u/Nefiji

I've made this suggestion in the official Enlisted Forum and provided the following reasoning:

Game Balancing

• The balancing difference between BR IV with its semi-automatic rifles, medium tanks and prop planes in contrast to BR V’s select-fire rifles, heavy tanks and jet fighters is greater than between any other two distinct battle ratings in the game

WW2 Authenticity

• I consider BR IV to embody an incredibly iconic time period of WW2, both in terms of general feel and aesthetic, but try actually play in it, and you’ll see how often it’ll end up in a BR V hotchpot of rejected designs, prototypes and hypothetical what-ifs that barely resembles history anymore

BR Popularity

• In contrast to BR IV, BR V is sufficiently popular as is and doesn’t need the small playerbase of BR IV enjoyers to keep queue times low. On the other hand there are many people who reject the idea of playing in BR IV entirely simply because they want to stay away from BR V content

Other Reasons

• Less frustration for new players progressing through BR IV towards BR V for their first time
• A higher chance of them actually liking BR V, since their first experience with it won’t be tainted
• Greater gameplay variety, because right now BR IV’s low population basically guarantees upranks

After over 70 votes in the attached poll so far, 92% of players are in favor of this proposal.

And it makes sense, because constantly cramming new shiny upgrades into BR V (i.e. jets) but not into BR IV only leads to an ever increasing power creep between these two battle ratings.

Check out the thread yourself if you want to support the cause: Separate BR V from BR IV

I definitely can see how moving away from campaigns in favor of battle ratings was a necessary step for Enlisted, but that doesn't mean that the current BR bracket setup is optimal or free of problems.

I started playing Enlisted because I enjoy authentic WW2 content, but I feel like the more time is passing and the more new stuff Enlisted is introducing for BR V (i.e. jet fighters), the more it is swaying away from this original vision in favor of prototypes and exceedingly rare equipment.

I love BR I to BR IV, and it's especially BR IV which I consider to embody a peak WW2 feeling and aesthetic, but try actually play in it, and you'll see how often it'll just end up in a fantasy world BR V uprank that barely resembles the second world war anymore.

King Tigers as far as the eye can see and every German infantryman wielding a fully automatic FG-42 rifle, despite it being a scarcely made weapon intended for use by paratroopers only.

Americans wielding a wide selection of heavy tanks, some of them straight up rejected designs, despite a grand total of twenty Pershings ever seeing combat during WW2.

Every Soviet and Japanese pilot flying around in jet fighters despite their jet-related aircraft never making it past the test flight phase during the war.

I think it's truly time to either decompress BR V by introducing a new BR VI bracket (put jets, prototypes and fanfic there), or at least separate the queues of BR IV and BR V from one another.

Please let the people who want to have a somewhat authentic and grounded WW2 experience enjoy exactly that in peace, without having to deal with this constant trickle of power creep additions which are solely based on speculative blueprints and what-if scenarios.

Edit: If you agree with this notion, then feel free to support my suggestion to Separate BR V from BR IV.

The way I see it, the "Choose Better" debate mostly emerges in the following way:

Men make the experience of not being chosen on the dating market.

These same men witness women complaining about the terrible behavior of their past or current partners.

Sometimes this personal experience reports are being expanded to "all men are the same".

But a lot of these unchosen men have never done anything like what's being reported to a woman, and they also - at least from their personal viewpoint - deem themselves as a good and honest partner choice.

Obviously bringing up the "Choose better" argument in this scenario is still self-victimization and a failure of taking accountability for their own non-existent dating life, but I still don't think that having an actual debate about this topic should be a taboo topic in any way, shape or form.

Which is why some of the common responses to this point genuinely surprise me:

• Women don't owe unchosen men dates, sex or anything else for that matter
• With "Choose Better" you probably just mean "Choose Me"
• Why should women be responsible for the terrible behavior of the men in their life
• Your assumption of being able to provide something better is likely very wrong
• Don't get angry then if women are actually picky and don't choose you

Am I crazy for thinking that all of these answers are defensive and/or deflecting in some way? I thought that it's statistically proven that many (not all) woman on online dating apps only interact with the same percentage of the top male profiles, which begs the question if these profiles are actually the highest quality options available when it comes to personality, moral principles and genuine relationship goals instead of just attractiveness, wealth and confidence.

Why do you think that it's so hard for people to have a honest debate about this topic? Is it actually common in both genders to not take accountability for their failing dating life? Or do you think that it's actually just an online phenomena where jaded women (used and/or abused) get into arguments with jaded men (unchosen and/or bitter) to shift the blame on each other for not being in happy relationships?

From my personal point of view "Choose Better" applies to both genders equally, since men are also prone to fall into the hands of someone emotionally unstable, gold diggers or someone not taking their needs seriously. (Dead bedroom) But telling men to "Choose Better" in these specific cases actually doesn't seem to be a controversial thing to do, or am I mistaken by making this assumption.

Edit: Funnily enough and once again, the debate in the comment section mostly devolved into off-topic discussions. But thanks to everyone who actually shared some non-stigmatizing insight.

Also, I do acknowledge that the actual availability of data concerning the claim that most woman only interact with the same top percentage of male profiles is more limited than I initially thought when writing my post. Here's some actual data I found:

> I’d say that the biggest dating challenge men face on apps is, as it is in real life, the burden to initiate. On Hinge, men send a first like more than three times as often as women. But more than that, when women do initiate, they tend to do so on a smaller segment of the male population. For example, while about half of all likes sent to women go to about 25 percent of women, half of all likes sent to men go to a much smaller segment – about 15 percent.

Source: Hinge data scientist in a now deleted blog post

The problem doesn't seem to be as pronounced as it's often claimed in debates when actually comparing genders.