This information is already available on the Wiki and on the Help Site, where it is permanently displayed. Please don't repost information from those resources on the forum as topics like these will be seen by very few players anyway. Closed.

You're right, the current system seems to be barely different to the August test. Perhaps developers mixed something up and implemented a wrong version, but at this point I'm just guessing. Hopefully it will work properly in the near future.

Topic merged. Please keep all discussion and complaint about matchmaking in this topic. Keeping everything in one place will make it easier for developers to see your feedback.

No :pIn all seriousness, let's not accept matchmaking records for the first 2 weeks, since values might change. Heck, maybe the whole thing will be scrapped until further notice.

:lol: nice one

There were definitely problems, but they weren't too bad and battles were playable. A couple small balance features (like losing team having longer supply duration) would have improved the team balance without any need for matchmaking. I had a lot of hopes for this update, but so far it has been disappointing. Basically the same thing as what we had last August, which devs said wasn't proper matchmaking and will be improved. I still hope that the MM system will be fixed and start working as it should, but in its current state I'd rather have the old battles back.

Giving players ability to choose map will greatly increase the time it takes for a battle to fill up, because not only do you need to find enough players of similar rank and skill level, but you also need enough players who want to play that particular map. With how little players Tanki has at the moment, map selection simply wouldn't work. I'm willing to sacrifice map choice for the sake of fair battles, as long as the MM system actually does its job and properly balanced the teams.

Topic merged

The mechanism for even distribution of players and probably more optimised queing system. So in theory there should be minimal waiting time and near-perfect balance between teams. In theory. We'll see what actually happens tomorrow.

As said above, the August 2017 test was not proper Matchmaking. Tomorrow's update will introduce a much better system.

What happened last year was not a test of Matchmaking. It was a preliminary test of a new system that is to become part of Matchmaking. The system that was tested did not have any Matchmaking functionality whatsoever - it simply made a map and threw 20 random players into it. This finished system is far from it.

Maybe wait for the update to be released and test it first?

It doesn't say anything about hull and turret. As far as we know, the map selection is completely random.

Did you decide to keep the missions button in the same place? Because during the first test it was only available in the main menu.

Oh boy, here we go... Questions: Did you decide not to remove the Missions button from the top of the GUI? (Please say you did :D) What about the idea of being able to give custom names to PRO battles again? Planned for future? I get that the new Gold drop chance is 1/x seconds (e.g. 1/600s would result in an average of one gold per battle), but could you please tell us the exact value? Will the losing team still receive slightly less reward, or is it completely dependent on personal performance?

Just high ranks. Haven't played on low ranks for a very long time, so can't compare.

I feel like it's a very "average" tank. Light hulls are made for players who are good at manoeuvering, don't mind a low K/D and like to rush the enemy. Heavy hulls are made for campers and people who don't mind being slow in favour of feeling "beefy". Both of those audiences - the rushers and the campers - are not as large compared to the average player, who likes to do a bit of everything. That's why medium hulls are so popular, just like how average "generic fighter" classes are popular in similar MMOs. Why Viking is so much more popular than Hunter, I don't know. With Dictator it's quite obvious - it's large, it's not centered, it's tall, so playing with it requires a more specific kind of style. But Hunter is very similar to Viking, so the only explanation I have is that Viking stayed popular ever since it was the best medium hull before the 2012 Rebalance, and it remained popular due to word of mouth, despite Hunter being equally good. Also, Hunter and Dictator M3 used to unlock at Generalissimo, while Viking unlocked at lieutenant-general, so that's definitely another good reason.

Dang, how on Earth did you figure that out? Teach me your deducting skills!

I can tell you from personal experience that Viking seems to be by far the most popular. Followed by Hornet, then probably Dictator, Wasp, Titan, Mammoth and Hunter. But I don't know the actual values.

The original question was about getting enough crystals to buy supplies and also upgrade equipment without paying, so obviously my answer involves tactics that do not require spending money. If you want fancy cosmetics, or you want to progress through the game with less effort, or get equipment faster, then you obviously need to pay.

What I mean by smart spending is not wasting crystals on unnecessary items and taking advantage of opportunities to save crystals. Using holiday sales, buying supplies in bulk, only upgrading one or two combos, not playing longer than the time it takes to complete missions, etc.

Makes perfect sense. People are willing to pay a lot of money for something that's a new feature that will make them stand out because they'll be the first to own it. I disagree about this being the case with supplies, but it definitely applies to things like XT items, animated paints, Premium accounts, containers, gold box supplies and a few other thing which don't affect game balance all that much (or not at all). Supplies were probably made to be P2W in the first place, but I don't think there was intention of ever making them easily available for free players. But changes in the game over the past few years allowed devs to rely less on revenue from supply sales and thus make them more easily obtainable. We don't know what will happen with drones, but it seems like batteries will be available from missions and chains from the start, while many players will already have hundreds (thousands?) of batteries after the update.

It's been said here multiple times - a crystal refund is impossible since it would crash the game's economy. If you don't want to use drones - your choice. Similarly, you don't have to use supplies, paints, modules, etc. Yet developers won't be able to give you crystals as compensation for every item you don't like/need.

You should be able to earn enough crystals to top up your supply reserves on top of what you get from missions, as well as have quite a bit left over for upgrades. Of course you also need to be smart about how and when you spend your crystals.

When it comes to speed, smaller increments make a much bigger difference. This is why Nitro supplies only give 40% extra speed, while DA and DD give 100% extra armour and damage. So the speed difference between Hornet and Viking may seem small, but in battles it makes a massive difference and is often better than having the extra 50% armour.