Some players think the new matchmaking is going to make the match too sweaty and stressful, so introduce bots to matches may still be a good idea, what is important is SAME NUMBER OF BOTS ON BOTH SIDE.
From my idea, the biggest bot-caused problem in the current system, is that bots are used to cover unbalanced number of players, which the source is still unbalanced number of players, so if that is solved by campaign merge and nation based matchmaking, introduce same number of bots to both side where there is already same number of players will only make the game more relaxed and not likely going to introduce any balancing issues, and that should also help a quicker queuing.
e.g.
1:1 in the lowest battle rating which help players to learn without too much difficulty that may cause them to leave the game, specially considering there is a possibility that late game players may also go to low BR to farm new players. That means 5 players and 5 bots ON EACH SIDE.
2:1 in higher battle rating which most of fight is between players to make the game fun, but less skilled players may still enjoy the game and progress. That means 7 players and 3 bots ON EACH SIDE.
4 Likes
Maybe the ratio should be randomized each match, for variety? And I think, that it will be. My guess is, that time of day and weekend/weekday and thus number of players available will dictate the number of bot teams.
I certainly would be disappointed if I was to never experience any really sweaty matches in low BR every so often, since I expect I will spend most of my time there.
1 Like
It is enough that they give a bonus to players who have the option of any of the parties and the problem of too many bots on one of the parties will solve itself.
Yeah, it could be random or depending on time and server in order to reduce queuing time when there are smaller number of players, but not below certain threshold value (e.g. 1:2 minimum) so the game never become less fun bot farming.
For that I meant lower player/bot ratio only at the lowest BR like reserve (1.0) in War Thunder, not a large range of low BR.
1 Like
I would still say a balanced game experience with campaign merge is necessary. Because people do not play the game only for progression to a future enjoyment but also fun in each match, so only economic rewards could make people feel forced to play weaker or less attractive side, and it become less enjoyable. Also some players may abuse that system by deserting from the not preferred side which cause a bad game environment.
as long as there are 4 potential vehicles in use, the minimum amount of actual players per team should be close to 8.
personally I feel like there should be a total vehicle counter - combining both tank and plane slots to having maximum 3 vehicles per team.
1 Like
Maybe a dynamic vehicle number limit could be implemented if they are willing to release name and number of bots in a match after the new matchmaking, e.g. total vehicle number<50% of number of active player, so there is always enough number of active infantry. Too low vehicle number limit could also lead to a condition that when all vehicles are occupied by less skilled players, that team lose a lot of advantage.
1 Like
They will never achieve balance in this game regarding player balance on both teams, and they cannot control players quitting behavior without taking drastic actions
so the only way to really leave games fun would be to reduce the maximum amount of human players on each team. I would suggest 6 as the optimal number, so 2 vehicles, and 4 infantry squads
the other 4-6 squads can be bots
but they really need to improve their ai
until they work on their ai, this game will always remain a bit of a joke of a game
2 Likes