Especially if dev is doing the WT’s way:
Only counting the highest BR of player’s loadout.
And in Enlisted, it unlike WT , where a single high BR weapons (or squads) will work.
In WT, you only need one tank of that type is enough.
In enlisted, you need to issue the more powerful equipments for all soldiers in all squads. Having a single STG with rest of soldiers using K98k is not working at all.
It can create situation for newbies purchased a late war premium squads, but rest of his squads are basic squads. When he may be get crushed really hard.
Also, doubt dev having ability to actually get enough and even amount of same BR players for both sides. ATM, game can’t even provide basic team balance (or having same amount of humans for both sides.) Hope they get a really attracting XP boosters for those select join both sides.
Lastly, why it’s not based on players’ ranks? Shouldnt this be a much better indicator (if dev fix it properly) for balance? Most mobile games use player’s win/lose ratio for how powerful he is.
I think they will auto increase BR selected range if there’s not enough players. (But some of current campaigns have super unbalanced player ratio, this may not working if players still select one faction extremely)
No SBMM because it discourage players to learn and improve by punish them with stronger enemy. Also it will be very difficult for a less skilled player to improve if they only play with other less skilled players.
Moreover, there is always a way to abuse SBMM system if old players wish, such as by deliberately not making contribution to their team.
Its so easy to abuse new system.
Br is mainly based on weapons stats and all bolt actions are low
Veterans can Just give bolt actions to every soldier and select some low level vehicle like panzer 2 .
If you are good at bolties you can shred any newbie easily.
Unless they completely overhaul this system, it is NOT a good measurement to go by.
Those playing even minimally well skyrocket on their ranks. It currently doesn’t take much. Just playing a lot of games and using basic common sense really.
Myself and everyone I play with are “Marshal” Rank 500+ on average without breaking a sweat. Is it because we are exceptionally good at the game? Realistically NO. It’s because everyone else we get teamed up with and often times play against are worse than AI.
Anyways, overhaul the “rank” system, then maybe go off it for team balancing.
Player who just used sniper in all matches bcs he was obsessed with kd ration then objective
Or
Just like to spam high end planes and dont play infantry too much
All these variations can kill more than other good player who play the objective and have higher kd ratio, theorically.
Skill based mm is too problematic. Even good players who play bf and cod like games complaning about needless sweating in every match
“Skill based matchmaking” should be looking to balance a team in regards to their preferred squad setups in addition to their performance.
What I mean is that instead of only getting players that run assaulter, tanks, planes, etc. With high kill counts and lots of points, attention needs to be paid to things like engineering points as well. Those that sacrifice their score to better help the team.
A good mix is needed of main force players and support players, not just who has “x” gear or who has greeded for the most kills in every game.
eh, tanks are one that I kind of disagree with you on. If the enemy are actually focusing on killing tanks, it can take some skill, but most games I see tanks sitting far away on a hill getting easy kills all game long.
Because tanks are not mounted cavalry.
They designed to have : mobility+ fire power from distance+ armor protection.
A lesson learned at ww1 trench deadlock.
If you are talking about greyzone tankers yeah i hate them
But a tanker who is not in greyzone, find good distant position and providing fire support is not bad gaming
If they are sitting back, only killing what runs into their line of sight from their safe position (either in greyzone or side of the map) and NOT stemming the tide of enemies from an important direction, then that is bad. I see this exact thing in almost every game.
If they hold a main entry point, thats different, though tanks are still needed sometimes to push objectives at all across open ground. Even if it is to die and create a wreck that players can use for cover.
Several maps on Tunisia for example: if you try running across the open field, you will get mowed down by MGs. Even if you have a tank sitting on the hill shooting at infantry moving from their spawn, that doesn’t really help your team as needed. HOWEVER, if you move your tank up to block the MG line of sight, even if you are killed, that significantly helps your infantry.
There are more roles to be played with a tank than “sit back in a safe spot and be artillery”. That is whatfield guns are for. The heavy tanks’ role is to push through an area that infantry alone simply cannot get through.
I can understand why, though. I’d prefer to more closely support infantry but I can’t rely on them to stop the guy running up and dancing on top of my tank.