Lets say a player get high kills % with a tank - match them with players who mainly use infantry
That way you don’t have 10 Tankers/plane in one match fighting for the 2 tank/plane slots
Same for matching players with higher kills with engineer built structures vs non
or matching skilled AT Gunners with good MG’s
I know player base currently isnt large enough for this to make sense, but I’m thinking down the road
Bad idea 
Players who use tanks should fight against other tanks.
Who use planes - against other planes.
Infantry against the infantry.
Snipers against the snipers - this one will be extremely funny 
I think OP means within your team… In order to prevent too many people in the a same role. The issue with this though is squads can have different roles and some roles are situational to what you see in that game (for example at gunner doesn’t really do much if nobody on enemy team brings a tank). Overall…I don’t see this being a good addition. We already have caps for vehicles and such which are enough… But there is room to discuss changes to those.
No that’s not what I’m saying, the matchmaking would determine who you fight WITH not AGAINST
So you wouldnt have 10 snipers on a team, or 10 tankers, but a blend of different roles
And how you will determine that person wants to use X squad this match and only that thing through entire match? Whole idea is dumb. I have 10 squad slots and will use what’s the most useful against the current threat.
Data and how theyve played historically
I feel like it would only apply to a few classes, that players may either play a lot or not play at all, like Flametrooper and sniper,
Yeah that’s a good point about the vehicle caps,
Idk I got to the fourms kinda late and Im mainly just trying to make contributions but all of the low hanging fruit of new ideas have already been mentioned so im reaching a bit
The key mechanic that opens up choices for players is coupled with the monetised portion of the game. The game is free, so there has to be a trade off.
You can’t impose limitations on players who monetise the game in order to experience the full range of combat options that the devs make available.
Now the game should and is being tweaked for balance, but only at that extreme range of options, on the assumption that there are some players who will have access to those options.
This is where the devs are focused in my opinion, and so if you’re not operating at that range of options then potentially that’s a choice you made.
Atm the game needs monetisation to generate new content and someone has to pay for it. Once a game has a much larger player base and a steady income stream then they can play the altruistic card and offer more content for the F2P crowd - most pay to play games run that balancing act in the long term anyway.
Limiting and artificially constraining player choices is not the way to go, helping all players understand where the full spectrum of options starts and end is, and there should be more advertising effort to make it clear to players that you can play the game for free, but you are unlikely to be competing on a level playing field, and that’s even before we get to the actual tech progression tree and weapon optimisation.