Since Level isn’t always a good barometer of people’s skill, and since the game already has “Max Level” Servers, why not have “Profile Average Score” servers so that people who usually score 3000 - 5000 a match don’t end up fighting people who always score 15000 - 20000 a match?
This presumes that scores are a function of K/D, Objectives, etc. I believe there are people who constantly do 5 digit scores, and they suck the fun out of the 4 digit score people imo.
Unfortunately, earning XP is easier with some mercs than with others. Medics opposed to assaults for example.
Uh but like is this server only accessible through quickplay or server browser or both? Because if it’s also in server browser I highly doubt people would actually even know to join or not or just don’t care. If it’s in quickplay then I bet that server would be dead since no one would know about it.
i think Ranked supposed to work that way but they implement win/loss instead of score as a bar for the matchmaking
Well I suppose the reasonable thing would be that it takes a poll bi-weekly or monthly of how your average score in your main profile goes.
So ideally that means that as you improve as a player (eg: You find yourself constantly doing better and better scores) you eventually “graduate” to servers where you can “play with your kind”.
So no more 4-digit learners complaining they are being floored all the time by wall-jumping overlords, and no more complaining by veterans that they are having to carry teams of medics that don’t heal or Engies that do not do objectives.
I guess if I were Splash Damage, I’d try doing this stealthily, like your Server Browser prioritizes servers for your average score grade to the top of the queue…
But it’s been a long-standing problem of DB that you cannot always measure people’s abilities with Levels. However, I did notice that you could always tell who “did more or did less” from the scores.
By polling accounts bi-weekly or monthly, you would never get “kicked” out, you just “gain membership” to different servers.
It’s like being in Group A or Group B of the English Premiere League. 
I guess at the end of the day that’s what the suggestion boils down to: Group A/GroupB. And how to determine which player goes where? I suppose a function of your Average Scores and your Win-Loss record?
Unless someone is about to explain to me that everybody on DB has more Losses than Wins.
@GatoCommodore said:
i think Ranked supposed to work that way but they implement win/loss instead of score as a bar for the matchmaking
Hmmm not so sure that’s working as intended:
Then if you do this people will just whine on your score average instead of your level, which would be equally as annoying. Also, if you do this, you will always expect Aura mains to be at the top since they can get an insane amount of exp from people dancing on her health station incredibly easly.
Let’s juste hide levels. If you are good, people will notice it through your gunplay, not through meaningless stats.
@Eox said:
Then if you do this people will just whine on your score average instead of your level, which would be equally as annoying. Also, if you do this, you will alwaus expect Aura mains to be at the top since they can get an insane amount of exp from people dancing on her health station incredibly easly.Let’s juste hide levels. If you are good, people will notice it through your gunplay, not through meaningless stats.
b-but muh cobalts matched with bronze!
kids will whine regardless
It’s impractical. I haven’t read the other replies here, but score can vary too much depending on your merc, the map, your team, the other team, and simple luck. It’s not always a reflection of your actual skill when used as an average.
In public servers, no. In ranked, it could work, but not as you suggested it. I’ve suggested that how much you rank up or down after a win or loss should be based on the percentage of how much XP you earned, compared to the total amount earned by your team.
