I really hope the game will grow enough to allow for 0± matchmaking. I think the devs should test it for like a week and see what player feedback is.
BR I is the most bolt-action friendly territory and there’s some iconic weapons like the Mosin, K98 and Springfield so it has it’s niche. There are no MGs, Semis and SMGs have low mag capacity along with low damage/low fire rate making them much less prone to allow squad wiping.
BR II is where SMGs start taking overall. The BR II bolts are capable of standing up to them, yet many dismiss them due to the difficult learning curve and skill requirement, so many just drop them in favour of COD run ‘n’ gun and Spray n’Pray gameplay and just start building for SMG squad cycling.
Nothing can really be done unless changes are enforced. Most seem to favour BR locking, I’d rather look into restricting certain assets often abused by veterans, who have the means, and enforcing a more newbie friendly gameplay, at least in low BR.
1 Like
±0 otherwise you’re just providing easier deal clubbing
1 Like
Sure, as said. 9/10 games are steamrolls.
Are you behind the wheel 9/10 times or getting your ass handed to you by group abusing BR3 equipment in BR2 game, is irrelevant as in both cases the result is same.
Its waste of time.
It is by far the easiest solution that limits people least.
If it was up to me there would be SBMM and various other methods to get much as possible of those 1/10 games that are fun and could end up either way without being steamroll.
Id gladly take increased que times regardless even if they were 5min or more.
Like I said, let the devs cook, if they follow the suggestion of BR locks in the future, we can see the results of such change and determine afterwards, whether it was useful or harmful to the game/player base.
As for longer que times, what would be the determinant for getting into a match?
Win rate? A 75% win rate Solo player far exceeds the quality of a 75% win rate squad player.
KDA? A 3.0 KDA pure inf guy can wipe the floor with a 3.0 KDA vehicle enthusiast.
Due to the variety of conditions, choosing a determining factor for skill-based matchmaking would be too difficult in Enlisted.
one could argue 99,999999% are solos so the few squad players hardly tips the scale in any direction.
Make it 10
Then dont try to apply one metric, rather take everything in account.
So like. You know they can make it based off of more than one stat right? Crazy shit I know
Currently KDA is taken from all kills so that would require some work to separate. Secondly win rate across all 5 BRs varies on each faction due to each BRs varying player skill impacting win %, so either the SBMM would have to be done individually for each BR and across each faction.
Or you can just take all the values across factions and smash them together, however that could hurt faction migration, since trying out new faction would still put you into a game of your skill, however without the same options - not having weapons or vehicles researched etc.
The SBMM is a can of worms I’d love to open myself since stomps ain’t fun even for the winning side, but I doubt it would lead anywhere as the effort to implement it correctly is immeasurable and most likely not within the current capability of Enlisted devs, the BR lock would already be a long term goal.
Thanks for the wonderful input, but we’re having a polite discussion. Stick to the sewers with that attitude
Sorry for making fun of a bad argument. Make a good one next time and maybe that won’t happen
Then I’ll expand upon the problem. Consider that some stats can be easily farmed.
Win rate - just go squadding with comms, will result in an easy 70 - 80% win rate
KDA - just go vehicles or abuse certain weapons
How would a SBMM differentiate from someone with stats mostly in SMGs and a guy with spread out stats across B, Semis, SMGs and MGs? See, even if you take into account multiple values it would just be a mess to make sense of. Those values could still not tell apart pure skill players from players abusing META builds.
It doesn’t matter the players skill level. It matters their performance. If someone is less skilled but they use better equipment than they should still be rated on the same level as someone higher skilled but same performance due to poor equipment choices. If someone isn’t that skilled but they always play in a team than they should still be match made based off their performance. Performance is a combination of stats. Sbmm is a misnomer. You don’t want sbmm you want performance based match making.
No one is trying to figure cure to cancer here.
So expecting sbmm to be flawless in a game where AI still frequently blocks your shots after 5 years is quite a demand.
Anything that gives even a minor chance to get better games is better than sticking to this cluster fk we have.
1 Like
Speaking truth, a sad one though, just yesterday those dumb f stood right in front of HMG nest.
Just afraid it’ll be another f up on their side tbh. Just looking at the no-progress AI behaviour makes me doubt they’d put in the necessary effort and it will just backfire.
Can’t say I agree completely with the statement about skill and performance, but having seen the average player performance I guess you’d be right in most cases. Still dislike the idea as my own performance would result in me going up against AP spam SMG META cyclers, which I whole-heartedly hate.
What if instead of doing ±0 BR, we introduce 0.5 BR points? Not that Im for such idea, rather I am asking out of curiosity.
Why???
Like 1 - 1.5 - 2 - 2.5 with 1.5 facing 1 and 2?
No. Still have same issue. Each BR facing their own is fair game right? Xxx
1 Like
I guess, doesn’t Warthunder have such system?