Comprehensive List of Reasons why players quit out of Matches

Mess Room
122

all I suggested is to look at alternatives that can remain within the restraints of player and bot balance and obviously server balance

if there are enough players to have 3 server locations and 3-4 nations/factions and split among however many tiers in the new BR system, then there is also enough players to balance with a more balanced MM that doesn’t ruin the actual baseline of the game

for example, you like to harp on about the Tiger

So the question with that scenario, why is it that one team has a Tiger, and somehow the MatchMaker didn’t consider to find players that have equipment to handle it?

Or why wasn’t enough other ideas implemented, for example man the gun on a ship on Invasion on Normandy map at Beach and use that as emplacement to clear the vantage points of defenders, or is only available if a Tiger is indeed spawned

there are a multitude of other game balance considerations that aren’t considered

I understand what you are saying with what can be done with a limited amount of players at any time of day peak/off peak etc…but that doesn’t excuse breaking the game

there has to be other ways to program MM to consider that if a player in the game is going to possibly bring a Tiger, that then the Match maker try to find some players that also have access to other gear that can counter it, or the stuff has to be available in the battles themselves or through other classes, like I’ve seen mods that have powerful artillery buildable pieces for another example

think outside the box instead of just spreading this limited thinking nonsense that is the usual corporate BS

123

How about this for an idea

Making it so that inside the grey zone, there is a safe circle (maybe 20 metre diameter) around the tank where paratroopers can drop on it, and they are then limited to that area, so they cannot violate the rest of the grey area, but they can at least take out the Tiger and establish themselves in that limited circle?

This would force the tank to displace if he notices that paras dropped on him, which would disrupt his grey zone camping, and if he doesn’t notice, he might get taken out by the paras

124

here is another free idea

how about if there is a trigger condition that if a Tiger scores an “x” amount of kills or score within a certain time window a bot hit squad can spawn nearby and come harass the tank, not necessarily destroy it, but harass it and perhaps disable it, and if he does not displace, then they will eventually kill it

125

and another free idea

if same as above, the dominant Tiger situation Triggers an Allied bot superior tank destroyer that will deny the Tigers position if he does not move quick smart

126

need more ideas?

how about a specific call in for radio man that can target and destroy a Tiger, simulating anything from Focus fire from a Ship, to imaginary bomb mission, and can only be activated specifically against a Tiger, so it cannot be abused on other stuff

Special Priority Target Mission or something like that…
obviously will be limited in usage & availability time so that it isn’t an immediate easy solution

could even make it an advanced radio feature that a team has to work together to construct this special radio to call it in, for an extra idea

127

this is not only tiger. it is just most iconic example cause normandy is most played campaign and first 4-5 tanks are ineffective against it. in normandy there is also panther that is impossible to frontally pen with anything below 76w. in moscow you have pz.2C, pz.3B, pz.3E that cant pen t34 frontally. i dont know all armor/penetration values, but there are probably more examples.
also this is one recent topic.

after merge there will be dozens more tank matchups where you wont be able to frontally penetrate if you dont have BR MM. this kind of things will also happen in BR MM, but it will be largely mitigated.

so you dont want BR MM, but want some miraculous MM that will find players with equipment to handle enemy tiger? is it possible to theoretically implement it? yes. but it would be overly complex MM algorithm with tons of manual exceptions for every possible situation that you would need to update manually every time you add new vehicle. overall this is recipe for disaster.

and that gun wouldnt be abused. do you even know caliber of those guns? even smallest destroyer has 127mm guns and battleships on d-day would have 356mm. and what if you are playing on maps that arent d-day or ver-su-mer? how will you kill tiger then?

  1. yes it excuses them
  2. game will not be broken

yes powerful artillery buildable piece. that surely wont be abused and add even more HE spam into the game.

idk which idea is worse. they are all terrible.

128

it will because it will make the possibility of certain weapons, gear and vehicles rarely or never face each other again, that’s basically a broken game from what we currently have
and the limited spam within certain BRs will be ridiculous, talk about destruction of immersion and HA, and gameplay quality will go completely down the toilet in some BRs

because you only looking at it from the perspective it can’t work

and don’t think how it can be balanced into the game so it does work

as the popular saying goes, you looking at a half full cup, but only see a half empty cup

1 Like
129

it would be designed into the game with limitations specifically for things like targeting your obsession with camping tigers on hills

and I did specify in the ideas that it would not be something that could be abused outside of such parameters, but can’t expect an ignorant person to put it all together can I

130

you wouldnt believe me but that was same situation as in ww2. at beginning of the war you had early war tanks vs early war tanks (mostly fits BR MM) and as technology and tanks improved you had more mid war tanks vs mid war tanks, with those early tanks mostly destroyed or removed from frontlines and relegated to training, refitted with bigger guns or moved to secondary frontlines (e.g. balkan).

here is nice article about pz.3 E

By May 1940, the number of Panzer IIIs was increased to 349 vehicles which were distributed to seven Panzer Divisions. The disposition of Panzer III tanks was as follows. The 1st and 2nd Panzer Divisions had 58 each, the 3rd 42, the 4th 40, the 5th 52, the 9th 41 and the 10th Panzer Division had 58 Panzer IIIs. By this time, the Panzer III Ausf.A to D were removed from front line service, as these were mainly given to training units.

The Panzer Divisions saw extensive combat operations against French armor. An example of this was the 4th Panzer Division which, with the 3rd Panzer Division, were part of the XVI Panzerkorps under the command of General Eric Hoeppner. The combined strength of these two divisions was over 670 tanks, with the majority being the Panzer I and II. Opposing them there was a force of 176 Somua S35 and 239 Hotchkiss tanks. In comparison to the Germans, the French redistributed their armor formation across the 35 km wide front. With this decision, they actually made any counterattack less likely to succeed in stopping the Germans.

During the drive toward the village of Hannut, the forward elements of the 4th Panzer Division, consisting of Panzer I and II tanks, managed to capture the village. The French made a counterattack with over 20 Hotchkiss tanks. While they managed to gain the upper hand against the Panzer II, once the Panzer IIIs arrived, the situation changed drastically in favor of the Germans. The French lost some 11 Hotchkiss tanks, most being credited to the Panzer IIIs, with some to the weaker Panzer II. Later that day, the German Panzers engaged a group of Somua S35 tanks. After losing four tanks, the French made another retreat. Eventually, with losses of some 160 tanks (the majority being the Panzer Is and IIs), the Germans broke through the French line, who lost 140 tanks and were forced to retreat. The Germans could recover many of their lost tanks and repair them, while the French were unable to do so. The Panzer IIIs were at a disadvantage against the larger B1 bis tanks. For example, during the battles around Sedan, a single B1 tank managed to destroy some 11 Panzer III tanks alone.
After the French campaign, the Germans tried to amend some of the shortcomings identified with the Panzer III, especially regarding its armor and firepower. The Panzer III would be rearmed with the 5 cm L/42 gun and receive additional 30 mm of frontal and rear armor. This included the Panzer III Ausf.E, but despite best attempts, not all tanks were modified by mid-1941.

The Panzer III Ausf.E likely saw use during the German operations in the Balkans. The use of Panzer III Ausf.Es in Africa is not completely clear. At the start of German operations, for example, the 5th Panzer Regiment had 61 (10 lost during the transport) Panzer IIIs armed with 3.7 cm guns and the 8th Panzer Regiment had 31. It is possible that some of these were of the Ausf.E version.

For the invasion of the Soviet Union, there were 350 3.7 cm and 1,090 5 cm armed Panzer IIIs. By this time, it is somewhat difficult to pinpoint the precise version of the Panzer III used, as the sources rarely mention them. The identification of the precise version is not always possible, as the Ausf.F looked exactly the same as the Ausf.E. Like in the previous campaigns, the Panzer III was the backbone of the German armored thrust. The German tanks were able to quickly overcome the older Soviets models, like the T-26 and the BT series. The T-34 and KV vehicles proved to be almost invulnerable to the German tank guns. Following the harsh German losses in the Soviet Union, its likely that only a small number of Panzer III Ausf.Es would have survived 1941.

idk why you are forcing immersion angle. this game is not immersive cause of various HA inaccuracies. i will give you immersion angle only if you are RP player who has historically equipped soldiers. if you are meta spammer, then please dont talk about it (and over 95% of the players are meta spammers).

131

and yes i know the pzr3 isn’t great for that example, but just pulled a lower tier tank out of a hat, it just represents whatever meta dominant ‘x’ tank there will be at lower tiers

yes but BR isn’t doing it realistic like that, it’s just a rubbish tier system based on game instead of history

what about all the other examples of stuff that was there throughout the war at the beginning to the end, but in this BR system you won’t see it at the end BR because nobody will use it, but in war you have to use whatever is still around that can be used. And the current system better provides that experience for me so far at least

agreed, so why would someone hurt themselves by not using the best thing they earned?

If they do as you said and make squads more proper and less spam based, then that would makes sense for me, and would largely balance out the game

why have 4 assaulters and lmg and infantry with full autos in squad? they did that, and they didn’t have to do it that way, but you want to blame the players for the way the game is designed which is just ridiculous

but the game decided that instead of balancing stuff, they would segregate stuff into BR, so that in one BR you going to get the flamethrower meta, in another you got the STG or whatever assault rifle meta, another you have the whatever smg meta at that level

it’s all going to be meta anyway with the BR system

I understand what you want to say about having tanks at each level of progression, and I too like the idea of a more correct tank face off. But that’s solved a different way, you can’t just break it up so some tanks will never see each other anymore when they likely would have, that’s just tragic and not as fun because you lose diversity of targets you face and some of the extra natural challenge is lost

and that applies for all tiers of things

…

when I talk about immersion I am using the limited baseline of immersion already provided in the game, obviously that is not the same as HA

the game is obviously not a 100% HA immersive game

but it is still an immersive world war era game that will lose more immersion with this BR change that segregates gear so much

…

they monetized squads and different tiers of weapons, gear, vehicles etc…so they created the tier problems to begin with

they didn’t set out to make a HA immersive game

Had they designed the game as you said with the actual stages of the war in mind, then I could buy that reasoning

but this game just throws people into a small area of insignificant objectives and let’s them brawl it out with all the toys

if they want to limit the toys according to different eras of the war, why not just do that properly?

at what point in the war did the battle consist of all flamethrowers at the same BR to make it fair?

I Must have missed that History class, please remind me

have you got an article for that one?

1 Like
132

You had it right p38 is all you need, If ppl don’t equip it then I dunno. Still equipped mine 2/3rds of the way through the tree because it works so well.

As for my reasons to desert:
Train mode (left 8 in a row the other day, 4 of which on the +50% booster from BP ouch)
If I’m bouncing off the obj. over and over, ask myself where the fuck is my team, look at the map, noone is anywhere near it or moving towards it, look at scoreboard, 4 vehicles and snipers and stuff, I’m out.

1 Like
133

wait until you get the p47 you gonna jizz youself

134

I always thought about my lineup of squads, f2p not having enough slots does’nt make tigers unkillable they just need to plan ahead. I say this as f2p I know what I’m likely to face and try to bring something to counter it, I think a big problem is people are’nt willing to leave their comfort zone and bring off meta stuff to help counter things. How often do you see smokescreens? Tiger can’t hit things it can’t see. But nope I’d have to risk not bringing a assaulter or flamer squad and not rack up 150+ kills better just leave the game until I find an easy one.

135

that makes me think that perhaps with the new BR system, best thing might be to just play only as pilot

since the ground fighting will be a disaster zone like flametroop tier spam at that BR

tanker won’t be as bad, depending though

so guess this is how they get people to buy more squad slots

it’s all starting to make sense now

136

I think Japan will be where its at, It will probably be the closest experience to playing the way we know it now, at least until they add more JP stuff.

137

could be, depends how much they split it all

but I am not a great fan of that campaign, the maps, the jap tanks are so trashy and those early war planes so bad :rofl:

guess the later tier Jpn could be the place, but then the flame trooper & nade spam takes over and ruins everything

138

and BR system somewhat works for keeping tanks somewhat historic. yes it isnt perfect representation, but in ww2 they didnt have grey zone that limited flanking.

yes BR is not historical. but you are saying that you should see stuff that was in the war from beginning to the end. then you should accept that you dont have a choice in the equipping your squad. end war soldiers werent all equipped with fg42, stg44, m2 carbines, thompsons and fedorovs and avt-40. early/mid war soldiers also werent equipped with g41, mkb42, avs-36, fedorovs.
if you want to see all weapons used ww2, then most of your squads should look like this

image
image1280×720 107 KB

image
image1920×2725 234 KB

heavy tanks should be limited resource and you should be able to flank inside grey zone.

but then again this would be different game.

  1. it is not historical
  2. it is not balanced

like i said i dont blame players. if something is in game i am fully expecting that people will use it. that is why i am happy that they are changing game design that will stop end game meta being only viable thing if you want victory.

BR is balancing whether you like it or not.

i would also like to see diversity of tanks. ffs most of the tanks arent even problem to destroy if other tanks were actually able to flank. but then i would also limit infantry to their respective historical equipment and then balance both teams with tickets (e.g. weaker equipped infantry is cheaper etc. ).
but you see i am describing totally different game from enlisted.

like i said if you know anything about history or army you wouldnt find enlisted immersive. simply too many things just dont fit. that is why i treat this game arcade shooter with ww2 theme. if i want immersion i will find arma 3 ww2 mod and join some server and RP.

actually… you may want to speak with some other people on forum about enlisted marketing and that claim that they didnt set out to make a HA immersive game.

they designed game with actual stages of war in mind (thus campaigns). but then they f*cked it up with adding additional levels and trying to balance things that were there with things that are near that timeline that could. e.g. they added pz4 F2 to balance against t34, or they added springfield which wasnt used in europe as standard infantry rifle (it was used mostly as sniper rifle) to balance k98k which was widespread in german army.
there was a time when normandy didnt have jumbo. it had less than 20 levels. try to see if there was a need for balance then. game had more gore and i would say it was way more immersive than nowadays with jumbo, m2 carbine, fg42 etc.

flamethrowers were relatively niche weapon used to clear bunkers and fortifications. they were not that widely used and it was mistake to put them in game as standard squad. not to mention all the bugs associated with them.

m1 and m1a1

When the US Army requested a new portable flamethrower in July 1940, the Chemical Warfare Service had absolutely no knowledge base upon which to work, and so had to -start from scratch. Using a model known as the Flame-Thrower El, gradual development reached the stage where the E1R1 was ready for troop trials, some of which were carried out under combat conditions in Papua.The E1R1 was far from perfect for it was easily broken and the controls were difficult to reach, but a more rugged version was accepted for service as the Portable Flame-Thrower Ml. This Ml was much like the ElRl in that it had two tanks, one for fuel and the other for compressed hydrogen, The Ml went into production in March 1942, and the weapon was in action during the Guadacanal operations of January 1943. It proved to be something of a disappointment, for the Ml was prone to all manner of production faults, and these often meant that the weapon failed in action. The ignition circuit used electrical power supplied by batteries that often failed under active service conditions, and the tanks were liable to pin-hole corrosion spots that allowed pressure to escape, A special repair and inspection service had to be established to ensure a serviceable reservoir of Mis ready for action.
By June 1943 a new model was in use. This was the MIAI, of which 14,000 examples were produced. The MIAI was an M l modified to make use of the new thicker fuels produced by placing additives in the petrol-based fuels previously employed, This thicker fuel gave better flame effects and a range of up to 45.7 m (50 yards) compared with the maximum of 27.4m (30 yards) of the Ml. Unfortunately the troublesome ignition system was not altered in any way and the previous problems persisted to the point where troops in action sometimes had to ignite the flame jets with matches or pieces of burning paper. MlAls were used in Italy and the Far East; their use in Europe after June 1944 appears to have been somewhat restricted once the Normandy campaign was over.

m2-2

By mid-1943 the Chemical Warfare Service had a much better idea of what kind of portable flamethrower the troops required and set about designing a new type. Based on an experimental design known as the E3, the Portable Flame-Thrower M2-2 was evolved, and this featured several improvements over the old MIAI. The M2-2 continued to use the new thickened fuel but it was a much more rugged weapon carried on a back-pack frame (very similar to that used to carry ammunition) but the main improvement was to the ignition. This was changed to a new cartridge system using a revolver-type mechanism that allowed up to six flame jet shots before new cartridges had to be inserted. It proved to be much more reliable than the old electrical methods. The M2-2 was first used in action on Guam in July 1944 and by the time the war ended almost 25,000 had been produced, more than the totals of Mis and MlAls combined, However, production was not easy and some troops in the Pacific theatre continued to use the old MIAI until the war ended. It was March 1945 before the first M2-2s arrived in Italy. M2-2s were used by armies other than that of the Americans. Some were passed to the Australian army, bringing to a halt the development of an indigenous Australian flamethrower known as the Ferret. Although the M2-2 was an improvement over the Ml and MIAI, the US Army still considered that it was not what was really wanted, and development continued to find a better and lighter weapon. Some work was carried out to evolve a single-shot flamethrower that could be discarded after use. A model that used a combustible powder to produce pressure to eject 9 litres (2 Imp gal) of thickened petrol-based fuel from a cylinder was under development as the war ended,but the project was terminated soon afterwards. It would have had a range of 27.4 m (30 yards).

but implementation could have been worse… imagine flamethrowers with 46m range…

139

and I despise the grey zone with a passion, especially the constantly shifting grey zone that decides to wipe out squads that are still fighting in the front lines and the game decides to force the front line change by killing the squads

I’m ok with the game moving more in that direction than the direction of a match full of only feds thanks to BR MM

Agreed, a slightly better game if it was designed more in that direction

you kind of do though and you even say it and make that your point

players still going to use the best meta stuff to achieve victory, the BR doesn’t change that and you know it and it’s making some BR tiers horrible places to play due to the focused spam caused by BR

It’s segregation, that’s not the same thing as balance

Balance would be to actually match players with similar skill levels together

or matching pre made squads against pre made squads, not against noobs and solo queue

balancing is if you reduced snipers to 2 only per battle, or mortars to only 1 per battle, or as you showed squads that aren’t full autos or full of spam nades and spam flames etc…

Sounds like that might be a better game

Well I do find aspect of it immersive, and I might not be the worlds biggest history buff, but I dabble and enjoy some. You have to understand that when I say immersive it’s like when a child uses their imagination to stretch something they are seeing that isn’t really there to match their imagination. Not sure I an explain it properly, but clearly it is not the same immersion you are thinking of. I do feel immersed with the sounds and the environment and the feel of the game

If I wanted to torture myself, I might play arma, but since I don’t want to do that to myself, I won’t. There is immersion and then there is torture

fun is still a part of the equation for me as is not dying of boredom

i remember, but at that time I was very low level f2p and hadn’t quite experienced as much of the game as I have now. But like I said, I don’t need full realism, it’s not about that. I don’t worry as much that the game isn’t perfect when it comes to having an extra assault rifle here and there or less for example in a squad, as it should or shouldn’t be, or that one tank is out of place. But when you cut the entire thing into slices with this BR tier system, it’s too much, and it’s not based on history and it’s definitely not going to help, since it’s making some BR total cancer. Which will ruin those BR just because someone decided this was the only limited way to cater to noobs, when in reality there was many other alternatives.

I don’t even buy this story for the reasons why this is happening, it’s just BS and it’s only happening because it’s the same structure they do in all their other games, and it helps to push the sales through, there is no actual logical reason to do it this way.

And now we going to have one BR that will predominantly be full of them, wonderful, how wonderful BR is. We currently don’t have that issue, because it’s spread all over the place, but with BR, it’s all going to be heavily focused in that tier.

How are these matches going to be balanced?

You say they will be more balanced than now, can you imagine teams spamming flames at each other, until one finally comes out dominant, and then the other will just domino rage quit

what a great merge

hey, maybe if they also melted steel, then you could aim them up at the tigers up on the hills on d-day and you could get balance that way :rofl:

140

i was not blaming players for exploiting the mechanic in the game. i was blaming you for wanting to keep status quo that enables players to keep exploiting that mechanic when there is solution at sight. could some problems be resolved differently? yes, but it would require very long term redesigning of the game. problem is that solution is needed now and not in 2-3 years. devs must keep putting new content out to get money and that means new campaigns, new squads, new weapons/vehicles (even if it is only reskin) etc. if they add new campaign they will just increase bot count and you see from the server cost calculation how the cost can spiral when you have to serve same number of players with increasing number of bots per match.

like i said you dont understand enlisted BR. it is not that you will only play t8 or t3 and that it will be full of them only on that tiers. apply ±2 to ±4 MM to MM and you will see that they will actually be spread like they are now. when you have relatively tight ±2 MM, t8 flamethrowers will be in match with t6, t7, t8, or in match with t7, t8, t9 or in match with t8, t9, t10. t5 flamethrowers will be in match from t3-t7 on ±2MM. and what happens with ±4 MM? t5 flamethrower will be in match from t1-t9, while t8 flamethrower will be in match from t4-t10.

so they will not only be concentrated on those tiers. they will be spread across almost every tier. if there is enough players for ±0 you would only see them on 2 tiers, ±1 increases sighting to 6 tiers, ±2 increases sighting to 8 tiers, ±3 to 9 tiers and ±4 to 10 tiers.
is ±0 MM possible? hardly, but yes. some tiers will be more popular than others and depending on distribution of players across tiers and number of concurrent users in queue
±1 and ±2 MM will be reality for most popular tiers in peak hours. but even most popular tiers will be matched with ±4 MM if there is not enough players in unpopular tiers.
±3 and ±4 MM will be reality of unpopular tiers in peak hour, specially if multiple unpopular tiers are neighbors.

141

I’m a player though

and I’m not exploiting anything other than playing as best as I can with what the game offers me, like anybody else

And no there isn’t a solution in sight, I see more problems in sight and a demolition of what could have been a good game

this system is despised in the other Gaijen games for a good reason, it’s total trash

it’s not really, it’s not at all actually, I don’t need it, I don’t want it, I think it’s more problematic than it is a solution and it’s going to negatively impact gameplay experience and desire to want to continue playing this game, which is a massive downside

so that’s just nonsense panic and fear based on nothing but that

They are cutting out content before players finish it, such as the campaigns, if they wanted more money, they shouldn’t be doing that, all this did was close my wallet to them permanently

There is already too many squads in the game for the amount of squads anybody can ever use, they are turning squads into collectables now

new weapons and vehicles is the only place that really could use more variety, especially with this forced tier system

Deleting campaigns seems to be counter intuitive to wanting more money, since now there is no incentive for existing players to play any more because the tree is all being merged, so it cuts back players future playtime significantly, it’s like if a game had 10 game stages to complete and the dev just deletes 1/3 or whatever chunk it might be for some people it might have been over 50% of the future game removed overnight and then repackaged to get some side tree extras and extending the tree slightly horizontally and vertically, still not as much value as an entire campaign that could have been done properly to begin with and would have been more profitable

Well everything has to have some form of limit when working with a limited pool of anything, why not have campaigns rotate around then? For example have campaigns rotate monthly or weekly, so they can remain in the game, but they open and close like miniature seasons, thus allowing for extra campaigns to be added to the game and without losing old campaigns players still want to play, this would also help gauge which campaigns are worth expanding and which ones might be duds, to help focus the rotation to favor the more popular ones and have a bit more downtime on the least popular campaigns, but at least they are still there and keeps the game fresh for players that enjoy trying new things. you might have 8 campaigns and 3 are off and 5 are on, and rotate, or however you want to break it down that best fits with the population of the game

and this would solve your bot concern, not that I care that much anyway, most players feel like they are just bots also, I still don’t believe your stats that you showed me that I has such a high % of players in my matches, it feels like about 50-60% are bots opposed to the 17% you showed me. And I don’t really feel that is an issue regardless

Because I would still personally prefer my choice of campaign, even if there is an uneven amount of player to bots ratio, than be forced into a massive pool of maps and modes and now likely have to feel compelled to quit more matches because I might not like those and have no choice anymore because the campaign decision was removed from me

I do understand, but you have to understand that at whatever tier for example flametroopers will be, that tier will have an increased % of flametrooper usage than right now, because that is their core tier and they will be prioritized for their own tier before being spread out all over the place, why is that so difficult to understand?

Otherwise you would be crying that Tigers are at Tier 1 matches instead of Tier 10 matches. How often do you expect to see Tigers as a Tier 1 in BR compared to how often you are likely to see a Tiger as Low level player right now?

They will be more focused on its own tier and the close tiers, which reduces the spread significantly

Well as we discussed the only chance for a guy like me to enjoy as close to the enlisted I enjoy now is to play off peak hours and probably as Japan, so that is a huge change for me, and it will still be largely limited because can still get dragged into low spread MM

and being forced to play at only certain times of the day and a limited campaign is not really an improvement to how I play now and can experience that across multiple campaigns at any time

My only real hope, is that perhaps the 17% bot is actually wrong, and there are a bunch of fake bots being disguised into the player numbers and so from that point of view if the new BR does indeed mix t1 - t10 properly exactly as we see it now, then that would work to pretty much be the same experience, without the choice of campaign

But I doubt that, because I will play test out the highest rating immediately when this happen, and I will notice straight away what is really happening after a few days

I can guarantee I will no longer see tier1 vehicles facing t10 vehicles, proving that you are full of BS