Talk:Matchmaking/@comment-31211177-20170202094349/@comment-31208012-20170202203935

Datameister's suggestion is a valid alternative but it would be incredibly expensive to implement and maintain from a development point of view. In fact, it is fairly close to the old system which considered (mostly) bot/weapon levels and required constant tweaking & patching to try to control unfair advantages (Pix says as much here). The problem is that not all bots|weapons are created equal. Hence the obvious dominance of magnums in lower tiers, etc. etc. The only way for such a system to work (other than carefully rebalancing all weapons so they are perfectly equal at all levels—which I imagine would be extremely difficult or impossible and in either case would cause massive disruption in the game) would be for each weapon to be rated separately in the hangar power calculation. Which would mean developing and mainting tables of the competitive strength of ever item & level in the game and changing said table with every tweak or new weapon introduced, hell even when new and unexpected strategies develop that make a given weapon more effective than others. As mentioned above in the linked post, this is exactly what they had been doing and were trying to move away from. As a CS grad their desire to avoid such a system makes perfect sense to me.

As for "narrow spread" team values, I really don't know how practical that is: it might be completely practical or it might result in 10 minute waits to get into a match.