Maybe we'll finally get matchmaking?

The reason why matchmaking is needed


The game starts with a lost point.

Five cripples remain for my team, and the enemy has 4-5 players of top levels.

And so the reason is in quite frequent such battles.In one team there are beginners and bots - in the other team there are high-level with premium squads\premium and etc.

What in my opinion should matchmaking be like

  1. All levels must meet each other.

  2. Both teams must be equal in the sum of the players’ levels.

  3. If there are not enough players to fill in completely, then you must fulfill point 2.There should not be 4 bots in one team in the other 5. (Maybe already so).

  4. The bot must come at the same level as the escaped player.

Basically it should be, the rest is trivia.

1 Like

Matchmaking won’t come, there aren’t enough players as is because of the Campaign system.

If you force people to be on the same/ similar level, matches will take minutes to find.

Like, nobody plays Tunisia or Berlin Axis at the moment.
The only campaign this MIGHT work for is Normandy.
Moscow is hit and miss with balanced teams.

3 Likes

This function can then be done at the player’s choice.

Bots usually have better equipment than players who leave.

Tunisia for example, bot squads have the M1927 Thompson SMG and even a M1918A2 BAR on the allied side and the Axis have been seen to have the MG.34 and Barretta M38/42

One is unobtainable and one is the top tier weapon.

But again, this is where there needs to be incentives to play the underpopulated side.
DF need to encourage people to play the weaker teams, like 2x XP or extra Silver Orders.

The idea you have of just forcing the game to seperate good players with more bots won’t work and will just stale the game with mostly AI matches.

This is only in Tunisia.
In Moscow\Normandy\Berlin bots with low-level weapons.

Anyway, this is a different topic.Not about matchmaking.Of course, everything should be comprehensive, but specifically this topic is about matchmaking, which must be.

We already have only PvE and coop due to the lack of matchmaking.

Bots don’t fly planes nor drive tanks. It is easy way to tell if the game is full of bots.

sso what if a level 32 is using level 5 stuff?

1 Like

First of all, this is a rare situation.
Secondly, maybe can do it a little differently.Let the squads that the player had be used.

Of course the playerbase cant achieve it.
But dev still IGNORE current unbalanced team.
I have ask for compensate for those in unbalanced side for ages.
If they can’t do a proper matchmaking due to playerbase, but what about to compensate it?

1 Like

Would be nice as an optional feature but not as a default.
So far, every game with aggressive matchmaking had serious issues with finding a right way to balance things out.
First, it can’t function in absolutes as you described in the rules. Even COD have to do flexible matchmaking because there are too many variables to set and follow an absolute rules.
Second, is a matter of priorities of what is more important - network performance or similarity in skill level. Big difference in skill is not good but gathering people with large ping difference is even worse.
Third, no way to measure a skill level outside of a specific competitive culture. A level of the player in campaign, means very little, it doesn’t reflect on their ability to play a game. Using things like K/D and etc. is not good either.
Forth, in any sort of setup where teamplay gives advantage, you have no way of ensuring that specific people on the team are teamplaying or not. Like how people had meta teams in Pubg, where game has no idea that 2 teams on the map are actually from the same clan and etc.

Here is an example of how even COD, with playerbase comparative to CS, fails to stay fun because of matchmaking. I get bored, so create a new loadout where my main weapon is some awful pistol. It sucks, my K/D goes down so COD starts to match me with players who play worse. Regardless of how other people play, it takes time to learn new weapon and you are slowly get better. Your K/D goes up and COD start to match you with better players, until it goes all the way up to try-hards and now game is not fun anymore as playing against try-hards is generally not fun.

You want the fastest and easiest solutiton, just join the official discord or some find some community to find people to play with. I don’t think any of that would be implemented, but what i agree is to have some stadistics for each campaign and weekly boost with xp the loosing side.

but what if i, whom has all rifleman with boltactions

I glad for you

Reasonable matchmaking. I’d probably just ignore point #1, as it might take a while to have mirror lvls on both sides. Point #2 would suffice though, both teams having same total lvls

1 Like

1.It is about situation.You can at 1lvl fight again pz4e,can no.And something.

I like those situations. I remember in Moscow when the biggest tanks were pz4 and t28, facing those as lv1 infantrymen. I LOVED every minute of it: I felt fright from those metal monsters and learnt to play accordingly.

I liked that so much that I’m doing the same in Normandy: I only use vanilla squads in wich I DO NOT buy better weapons, nor fill the maximum of men per squad (like a new ftp player would) and I’m having a blast.

It’s why the only point I’m against is mirror lvl for everyone. Would be boring. Each teams having the same total of lvl all players combined would work, though.

1 Like

How is it? you say bots must have same equipment, I prove you wrong, suddenly its “different topic”.

This makes no sense.

Sorry but your counter argument is terrible.

The answer to all occasions.

If you didn’t notice, the answer was above the quote, not below.