How about weapon battle rating?

Mess Room
1

yes, matchmaking is quite broken right now when new players get slaughter by veteran. So how should dev fix this?

Many people have suggested to make match based on campaign level. But people gonna say.
“How about when i’m level 26 but i want to play with full BA? I’ll get destroyed”

So how about dev introduce battle rating (BR) for weapon?
For example:
BA have BR 1.0
Starter SMG 1.5
etc.

make it so that a single high tier weapon won’t effect the overall player BR significantly. Because all weapon BR in player squads are calculated.
(meaning, just because you bring one M2 carbine in you squad, doesn’t mean you’ll fight someone with squad full of FG42.)

With this, i think the match will be more balance for new player.

“How about when we don’t have enough player for higher BR?”
well, either make the waiting longer or the match BR range wider.

lemmi know what you think.
(i’ll put this in mess room)

2 Likes
2

How about not, since there’s much more difference in how players use the weapons than in the weapons themselves.

TTK and such useless trivia are beloved by players and get blamed for all sorts of things - but are pretty much irrelevant compared to player ability (or not) and the number of shots that just miss!!

8 Likes
3

Also TTK on a bolt action when it 1shot bodyshots a lot of times would be lower than even some MGs lol. But yeah I just had a reply about something similar aswell, how lots of people would find it boring to play against the same stuff over and over again without a change. Plus most of the times what I’ve noticed is regardless of their weapons, good players will perform well and bad players will suffer. Even if the bad player has full squads of MP-43s and FG-42, maybe even a full squad of 5 Jumbos with german 75s for all I care, one little goblin (usually me) can just absolutely ruin their day when I notice what they are doing. Jumbo camping in the gray zone? Either rush in with 1 guy and absolutely take every advantage of the lack of situational awareness of most Jumbo players or just bring out the old trusty Pz IV J and get some sneaky little sideshots from our gray zone onto him. Maybe even snipe his weakspot if he is in the top 10% of Jumbo players and turns right towards me. Now if he was a top 1% Jumbo player and he angled I’d be in trouble but what are the chances of meeting one of them, right?

4

well, something need to be done. either this or campaign level-based match making

5

It does indeed, if players in forums can not agree with any suggestions, how are the devs ment too

6

It’s their fucking job?

2 Likes
7

No you actually have a point here - no point on getting hung up on ttk when random recoil patterns exist

8

I’m against guns segregation because I think it would be unnecessary, if not outright counterproductive by fragmentating the playerbase.

Never, ever since I started playing this game, not even after the most humiliating losses, have I felt like blaming the loss on being outgunned (talking about infantry weapons).

I don’t like bringing up “skillz” or “L2P” arguments, but it is undeniable that in this game the PLAYERS are the deciding factor in most matches.

Vehicles matter, but they become major game changers only when one side spams the most powerful ones, while the other team for whatever reason doesn’t counter them. (And anyway, even the ever-blamed CAS is currently a fraction of its formerly dreadful power.)

People with endgame gear often stomp newbies NOT because they have endgame gear, but because they gained said gear by spending a helluva lot of time playing the game and learning how to win more to maximize their XP, so they are veterans of the game… While newbies are, you don’t say, newbies!

Also, you must never forget that this game is FREE. This means that ANYBODY can try it without regrets. Hence, chances are that once in a while you will be in the same match with either literal kids, people who never played an FPS in their lives, people who don’t really give a crap and only want to fool around, or maybe even oldies trying out “these days’ hellish juvenile entertainments”.

I, for one, will sometimes let my son play Enlisted when he asks me to. That means, those times there will be a player running around with advanced guns, yet he’ll be a kid. (He’s actually not even that bad, the little pest trained quite a lot with Titanfall 2 multiplayer :sweat_smile:)

Some form of matchmaking may perhaps be possible, but is the playerbase large enough to afford it?

7 Likes
9

Honestly, when it comes to implementing matchmaker, this is far better idea than gating players by campaigns levels. We shouldn´t be forced to abandon earlier vehicles and weapons only because we passed certain level and are now required to go full auto on every trooper. (That was just an example)

However, there is not enough people to make matchmaker work just yet.

2 Likes
10

There’s nothing forcing you to use “full auto” with players seperated by campaign level - I dunno what you are talking about.

11

i don’t personally like the matchmaker based on campaign levels because once again, as i stated multiple times, levels do not define the skill of a player. ( especially if we consider that with premium account you can unlock one campaign in relatively easy.

and i don’t see how a br could work since seal clubbing could be tremendly present.

that’s why, in my opinion, equipment should have points.
based on weapons, weapons upgrade, soldiers veterancy, how many soldiers are present in the squad, and based on the points on your current louadout, you get in categories.

for example, i have 760 points of my whole squads, i’d get putted in match that are between people that min reches 600 points, and max 800 points. others will make a match above or belowe.

usually a range of equipment to balance things out so people can fight with same value of equipment.

yes, people could seal club with best equipment based on 4 guys. but that you would not gain many xp compared to latter equipments as you face " less " soldiers.

5 Likes
12

it’s basically BR with extra step.

but this fine too.

1 Like
13

My friend already made a weapon tier list:

Assaulter weapons/carbines:

image
image1100×1100 285 KB

LMGs:
image
image1100×1100 202 KB

Pistols:
image
image1100×1100 208 KB

Semi autos:
image
image1100×1100 234 KB

Damage and damage decrease over distance; RPM and magazine size; ammo amount; bullet not registered situation; recoil controllability; ability of mid range shooting, etc. At PING of ~140ms, representing Chinese players’ network environment.
Even myself has some disagreement with him.
So, it’s not easy to make tier rating for all kinds of taste.

2 Likes
14

I you ask me “weight” system could be best. As OP stated:

Let me give an example in Moscow. Don’t look at the points, I didn’t take much thought about them. Soldier level could also influence this but lets leave that out for now. Also I am using 3 same squads per side, which is not possible, but this is only for comparison.

Rifle squad 1 tier - Soviet (maximum number of points this squad can have is 180, 20 per squad member)
1 PPD 34/38 - 18 pts
3 SVT38 - 3 x 12 pts
5 Mosin 91/30 - 5 x 5 pts
1 AT Rifle - 1 x 10 pts
6 Demo packs = 6 x 10 pts
3 Hand Granades = 3 x 5 pts
14 Health packs = 9 x 1 pts
TOTAL = 178 pts

3 of these squads and BT7 tank (200 pts) equals = 737 PTS

Rifle squad 2 tier - German (maximum number of points this squad can have is 198, 22 per squad member)

5 Kar98k - 5 x 5 pts
2 Kar98k with Grenade Launcher - 2 x 15 pts
1 Gw41 - 1 x 12 pts
1 MG34 - 1 x 30 pts - note the cost of MG34 or any other very high performing gun
AT Rifle - 1 x 10 pts
6 Demo packs = 6 x 10 pts
3 Hand Granades = 3 x 5 pts
15 Health packs = 15 x 1 pts
TOTAL = 197 pts

3 of these squads and Pz III B (125 pts) tank equals = 716 PTS

Overall weight of these the players is very close and these would get in same match.

Note that some guns are over the limit of one man in squad. This would serve to limit the ability to have only 4 man Rambo squads as overall weight limit increases with team members.

2 Likes
15

Erm… what?!

No,
Just no.

I equip my troops historically, so most have BA rifles with the odd machine gun or smg, I have no problems using the stock rifle in a campaign to get kills against people using the top tier weapons, so how would this be any form of balance?
People complain that in tunisia the sten and MP28 are poor weapons, but that hasn’t stopped me from getting 20+ kills with them.
I don’t see what this system would achieve, other than giving players like myself much easier matches because of the weapons we use.

2 Likes
16

only mp28 is a poor weapon

17

I don’t have any issue with it at all, in fact, I often prefer it.

18

it’s just not really great to me, maybe because of the 20 round mag and slow ROF that just does it in for me

2 Likes
19

What part? I also equip my guys historically. I don’t even share guns in Tunisia.

I prefer Sten all the way. I even think Sten and A13 are the reasons why Allies are/were so dominant when most of the players were low level. Now it’s starting to get balanced as more and more people are unlocking MP40 and Berretta the experimental one.

1 Like
20

If you expect the devs (by devs I mean the company, not the coders) to modify anything, they would need to see the possibility of increased profits 1st.
Maybe they look at it as “If the new players don’t want to be farmed for XP, they just need to pay to progress”. Otherwise, why would they allocate any resources? Screw the minnows, they are fish food.

1 Like