Hi! Loved the update so far and was really pleased at how it worked out, but there are some things that should be checked again and readjusted so the game becomes more fun and fair for everyone.
My first point is that I’ve saw that the Tier that the match sets up, is estrictly connected with the weapon/vehicle which has the most value (in terms of Tier), and this is a big problem as the point of the new matchmaking is dividing the gropus of players by their equipment and obviously experience.
But in my case and undoublty other people, I have some Tier IV weapons (semiauto rifles) and only 1 Tier V assault rifle that I got for a golden order in a daily reward, but most of my weapons are Tier III/II and it’s not fair that I have to play against people with better equipment and experience than me.
So for this this matter I suggest that the Tier given to players, is based on the amount of weapons of one Tier type, let’s say that someone like me has more Tier III and II weapons than IV and V, so logically it’s Tier should be III as it doesn’t have that much equipment at hand, it has to be rounded up fairly, the more weaponry of better quality it has, the higher the Tier it should be for the match.
And as far a for the maps, the idea that maps are tied to groups is horrible, as it locks you up for no reason for a more diverse and richer experience in battle, all the maps should be available for any Tier match, and only it should be taken into account the amount and the quality of the weaponry of a player, at the very least there should be a filter for the types of game and maps that you want to play.
I don’t think its an unreasonable suggestion, and don’t think that the community will be toxic about it.
The issue is in what is already flawed implementation of “soft filters” ie those which were meant to prevent out of campaign equipment rampaging across the Enlisted meta scape.
Something went wrong there, so it comes down to the coding level and the devs attention to detail.
The simpler response to the OP is that it would be very hard to make exceptions of the nature you ask since folks could create some very broken combinations that make no sense either historically or campaign wise. But that is more of an observation based on previous Enlisted contruct habits, the current free for all version may be able to accommodate some level of random weapons before changing the overall BR of the squad, not sure what the code level mechanics of this would need to be, and how exploitable will this become in the long term.
For example, currently the 82mm mortars have been punted into BR V, whereas historically they should be available from BR I or II at the very least. I’d be happy to compromise and see them at BR III, but this is one example of the fact that there are 2 mortars per squad, could I equip them and keep the rest of the squad equipment at BR III or below and keep BR III ?
Countless similar proposes have already been made before merge. But DF prefer their simple BR system.
Also, community will oppose a system which appears too complex mathematically, even if it may bring a more balanced and interesting gaming experience.
They always argue that rules may be abused, leading to unfairness, regardless the fact that current system is also unfair and rules can be modified to avoid abuse.
They say creating a complex and fair system is too difficult for developers, and they prefer a simple but less fair system. So why not? Since players don’t require it, developers only need to develop a simple and less fair system, after all, this is what players want.
It’s not too hard for them to fix the system all it takes is us being honest and them acting fast enough to fix the problem before the community dies with the information getting out
And another thing in all my time playing this game I’ve learned this game does not teach kindness so that’s why I have no hope in giving any information
