Your reply to me added nothing because you didn’t bother reading the entirety of my comment, lol. Then complain about me pointing that out? Nice.
Me:
“this is not an issue because X”
You:
“but it is an issue anyways”
Once again:
The system is intended to give all users a FAIR CHANCE based on equipment they have, so that they can get better at the game and let their SKILL be the decisive factor in an engagement, which it does perfectly fine.
Do you refuse to read my arguments because you can’t counter them? lol? Gotta resort to calling someone a child for it? I think you are just missing the entire concept behind this matchmaker system to begin with.
If skill is the only determining factor, it will turn game into a “try hard” fest. Someone who play it for 100hours a week might like it, for the rest it will look like another CS.
There are a lot of people who play just to have fun, in which ever way that goes, it doesn’t mean being at the top of the leaderboard or having the same opportunities as everyone else. I personally hate BF5 for that because just as BF1, all the nerfing and euializing dps leads to only a single playstyle being viable - running and hip firing assault rifles or mg.
Maybe you see some people leaving because of the equipment inequilty, but you will see the same if narrow match making is added.
1 Like
I might be biased but here how it goes personally for me. In WT I prefer simulator battles to everything else as you can have varied vehicles from completely different BRs and that makes it fun for me.
In H&G when matchmaking by equipment was added, it just reinforced the meta of specific weapons, which enforces particular playstyles and just makes game less varied and more dull.
Very player was ones a noob and got ganked by others, it’s something that goes away with experience but matchmaking by level/equipment/rating is something that enforces particular playstyle for everyone regardless.
Beginner tanks suffer against later tanks (in moscow anyway. But as for everything else, once you got level 5, there is nothing you can’t do effectively that a lvl 26 can’t do. I’m lvl 26 and I didn’t spend a logistics card on anything (hoarded them). So all my guys used stock rifles, mp38s/40s and had no trouble.
Now that I’m gearing them out the only real difference is they can carry more ammo and grenades and heal faster.
Yes there are some powerful weapons like the get, and mg34. But honestly Im justas happy to use any of the bolt action rifles or mg13. Infact, because those weapons are cheaper, I’m probly just going to fully upgrade them, as they are just as effective.
Skill based match making I’m always skeptical about. If you put players of roughly the same skill level together I wouldn’t mind, but that’s not what they do (because there are only few highly skilled and huge amounts of average/poor). They put a really a high skill level player with all really low skill players vs all average players to balance it. So unless the skilled player performs and carries hard, it’s still stacked And becomes frustrating. I prefer no matchmaking, it’s frustrating enough without matchmaking seeking to pair you with frustrating players.
What we have now is good? you mean “no matchmaking at all” is good?
Because there is no matchmaking at all - I have no problems waiting 30-45 seconds for a game - if that’s an issue for you then I think you need to up your medication or take therapy to learn ot cope!
@Viik:
this is not true - WT matchmaking is by the BR of vehicles and, as you say you can pick and choose vehicles to alter your position in the MM queue - you wouldn’t be able to do that in Enlisted - there is no ability to alter your campaign level in a campaign.
@Pvt_Larry
Indeed - there are many ways to do matchmaking other than insisting everyone has to be on exactly the same level - seems a lot of people on here are not trying very hard to think of how they might work.
so what? If noobs want to buy their way to higher levels then so be it - that is a choice they ge tto make the way things are, but it isn’t forced on them.
My suggestion for matchmaking would be to pool up everyone below campaign level 10 together.
By level 10 most players will have an idea of the game. Also, they are equipped enough(however basic) to deal with players on higher levels from that point onwards.
Also this wouldn’t really work well, for instance right now I’m leveling those late unlock squads, it’s already frustrating not using my maxed out squads all the time, if I get put always with same high level people it would suck even more.
1 Like
lots of other people at high level doing exactly the same thing all hte time.
And what you all have in common is access to earlier maxed squads if you want the, the higher squads being better - more lethal, and experience of the game.
Smg is still gonna hose your entire squad before you can swap. Just like an mg, same ends different means.
See I’ve spent most of my bronze orders on the Moscow campaign, but lately I’ve been working on my Normandy squads and man, is it frustrating not having full squads or decent weapons. Now I have some good squads but they’re maxed out, so I’m not using them. So I get what like having a squad of just 4 soldiers with starting bolt actions, it isn’t very fun.
If people are leveling their later squads why do I always get melted by SMG/LMG super soldiers.
Most of the time I never even see where it came from, people have wised up they will watch you run by, then kill all of your bots, so by the time you see them it’s right before you eat a face full of bullets.
yeah - so… what’s your point?
You (and I) all went through that in Moscow too - I still am - you do have a counter - you know how to play cleverer - but you want to be able to do that to noobs without them having any chance to counter you??
1 Like
No, I’m just saying that I understand how frustrating it is to have a squad of 4, with starting rifles. I would rather the matchmaking account for your current squad make up then just campaign level. Like if people are using two or three premium squads they should be matched with other premium squad people. Right now I’m trying to level my flamer, mortor, tier two sniper,and bomber squad and I’m lucky if I get 3 kills before squad is eradicated. But I’m not getting killed by rifles, I bet 85% of my deaths are due to SMG/LMG.
I never pulled the trigger on that extra squad slot, it might alleviate some of the frustration, by keeping a maxed out squads in that slot, now that I think about it.
And seems the only way my side wins a match is I have to always use maxed out squads or Tanks, and then it’s not a guarantee.
Just a thought - if all what you have is bolt action rifles - don’t rush the point or go into cqb? You still have grenades and can kill pretty much anyone at mid range, even long range if you brace weapon and aim.
Like I really fail to understand what you are complaining about. Each weapon has it’s pros/cons, that defines its role. In order for you to be mowed down by smg, you have to be in a close range to it. So don’t get close?
I’ve unlocked most of the squad upgrades now so my flamer, bomber unit has two assaults and one gunner. So it’s not really an issue anymore. It’s just those first few levels that are frustrating.
1 Like
Yes, they are kind of slow and then it tends to snowball as you get more and more unlocks. But it’s the same with any new squad, even tanks.
If not have each person with similar campaign levels matched up together , what if the total campaign level of each team is similar ?
Then the entire match would be decided by the (skill of the) few individuals that were lucky enough to have the highest levels in the match. It would only help with winrates, but not help kill-death ratios of low level players in any way, shape or form.