Genuine question. The entire point of mixed battles is to allow the games to flow when a country is oversaturated correct? So the question being is why this is so catered to? I understand the liking of one country for vehicles but for its capabilities and advantages? Shouldn’t that be more so controlled? If something is oversaturated then why not make people wait? Wouldn’t mixed battles just cause more issues for those on the lower side anyways? Why isnt Mixed Battles an option that can be toggled for preferences like it is for premium users to ban a map? Or participate in the smaller battles. Why isnt it a toggle option and is enforced? If most players would have it turned off, then wouldn’t it be a sign that it isn’t the play?
I dont understand why such a feature is enforced if it has such a negative outcome. Yes. There is a positive of course. For those playing America right now… I fear for the future of Air RB as of right now for how it’s gotten so complex. Half the time when attempting to turn on my missile, it turns right off afterwards killing off precious time. (Keybind is Left Click. Yeah. That simple and yet keeps still failing sometimes)
I understand they need to collect data to “Balance” but at the end of the day, these changes never go through till 1+ year later unless it is that critical, as in playerbase erupts into madness critical. It’s obscenely absurd anymore the range in which one country gets than the other and normally an update is either pushed in favor of USSR or USA in Air RB anymore, there is no balanced ground, its either one or the other. Maybe these one sided issues is due to poor update planning of not taking the most popular nations and potentially bringing something of each to them to keep the playingfield level? Otherwise everyone will flock to one country and behold, lots of people either go on hiatus or dont play that BR anymore. What reliable data can you collect if those players dont play and give you that data? Then what you collect is all from said country that is overpopulated again.
I am not trying to speak out of bias here but I know there will be those people who will be ignored as usual… but every country is affected by this. As someone who plays both USSR and USA as well as GRB for Germany, USA, USSR and France. I have no room for any bias on this but the mixed battles in general could use some refinement or restrictions of how games are formed if they remain, otherwise, players will simply go elsewhere and that data collected will be from the same people over and over. Id like to note I seen the same person in battle 3x in a row which is extremely extremely rare in GRB too even though we know how that goes. We don’t talk about Naval. It’s DOA right now with the same people consistently all day.
I understand that removing something like Mixed battles could have a very negative impact for time in queue but there are most likely other ways to go about this. To be facing the same people all the time, the same jets all the time, same countries all the time, and the map rotation as is, is horrible. I got City 5x in a row one day and it was so bad, I had to remove the ban on Pyrenese and ban City because of it.
I feel like the entire thing could be handled better but its the matter of choosing not to now. If it’s all about the data then that data isn’t even closely reliable from a data analysis standpoint…
This whole thing isnt a rage post either. I can hold my own just fine. Its the matter of how stale it gets when there isnt any kinda of variation in it and its the same thing over and over. I havent had a non-mixed top tier air battle in… well… I cant remember actually. Well over a year. Other people will have other thoughts or they may disagree yeah. It’s just one of those things that constantly looked upon and if anything really boring anymore.