Remember the player council?
Ok but no more lvl 5 with premium 13.0 planes in top tier… ( guys you really dont want skillbase matchmaking in war thuner )
1 Like
That would be fun…!
The only problem is the queue , really.
In World of Warcraft they made solo queue rated, i played some, but after a point in ranking you had like 1h queue , so if you really wanted to play you sabotaged yourself to not go that high in ranking.
Imagine here which is lower population game.
The only reason to not want that, are the queues…
Even for the new people, or bad in game people it would be hell better experience.
u cant just… ban most of the players from a given br, it just doesnt work like that, its part of the suffering while grinding and also, how do you think lvl 100 players start new tech trees? its a quick jump to 2.0 anyways which has alot less level 100 players, im myself a level 100 and saying “not fair” is not very wise, if u want a solution for no lvl 100 in low tier then maybe suggest a “new gamemode per br”, which isnt very smart aswell as it makes no sense to make a new gamemode just becase new players are… new
- You’re not my supervisor
- If low tiers can buy into high tiers then i can play low tier
- I’m spading stuff
- I’m playing with friends
- High tier can be cancer and i just want to chill
- See 1.
Fanks
4 Likes
there’s high and mid level players grinding other tech trees so its common to see them in low ranks, there’s also new players in higher tiers due to premiums… regardless of that, low tier its a dogshit fest and its fun in it’s own way, i think it depends more in the vehicle itself bcoz you can have lvl 100 players in some of the worst tanks or being target of artillery/planes and in that situation it doesnt matter how good you are if there’s a bomb next to you or you were unlucky enough to be in the path of artillery while playing open top low tier tank then chances are you are done for regardless of skill or experience lol
you either find them in the most broken aircraft or in a funny/shit tank/airplane… there is probably no in between…
That’s all you had to say. Each era / tier is fun in its own way. 100%.
In fact, the only one that isn’t really fun in its own way is top-tier. Unless you like MBT spam.
Upfront:
Very nice post - and i share your opinion that everybody should be able to play which BR he wants to play.
Short reply:
-
The main issue within this thread is the topic is actually NOT “high level players at low BRs” - the issue is that the game is designed to be imbalanced like hell (at entry BRs) in order to create the illusion for new players that grinding the TT as f2p player is a walk in the park.
-
So new players progress way faster than their ability to gain experience - and players are usually not able to assess why they progress; they can not distinguish if their success is based on played vehicle or nation - or based on actual skill.
-
In order to create this illusion gaijin offers vehicles which are objectively seen op (over powered) and they buff & nerf vehicles not only based on average performance - the BRs and the MM are tools to steer player behaviour and to encourage & support selling / buying premium products.
-
If you try to look neutral on this topic the main issue is not really the difference of player levels - it is more the feeling of being totally helpless if you get clapped by a long term player which uses experience advantage and uses superior hardware at the same time.
-
So it is logical that rather new players focus way too much on the player level of their opponents but they miss the decisive factor in this equation:
The BR setting policy of gaijin is a mess and at lower ranks the game is unbalanced like hell. -
The core issue is that gaijin claims that players would have a realistic fighting chance even in a full uptier which is objectively seen a fairy tale if both vehicles of the same class are controlled by equally skilled players. Just try to fight a BR 4.3 Yak-3 in a BR 3.3 Sakeen…
Additional remark regarding fair matches:
From my pov players and gaijin have complete different understandings of “what is a fair game play” and how the game should be played and balanced. So players think more about fair chances in direct 1 vs 1 but gaijin chases the Holy Grail of MMOs - balanced by statistical average; meaning that the game is balanced if the majority of players sit (as an example) on 50% WR.
Nevertheless I have deviating opinions about certain aspects of your essay:
-
I do not agree with your claim that the “BR system is designed to match vehicles by combat effectiveness”.
From my pov the BR system is part of gaijin’s overall balancing efforts and is just a plain tool (with rather long adjustment cycles) to steer win rates and SL/RP income. In addition BRs are used as sales boosters.
If actual combat effectiveness would be measured gaijin would not rely on rather easy to assess parameters like kills and mission score (=SL/RP gains) based on the plain average performance of average players - they would adjust BRs on the top 5% of the players.
-
I do not agree with “Gaijin doesn’t give uss a quick or reliable way to assess the skill level of enemy players during a match”.
Before players spawn everybody is able to assess the BR of the match and is able to check the player cards of all participants. So it is rather easy to detect coordinated squads, players with extremely good stats or players known for using op vehicles.
Even just having a good memory can save you a lot of time. Example: If you have played a match and a player in a BR 67 BI stomped the entire enemy team it makes (depending on your own plane and experience) no real sense to spawn if he is now in the enemy team.
-
Your proposal regarding a “per-mode level system” sounds reasonable but it is actually counterproductive for the majority of “new” players.
If you think this through you would create a situation that above or below certain player levels there would be either more or less competition - whilst generating the same SL/RP rewards.
The natural (and usual) reaction by gaijin would be to strongly reduce SL/RP gains for lower player levels whilst they would increase the SL/RP income for higher player levels just slightly - as they would argue that the majority of SL/RP income would be generated by players with lower player levels.
Have a good one!
2 Likes
Thank you for your response to my post. I’d like to address your points with my own perspectives:
- I agree that the way Gaijin calculates BR seems flawed.
- You’re correct about being able to view player experience levels by opening their card. However, it’s not convenient to access during gameplay. Ideally, experience levels should be displayed directly on the scoreboard, eliminating the need to open each player’s card individually while maneuvering towards the frontline. Additionally, it would enhance clarity if experience levels were included in kill and death messages.
- I don’t think dismissing my idea with hypothetical scenarios, like “natural (and usual) reaction by Gaijin,” is valid. Gaijin could maintain SL/RP exactly the same for both queues, as it’s unrelated to my proposal. The dual-queue system aims to segregate “rookies/no good/slow learners/casual” players until they’re ready, while “experienced/good/fast learners/hardcore” players quickly progress to the second queue based on performance. This setup prevents farming SL/RP/Stats in the first queue, as players performing well would swiftly transition to the second queue.
I hope this clarifies my viewpoint. Cheers!
1 Like
If i get my ass kicked in high BR, then i go seal club low tiers until my mood improves. The vicious cycle must continue.
You are welcome!👍
I agree in general - the inconvenience gets even stronger as player level on a stand alone basis is a “Nothingburger”.
Not sure which mode and BRs you play but in Air RB at prop levels you are actually forced to identify the strongest enemies right at the start in order to set up the best possible initial positioning.
That means you are forced to check the vehicle stats to get an idea or indication what you have to expect - as the Level says nothing about skill.
Dismissing seems too harsh for me - my opinion was based on gaijin’s general practices in the past and the overall goals they have.
If you eliminate stiffer competition based on a currently arbitrary figure like player level you are artificially increasing the grinding progress for players below the threshold - whilst you do the opposite for players above the threshold. The game is optimized to keep players in the “flow channel” - the efforts by gaijin to “fine tune” the game for their main target group (minors with access to credit cards) would need a massive rework.
And i see strong indicators for my prediction - you get way less mission score if you kill a BR 1.0 plane (troll squads…) appearing in a BR 3.3-4.3 match. And over the years gaijin implemented a hell of open an hidden nerfs of the economy in Air RB - a lot of players are just not aware of this…
A last remark (and a current example of 2 lev 100s fighting at low BR):
Depending on daytime you see quite often up to 40% of the low BR lobbies (=3.3 and lower) filled with level 100s - a lot of them are excellent pilots in aircraft which are superior in more than one of the 3 main factors (climb, speed, turn) and can’t be killed by the average pilot at this BR range.
-
In this replay (link) you see me fighting an excellent pilot in a Hurricane (which turns better than a Spitfire) - impressive stats in props and obviously able to turnfight.
-
I checked the lobby whilst climbing and identified him as main threat. You can’t win those matches if you don’t kill the best enemy player. So i dragged him away from the center and up to 6 km - in order to create a undisturbed 1 vs 1 and using the severe power loss of his early Merlin engine above 6 km.
-
As he had no simulator battles in his stats i was sure that my C-3604 is able to outturn the fellow player - i use a HOTAS and have therefore a handling & turn advantage vs mouse aim pilots using the instructor. Best dogfight in the last days (09:00 - 11:15), very good pilot but he lost his flaps and got killed.