NO to SBMM. It didnt work in CoD (the #2 reason i stopped playing (behind cheating). Why should players get punished all the time playing against sweats and try hards? If you want to see the unbalancing SBMM can create (along with sheer frustration), watch CoD gamplay clips. The best CoD player in the world only has a KDR slightly better than mine. Trust me. It’ll frustrate players.
Cool. Continue the stomping. i will 100% guarantee if SBMM is implemented, then you will no longer get to top of the table, wont be stomping ever again… EVER, every single game you enter will be a sweat fest, and gone are the days of a relaxing game. Watch CoD clips with SBMM and how every player is literally screaming in frustration with SBMM.
1 Like
I’ve changed my stance on SBMM shortly after this post. But literally everything you’ve just stated solidifies the fact that Enlisted needs a drastically better matchmaking system. It looks like you just wanna streamroll the fuck out of players every round with no exception. It’s fucking boring on both ends, and there need to be more matches with competent players on both sides giving it their all.
Which already happens due to the complete lack of matchmaker?
So they have to hold back to not get too good of a KRD? Sounds like actual balance to me.
Equipment based MM doesn’t work as the community hates the concept of uptiers. It’s literally SBMM or EBMM. There is no other option.
Their KD is barely higher because it will only match them with the top 500 or so players, who are also sweaty try hards. This is supposed to be a casual game. If when I’m playing a casual game and I have to play sweaty every match or throw every other match intentionally I’ll stop playing, just like I did with COD Cold War
You can just play casually. You don’t have to do either of those, and if you are the FPS god you proclaim to be you will end up in the higher but not top echelons of the SBMM.
If I could win the game but choose not to because it would boost my mmr, then I consider that throwing. So yes, I would indeed be throwing games in my opinion.
Well then you are a natural tryhard. To be clear, that is not intended to be an insult or anything like that.
I myself am really more casually oriented and enjoy just climbing into attics etc, so naturally my win% will be a bit lower than someone who solely focuses on winning like you. However, that is not an argument towards implementing or not implementing SBMM, as long as there are no rewards for being in the higher echelons of the SBMM.
I personally would prefer a gear based MM over SBMM, though. But people seem to hate the thought of getting uptiered so 
We need one or the other if we are to get balanced matches. So we just have to choose the lesser of two evils.
I’d prefer to see a campaign level based mm where both teams have an equal amount of campaign levels per team. But the players can still vary in campaign level. This would match up players better than currently and lead to a more balanced match without punishing the good players
That does not take low level smurf accounts with premium squads into account, which are significantly more powerful than normal low level players, or how much players have actually upgraded their squads during those levelups. And it would not sufficiently protect low level players without high skill or premium squads to compensate from the high level players either.
I don’t think you can get it to be perfectly balanced for any video game with an unlocking system. As you’ve stated people will create new accounts to stomp the noobs then they’ll quit and make another to keep doing it if theres SBMM or campaign bracketing. As for what I’ve suggested, statistically the odds of one whole side bringing only unleveled squads and the other bringing fully leveled squads is pretty low. Its much more likely that both teams will have similar squad levels and composition. I know it’s not perfect but I think its the best solution thats fair.
I myself prefer using the stars of weapons and soldiers, and taking the max star value for your matchmaker tier, and having like +/-1-2 stars that you could get matched against. Prevents speed-leveling to high tier gear, takes premium squads into account, etc. The only thing is that certain stuff (think FG42 etc) should have higher stars than they have currently (7-9 stars) without affecting their upgrade costs. It even takes gun upgrades into account this way.
It’s pretty close to campaign levels as you naturally get higher tier stuff as you progress to the campaign, but it’s more nuanced.
See for me if I wanted to get around this I would just run unupgraded bolt actions, smgs, and low star lmgs and run one-two fully upgraded soldiers so overall my stars would be really low. This would let me stomp anyone I faced. I probably wouldn’t do it but its a pretty easy way to get to face noobs and just stomp them.
We could also include higher stars for larger squads, so a 9-man infantry squad would be 5 stars, while a 4 man squad would be 0 stars. That way, you have to really come down to the level of newbies in terms of gear. And then the higher skill becomes basically irrelevant as that can ALWAYS be circumvented through smurf accounts. And I’d like to think you’d want to use your acquired higher level gear at some point anyways.
You can never completely root out smurf accounts. Your suggested system would not stop me from making a new account and stomp noobs until I level up a few times, rinse and repeat, either.
My system would match overall campaign levels, so theoretically resets would be much farther between because the influence is much less. For example, Team one consists of a level 3, 5, 8, 8 ,10, 11, and 12 player. Team 2 consists of a 4, 7, 7, 7, 9, 10, and 13 player. These teams are evenly balanced in terms of levels at 57. And due to the (currently) large playerbase quitting to make a new account wont help you.
Yet newbies would still get stomped by the high level players in the lobbies, making team balance balanced, perhaps, but player balance as bad as it currently is. Might as well stick to a SBMM but having roughly the same ELO rating per team, instead of taking high ELO with high ELO only. Neither of those would actually make the game fair or more fun to play for a new player. It would only slightly help even out winrates.
I personally think that a matchmaker’s priority should be ensuring people have fun, even if they lose, instead of focusing on that 50% winrate.
I’d argue that giving both teams an even chance is the best option. SBMM doesn’t encourage players to get better. It encourages them to not try.
If both sides have roughly equal gear, they statistically have roughly equal chances to win. No side will be at a disadvantage because they happen to have more bolt action rifles (11 level 1s + 1 level 26 vs all level 3s that have SMGs). It would allow all players to have fun even if their skill is not the best, and nobody would feel they lost a firefight because some max level god walked by and nuked everything with LMGs. In terms of winning, it would be entirely up to the player’s skills to win. This game doesn’t have an extremely high skill ceiling to abuse. A new player, that has a decent understanding of FPS mechanics, can easily top score. As such, the equipment difference is much more important to balance out than skill. And your system simply does not achieve any kind of equipment balance.
1 Like
I’m too high for this shit right now. I literally just want matches where I’m not the only player on my team who’s on top of the leaderboard, even if our side is losing.
Lose the ****ing planes. Too many times a match is completely one sided because a team will have too many players that don’t have any sort of counter to them unlocked. If we wanted planes, we’d be playing warthunder, not enlisted. They are way too overpowered for this game as ot stands.