage isnt that much.
but there is a big jump to BR 5 in gear power. (main weaponry changes to select fire and automatic rifles)
“Most” vehicles in 3 can deal with IV, but not V (yes there are exceptions)
It depends, average german BR3 tank can easily deal with any tank it is going to face.
The issue are literally only few very hard German tanks and Ho-Ri.
Plus I am saying all the time, all semis should get buff to be true middle point between BAs and SFs. Currently they’re underpowered and closer to BAs in powerlevel.
yes and they are super popular 
Ultimately yes I want BR-+0 same as you. but i Doubt they will do it…nearly ever.
Hoping for a small compromise and the above is as small as it gets
I think a lot of the problems would be alleviated if theysolely designated BR1 and BR2 “only” play BR1 and BR2. This would ease a lot of frustration for new players and not turn them off to the game at an early stage. BR 3 is quite capable of playing with BR 5 as the only guns I use different from BR 3 to BR 5 is the Browning 1919 )as I usually only play allies in BR 5), while using the Browning 1918A2 in BR 3. I guess I use the Thompson 50 in BR 5, but other then the amount of ammo it can shoot I don’t consider it much different then the BR3 Thompsons.
It’s bad compromise since ±1 MM is way better solution. And it’s more fair as well.
And I really do not understand this queue issue at all. This game is literally all about bots. So why is there so big issue not to allow for example 5 AI players per team?
There’s no difference between bots and casuals anyway.
yeah but thats 4 queues (1-2, 2-3,-3-4,4-5). I said “as small as it gets”: 3 queues (1-2, 3-4,5)
heck if we can get 4 queues Id take your suggestion…but they wont budge on 3
Was meant to be Bot Squads, not bot enemy’s 
They better learn to budge while they still have players, because BOTS don’t spend any money. 
If they wait to long to wake up, that is all that will be playing.
Well, as I have already said. This queue limitation is just pure stupid in game like enlisted.
If you want to have some kind of competitive live game, just make seperate clan mode without AI players.
But in classic public matches, AI players should definitely be tolerated. Since this game is all about bots, literally.
So I really don’t accept this “we don’t have enough players” to increase number of queues.
Especially since majority of those players are casuals who are getting slaughtered anyway, lmao. I am pretty sure they would appreciate to encounter more AI players in matches.
Ultimately I only push the 3 queues suggestion because I have lost hope that I will get what I wanted and assumed we were getting before merge. Br-+0/1 (changed to “I”.)
Made several threads in merge testing that 2 queues is not good and is likely to get stuck in a catch 22…need more players for more queues, but experience isnt good so players dont stay…result…purgatory…stuck forever in 2 queues.
I say bite the bullet…minimum 3 queues…(ofcourse what I say doesnt matter)
So there you go, you both solved it
3 ques, with bots till player numbers go up 
I’m not going to advocate for something that only partially reduces the problem. But it’s not exactly an ideal solution.
I definitely think Enlisted shouldn’t be ashamed of using bots when it’s literally the game’s main feature that sets it apart from probably it’s closest competition, and that’s the Battlefield series.
Plus, Enlisted is F2P, which means there’s just going to be a large number of players in that game that you definitely wouldn’t classify as “elite”. And who just keep suffering right now, since almost every match has at least one player who is able to think about the game in wider meaning and knows what to do.
The current queue policy just doesn’t make any sense at all for a game like Enlisted. It simply doesn’t. They should just increase the number of AI players and constantly work on making them better and more interesting to play against.
The old all or nothing
I get it, and usually I would be that way. But too often nothing gets chosen, so I resort to " the lesser of two evils"… such a great pitty.
end of the day we want the same thing (round abouts)
my sentimients exactly
I don’t want to spoil the fun but from what I gather BR±0 is not really an option.
Keo directly stated that they want to have a difference in players’ BRs in matches. This gives players a reason to unlock new, higher BR stuff instead of staying with the same gear.
I don’t necessarily agree with this but I don’t make the rules.
I have no clue from where you did get that. All I know is that Keo was against implementing of any new queues atm.
But his argumentation seemed very vague and quite bizarre imho.
Maybe. But then why even have 5 brs then. 3 would be all thats necessary.
Also aparantly china server has BR-+0 so if thats true…it would seem its meant to be that way, or at least constructed with that in mind
Chinese versions need submit to different rules on videogame than global version, isn’t mean for be that’s way, is mean be that way in china also both version are two distinct thing
Sure, but there are other reasons also that seem logical to me (my logic anyway )
Like a good portion of the audience i suspect have had brushes with warthunder with BR -+1…and players love uptiers there 
No it mean just there aren’t sufficient players for a BR 1± otherwise dev would already have done it, true enough the game keep become bigger in content and sooner or later even the BR and tech tree need be adjusted for make fulfill his purpose, I just a question of patience