Matchmaker Problems and loosing streaks

[tchof_]

I hope these ‘‘big changes’’ we are waiting have something to do with matchmaker

I was playing Moscow allies and i haven’t won a single match today. Win-rate shouldn’t be affected by the amount of players choosing to grind a certain side more in the current time period. From my experience it’s not even the bots, my team was most of the time new players with early and mid-game equipment who actually build rally points and at least try to play good. The only problem is that players who don’t even have semi auto rifle unlocked have to fight against veteran players who run around fully automatic and spawn end game tanks and camp in the grey zone as soon as they can.

It’s really a cruel way to torture new players like that, darkflow
I literately just had a game with mostly low rank players having to fight a team with 8 marshals. That’s like 80% of enemies are Veteran rank. The only marshal on our team left 2 min after start
I even dropped ranks because of this matchmaker

[Liah_Kim]

Bot matches or matchmaker based on campaign split: “early game” and “end game”

Simplest Matchmaker solution: "Playground"

Ofc, any MM need players, so solution like this should be implemented first: Campaign of the week - solving online problems Idea: split every campaign in two parts: before first good firearm and after. With this solution starters won’t face tryhards with end-game equipment. Moscow - 11 lvl (Drum PPD / MP40) Stalingrad - 9 lvl (SVT 38 / Gewehr (W)) Berlin - 7 lvl (SVT 40 / Gewehr 43) Normandy - 7 lvl (Garand / Gewehr 43) Tunisia - lvl 12 (M1 carbine / Italian semi) Pacific - lvl 10 (M1 car…

[tchof_]

I don’t think we should split campaigns more

It’s a good thing new players have a chance to steal a cool weapon from a dead soldier and see if the weapon is really worth the effort

But the amount of new players should be matched with the same amount of new players on the enemy team

[Liah_Kim]

Splitting campaigns on first 5-10 levels is perfect, cause there is high concentration of players on first couple levels.

Imagine stealing Tiger with your Stuart

[Lisqs]

just let us queue for any axis/allies campaign, im willing to sacrifice anything over balanced matches and i can not come up with any drawbacks of this solution

[Liah_Kim]

50 players wanting to play Allies in Moscow and 5 – for Axis. How you can balance it with waiting?

[Lisqs]

are you referring to my suggestion? if so then

@Liah_Kim

Allies in Moscow

you would queue for any campaign as allies or axis, so there’s no “Moscow”, as soon as there would be any possible game at any campaign for people gathered they would be put into one. And obviously this would allow for system to by picky and choose players that even themselves

[Liah_Kim]

Why not to make search for any side in any campaign?
And that doesn’t solve problem of full noob team facing full pro team in Moscow.

[Lisqs]

@Liah_Kim

Why not to make search for any side in any campaign

this is up to devs, it’s just suggestion after all.

@Liah_Kim

full noob team facing full pro team in Moscow.

and that’s the point, look, there’s Normandy axis strong and there allies Moscow strong (let’s say that is) so if those players get be mixed out it wouldn’t be so any team is full pro/full noob. At least form my perspective.

[Liah_Kim]

Than you need to somehow attract players to that feature.

[Lisqs]

and that wouldn’t be hard, simple xp bonus or whatever, also you would need to manage every single squad from any campaign in order to have great games since you will be put in any campaign match, that makes people more into spending money, there’s more maps to explore as people tend to lock themselves into one campaign until they max it out and this is not healthy for the game as people gets bored and quit because they don’t want to grind another campaign all over again, not to mention unlocking same weapons and you know …

[Liah_Kim]

My first ever suggestion on the forum was literally this.
Because when you start the game, you want to try everything, but switching campaigns manually is boring, uncomfortable and unrewarding at all.

[Lisqs]

ikr? this is so intuitive to have, i hope we will. “choose any side” as right now is not good bcs people rather stick to a fraction rather than campaign. like i hate playing allies any campaign.

[tchof_]

@Liah_Kim

attract players to that feature.

I think players will just constantly leave the game until they get the campaign they want to grind

And I think punishing players for leaving isn’t necessary because enlisted doesn’t have competitive mode

[Liah_Kim]

@tchof_

I think players will just constantly leave the game until they get the campaign they want to grind

Don’t give the bonus, if 2 previous “random” matches weren’t finished without leaves?

[_i4i]

I have been back for about 3 weeks, or so after not playing for 340 days, see the Pacific campaign and start playing game again.
In this years BP you get a 12 game 100%, and a few days later a 12 game 50%
I documented my progress using mainly allies the for the bonus 12 game 100% and 12 game 50% bonuses and also a 300% game, in towards end of 12 game 100%.

One would in theory should of been able to achieve, more than a lvl or two from what i end up with, considering the bonuses.

First of all, to all the top rank gold players, that stuck it out, probably knowing full well you about to, in all chances get analed and played games through to end, legends, thank you.

What i take from this, and some of the way un-even sides, is a tendency to,

If a gold ranked player sees more gold ranked players in other team, they will disconnect, as currently its only 1 point for loosing a game, or disconnecting, hence more just bail.

as currently, if TOP rank gold, sees more gold on other side, and is going to get analed, in a game they run away, Desert the battlefield, would be shot irl??,

Maybe a bigger points loss for bailing on games would be a little place to start in fixing MM, say 3-5points for deserting??

and to also address stat padding a bit, by currently bailing, and just joining winning games, and only playing one side, to get these gold ranks, in the first place

Maybe make ranks, so its the combined scores of both sides of campaign you playing? not just one side, of one campaign, and if doing more than one campaign, then you could accrue all those campaign rank into a global ranking, of combined scores?

Maybe remove ability, to un tick join any team, maybe one could just play both sides.

Just a few ideas

So below some examples of mis matched teams/games, not all are as they seem, some seem fine, there just in my because some high rank left, or it just shows, that a 9 minute game isnt much fun, when you face a team of gold and there all trying to beat each other to kills and the win.

i am not whinging about my skill issues, just more whinging how easy it easy to manipulate ranks, by just playing one side and people just bailing, because they going to loose a game, and the penalty for leaving such, is none existent.

Got to love the irony, in last SS a win, but check the teams

[Lisqs]

@tchof_

I think players will just constantly leave the game until they get the campaign they want to grind

that would be simply stupid i mean they would have still access to play specific campaign like right now, and the one I’ve mention would be additional feature.

[Shiivex]

@tchof_

. The only marshal on our team left 2 min after start

no MM will fix that.

ever

as long as the game goes around grind, 0 reason to stay on a loosing match

[Liah_Kim]

@Shiivex

as long as the game goes around grind, 0 reason to stay on a loosing match

Providing bonuses to an unbalanced teams?

[Shiivex]

how many bonus one needs until it is totally frustrated?

MM wont fix shit… its just another way or excuses for people to leave… lol