You are being sarcastic, right?

In MM, you will earn stars if you get enough battle points or enough kills. People think the minimum is 100 (or 90) points, or 10 kills. I haven't figured it out, but if you get into a battle late, you probably won't get stars. Stars are explained on the wiki pages, but basically, you get one for reaching the minimum, you get two if you are almost first, and three stars for first place. (It is slightly more complicated than that, but the point is, you just play MM battles, and make sure you get points/kills.) If you have a Premium account, you will get double stars. If you buy the Pass for this challenge, you get extra stuff. Check your progress in your missions window. There is Daily, Weekly, and Challenges.

Are the Devs considering changing the no-stars rule for short battles?

Where do you find that? (It used to be on the web start page.)

The dumbest thing since you left is the Stars "inactivity" rule. The Devs drop us in battle too late to score enough points to meet their arbitrary and undisclosed threshold for qualifying as active. It is the one thing that keeps almost making me take another sebatical. It is frustrating beyond measure. I enter a game in good faith, fight my tail off, and get NO stars because they screwed it up. It is bad faith. They are defrauding good players with the stupid rule. It is despicable!

Once again I find myself complaining about the "inactivity" rule for stars. It is insane!!! You need a better rule! Devs!!! Are you listening? Why do you deprive me of star just because you [Yes, YOU!] stuck me in a battle too late to score enough points to meet your arbitrary, and undisclosed, threshold? Why!?!?!?! I spend good money to get double stars, but double zero is still a big fat ZERO! CRAP!

So, 2000 stars. With a Premium account, I think 4 is an expectable average, so 500 matches. One probably needs a drone active in those battles to count on that 4 stars-per-battle average, thus 4000 batteries. Anybody have 4000 batteries? I know some will buy, but good grief. The battle total goes up to 667 if one averages only 3 stars per battle. For those without a Premium account, two stars per battle as average is a little optimistic; thus, it will require over 1000 battles to obtain 2000 stars. I honestly think five battles per hour is a high average for nearly all players. (Six is nearly impossible for a long-term average, and seven battles per hour ignores time between battles and physiology necessities. A long term average approaching seven is actually impossible for one player.) 1000 battles in 40 days runs an average of five hours per day, or over 200 hours. (That is approximately a full-time job for six full weeks.) I am certain several hundred players will accomplish 2000 stars, most with the pass and a Premium account and over 500 hours battle-playing time, but I won't be one of them. That is simply too much time. (I have Premium for Ricosck, and what time I play will be almost entirely that account, but I doubt I reach more than a few hundred stars.) I expect events like this will increase the sale of Premium account days. In comment #197, CooperO declared, "It's a technical error of which the devs are aware and they're working on fixing it. The announcement has the correct duration, 6 weeks."

6 weeks is 42 days. Reversing numbers? From the announcement, "The first challenge will last 6 weeks, from December 14th, 2018, until January 25th, 2019." That looks like 42 to me. The counter on the Challenges tab only says 24. Please repair the Challenge timer.

Thank you. I believe you are correct. There is no reliable way to make teams even automatically. It requires subjective judgement, good judgement, and lots of experience. That isn't going to happen in an online game, ever. MM does work, and it won't. There should be no requirements associated with MM. Missions and rewards should be completely freed of MM requirements. Well, Bydo, I agree, but I can't bring myself to click the Like. Fun is the key. If you are having fun, good on ya. I play Ricosck most of the time now, and it is Ricochet-Dictator. Ricochet is the best overall turret if you gain skill, so I encourage you to do so, but, it is your account and your time. I'll acknowledge you positively regardless. (And your stats are respectable. Props.) Side note, I consider Isida the easiest turret, the laziest for those wanting lazy play. Rico is easy because of the bounce. Of course, one needs some skill in good bounce aiming, too. Thunder is almost as good as Rico. A little more skill is required. For the truly skilled players, Rail is still the best, with Smoky mostly its equal, especially for those with exceptional skill and understanding of the Smoky strengths. Twins is good for brawling, and it requires solid persistence, balls on target, or get a different turret. The short range weapons are still the most OP, but more folks have learned to keep distance a little better. Magnum and Striker have their odd characteristics that make them OP, but I don't see them as problems, as I do the short-range OPs. The others have their pros and cons, but my main gripe is how the Devs keep changing things around so much players who get good at something feel cheated. Twins and Vulcan have had the most changes in my experience. I admit I have no inside information, but it seems clear to me Efficiency Rating is the primary sorting criteria. Gear Score has been stated as not considered in MM. It seems obvious it is not. Some still think so, but GS is TOO variable and meaningless to be used for anything. I can enter a match with GS of 2000 and drop to the garage and come back 9200. Using GS would be wrong on many levels.

What do you make of this? Was anyone on blue multing? I don't know. MM dropped me in that battle at the beginning, and I was spawn-killed by three Red players at about the 07:45 point. I sarcastically put in the chat, "Have we already lost?" No one answered, but it was clear within the next 60 seconds that it was hopeless. I changed protections and quickly became our leading player, which obviously didn't help. The Red flag was picked up four times (only). I grabbed three of them. I got two of them back to our base, where I was met by three Red tanks. I might decide later to look up the players, but if one doesn't do it immediately, players are likely to have different equipment. The key player on Red in the battle was the Vulcan sitting on the bridge. (NadinNadin, but I'm guessing from the numbers. I didn't check.) I no longer assume ineffective players don't care. Our team seemed to be trying, but it was like we were all M2 against M4. Why? I don't know, thus I cannot suggest improvements for the MM system. I also don't think improvements are possible. MM is broken. It cannot be fixed. It tortures random players for 6 to 8 minutes, while the other team improves their stats. Of course, most of us are going to be on that losing team half the time. Thus, no one actually improves their stats, since they are spawn killed half the time, and they are the spawn killers the other half. The match making requirement must be dropped. Match making battles are horribly unbalanced most of the time; I estimate 80% of the time. Only one in five battles are reasonably balanced and challenging. Frankly, it is worse than the old raiding parties. MM was supposed to end intentionally lopsided battles where a group of communicating players would enter on the losing side and take over. Now, MM just makes battles that way from the beginning.

Your English is no problem. Good to go on that point. I doubt the Devs will accept restarting finished weekly missions early. However, perhaps rather than the four weekly missions per my suggestion above, maybe the three weekly missions could stay about like they are (but the floater fixed to take only about six days instead of 10), and they could add a 3-day mission, and a 4-day mission, which would be available at a faster rate accordingly. The more complex the missions availability, though, the more problematic balancing rewards will be. I think more missions will help. I bet the Devs have data that will allow them to come up with a significantly better system than we have. Part of the problem is MM. We need rid of MM, or at least decouple it from missions. I suggest missions should be allowed in any multiplayer (at least 12) nonprivate battle.

The key word is "enjoy". If it is working for you, go with the flow. You seem realistic, which is wise, but don't be hard on yourself. The point is to have fun. I grew frustrated enough a year and a half ago to quit for a year. I've been playing for a few months again, and frustrations still run high. Perhaps a lot of what they've been developing will start working together for more fun than frustration, but my optimism is limited. I hope they delete the mission for first place. Even for someone who often ends in the top three, more than half the time that is on the losing team. If I recall, first-place missions used to be just that, 1st on either team (or in DM). As I recall, it was easier then. Being on the winning team is mostly luck. Earned rewards should not depend on luck.

Please take out the top-3 mission. It is almost entirely luck. Being on the winning team is a purely luck. Did MM put you with the poor team or the dominant team? It isn't up to your or any skill you may have. If one is on the losing team, top three is mostly a matter of sticking it out. Being on the winning team boils down to turret versus protection modules, and mostly, the luck of the respawn. The player on the winning team who spawns closest to enemies takes the lead. The player, even if much more skilled, who always spawns away from any enemy to shoot always sucks hind tit. The top-3 mission is like rolling two on a standard pair of dice. You will always roll it once in a while, but it is rare and only luck pulls it off. Skill has nothing to do with it. It is a bad mission.

Captain Riconot is done for the day. I needed a winning team and five TDM (two separate missions). I slogged through one that ended 30 to 100. The next had me log out for the day after the first minute had my team behind 18 to 3. Why bother. MM really doesn't work at all. At this point I wonder at your motives. Are you trying to drive off the players, trying to destroy the game?

I assume this won't be officially addressed, but consider "katya-yaga, First Lieutenant". (Gear Score 6999) How does a Viking-Rail First Lieutenant, even if he is a buyer with an unlimited budget, get 11.56 K/D? It seems nearly certain he is a camper, but I (Captain Riconot) just saw him in a battle (Highways-DM) with 47 kills. 47 kills in under 8 minutes? Were most of the players simply lining up in rows for him? (His K/D in that battle was 47, yes, 47 kills, one death.) Hacked? I doubt it, but dang, stats like that are more than remarkable. Gear score: Falling Leaves paint, no XTs. I assume fully MU'd M2s. I assume a fully MU'd Assault drone. All 14 protections, two at M2 level. Supplies look nonlimiting. He does like JGR. Maybe that is the key to the K/D. Still, he had 47 kills in a standard MM DM. How?

I believe Tanki needs to pay more attention to the needs of the casual players. Daily missions are a good idea. Weekly missions should be good for casual players also, but the system we presently have is frustrating to casual players, and it overly rewards those who play more than most of us can. I think the net result is to reduce loyalty and morale for the game. I wonder if four missions instead of three would help? Each, both daily and weekly, could be progressively harder. That is: Mission 1 easy (expecting to take only one battle, maybe two) Mission 2 medium (expecting to take two battles, maybe three) Mission 3 medium (maybe accomplishable mostly with mission 1 or mission 2, but requiring a bit more than mission 2) Mission 4 hard (expecting to take more than four battles) Likewise weekly missions. Mission 4 could be, "Complete 21 daily missions" which would require substantive play, but probably a little less than now, if daily missions are as I describe. The other three weekly missions could be things excepted to take 20 to 25 total battles for competent players, which would mean most players could accomplish in one week. Maybe weekly-mission 3 should be accomplish 14 daily missions, which would mean most players would accomplish if they complete the easy mission and one medium mission every day. Part of the point is to keep players playing regularly. This make them better players, and it makes the game more stable and predictable. Anything that minimizes the role of luck is an improvement. Rewards, of course, would have to be adjusted according to the extra missions, and hopefully reward would correspond well to difficulty level. Rewards should be highest at the 3-missions per day level, and a little lower (proportionally) for that fourth one.

First, good on ya! In considering the container you won, though, I figure, like my last one, you pulled 125 speeds or mines. I know, it gets discouraging. I also notice four years to Gismo. I expect it takes four years if you play between 3 and 5 hours every week. I haven't run the numbers, but I think it take the average player a little over three years, and casual players about four. Of course, there are those with the drive or lack-of-life to get to Gismo in less than one year. If they keep playing like that, they get to a Legend level 7 in another year or so. I strongly suspect high-speed players spend a good bit of coin. I'm also fairly certain the average and casual players rarely (or never) open their pocket books for this game (or any game they play with limited devotion). If Devs see this, beginning early in 2014, I guesstimate I played Tanki (as OKDad70) about 8 hours per week for a little over three years to get to Legend. (Then I took a year off from frustration.) My time as OKDad70 was 20 to 70 minutes most days, and 1.5 to 2 hours most Saturdays. I also played five specialized secondary accounts, probably less than two hours total per week. I've had spikes where I either had the time or took the time to play more, especially when one of the secondary accounts was at a sweet-spot, but I've never played grinding, long hours. My sons got me playing. Elder son (donut70) did put in some grueling time a few times. He was unbelievably focused and online more than I should have allowed while he prepped for the 300-Astronauts battle. (That was a few months before I started playing, and I do recall him having a blast and being rather proud of his young self.) He had a couple times where a sale offered him unusual advantage, and I think he spent about 9-hours straight for one of them. He had the time, and I let him try. (He stayed up too late, but...) I didn't think he'd get where he needed to take advantage of the sale, but he did. (He was proud, me too.) If you look up donut70, you will see he is a Commander after more than eight years. His enthusiasm for the game has waxed and waned with the decisions of the Devs. Plus, he grew up. He has responsibilities now. While Donut70 was up and down in his hours of play over the years, I was fairly steady. Not only am I more prone to slow and steady, but I have responsibilities, and my leisure is limited. I simply can't play several hours per week. Playing every day was the key. I think it also helped a lot that I was willing to spend a little money in my first two years playing. I think it gave me a lasting edge. (I don't think the game is worth my money now, though I recently bought Premium at half-price for Ricosck.) My overall point is the missions are too much for the majority of players. If accomplished, total reward under the new system are almost as many as under the old. (At least per my memory.) However, most players are going to be getting between 25% and 50% less per week on average. It just ain't right. We've suffered long enough. There are several improvements possible under the new system that wouldn't force a reversion. I honestly don't want reversion. I don't think the old system was sustainable; it was a bit too easy, but the new system is a lot too hard. I believe Tanki needs to pay more attention to the needs of the casual players. Daily missions are a good idea. Weekly missions should be good for casual players also, but the system we presently have is frustrating to casual players, and it overly rewards those who play more than most of us can. I think the net result is to reduce loyalty and morale for the game. I wonder if four missions instead of three would help? Each, both daily and weekly, could be progressively harder. That is: Mission 1 easy (expecting to take only one battle, maybe two) Mission 2 medium (expecting to take two battles, maybe three) Mission 3 medium (maybe accomplishable mostly with mission 1 or mission 2, but requiring a bit more than mission 2) Mission 4 hard (expecting to take more than four battles) Likewise weekly missions. Mission 4 could be, "Complete 21 daily missions" which would require substantive play, but probably a little less than now, if daily missions are as I describe. The other three weekly missions could be things excepted to take 20 to 25 total battles for competent players, which would mean most players could accomplish in one week. Maybe weekly-mission 3 should be accomplish 14 daily missions, which would mean most players would accomplish if they complete the easy mission and one medium mission every day. Part of the point is to keep players playing regularly. This make them better players, and it makes the game more stable and predictable. Anything that minimizes the role of luck is an improvement. Rewards, of course, would have to be adjusted according to the extra missions, and hopefully reward would correspond well to difficulty level. Rewards should be highest at the 3-missions per day level, and a little lower (proportionally) for that fourth one.

Hamchunk: "Ha Ha, you funny!" Arnold: https://youtu.be/S0K63RYrlXc

The gripe I have with the low level accounts is how slow everything is. M3+ Wasp on nitro is too slow. M1 Wasp is hard to tolerate. I put up with Viking (and sometimes Titan) because at the slow speeds of the small hulls, they die too fast. My First Lieutenant DH.98 (Mosquito {Wasp-Rail}) used to be quite fun, even though it died a lot. Now, it just dies a lot. One-shots and double-kills are nice, but too infrequent to make up for how sluggish the hull is since The Great Leveling. Of course, playing mostly with heavier hulls, I lose the skills for Wasp. I've started a new account six times. Each time was a bit more tedious, given my experience with the higher ranks. As I rank up and build up Ricosck, if I get too frustrated, I'll give up Tanki entirely.

If I understand, sensei_tanker is simply arguing that protections at 50% are too much. He seems to think they are too much at 30%. At M3 levels and up, I do not think protections are anywhere near powerful enough. 30% makes a difference. 40% usually gives you the edge. And I'll admit 50% makes you fairly dominant over that turret, but we only get three. (And most players less then a few levels of Legend don't have many high protections.) I never think three protections is enough. Which is why I suggested we have additional module slots (in the Suggestion section). I suggested that more protections be balanced by applying a faction to the fraction. As a for-instance, assume they give us six slots: Equipping three would be normal, base protection of the module installed. Putting in a fourth would multiply slot 3 and slot 4 by 0.8 (dropping a 50% module to 40%), adding a fifth might change slot 3 to 0.75, slot 4 to 0.67, and slot 5 at 0.5. I'm not sure what might work best, but you get the point. Something like that could work. Some players expressed strong opposition to any increases. Some think total protection should not be allowed to exceed 150% (total effective protection of all modules). I think our tanks die too often. A good protection against my turret can increase difficulty substantially, but I can often avoid those with protection against me. Shafts, Rails, and Thunders complain (historically) about too many players having protection against them. Ricochet is another. Ricosck sometimes sees six players on the opposing team with 30% to 50% protection against Rico. Usually, it is not that many. When it is, I deal with it, and I count on help from teammates. My assertion is the tanks (hulls and protections) are too weak compared to 13 turrets, 4 of which are designed to inflict a one-shot, four can typically destroy you before you can respond, in under two seconds, and the remaining 5 can all take you out if you don't have that protection. My point, it is common to fight one tank, maybe two, and live to fight once more. OKDad70 used to be able to dive into a cluster of three enemy and drive away more often than not. That was before The Great Leveling, back when Twins turret spin rate was fast, with very fast acceleration. That was when Viking forward and reverse acceleration were the highest. And don't forget Repair Kits actually worked back then. If you have been around more than two years, and played regularly, you remember when skill payed off. Now, when you get caught in the open, you just die and respawn. Hulls are too similar, too weak, and too slow (except Mammoth is too fast). Three protections against up to 13 different turrets (at once in DM) isn't flexible enough. BTW, to those who read this, I appreciate it.

I have a low-level account, Captain Riconot. Riconot is NOT-Ricochet and uses only short range, specifically, Firebird, Freeze, and Hammer. The Freeze is M2, so I've used it most for a while now. I suppose at Captain, I'm not seeing any M3-level protections (except once in a while with older accounts who converted from old school protection paints). So, maybe I can't answer the question authoritatively, but I think it is moot. Using freeze, I find I gain advantage very quickly if I can maneuver effectively and keep turret on target (and I usually can). Also, in my experience, protection against Freeze is rare in battle. I don't notice it when I'm playing my regular accounts. In my experience, Thunder, Rail, Ricochet, and Shaft protections are common in battles. Firebird is somewhat common, but Freeze is one of the uncommon ones. Besides, OKDad70 has 42% protection against Freeze. I find it useful when facing two or more Freeze on the opposing team, but worthless in DM. It just doesn't help that much. If a Freeze gets the jump on me, even with 42% protection, I die unless someone else kills the Freeze before my demise. And I'm still a sitting duck for a few seconds, so someone else might initiate my respawn. Freeze is OP. Protections are not.

General observations about a lopsided CTF, comments, not much complaint (other than MM is broken). I, as OKDad70, led Blue team on a 7 to 0 CTF in IRAN, finished in less than 6 minutes. I ended with 405 battle score; Blue total score 2058. Red high score was 130, and their total combined battle score was 388. As well as I can tell, five of Red team were in for the entire battle. This battle was two teams of mostly high-level Legends. OKDad70 is Legend 1, and two of our team were Gismos. Still, our team had 6% more total experience. On the other hand, Red had 19% more kills (total combined, according to the profiles), Blue had about 8% higher average Gear Score, but the player efficiency ratings averaged out equal. Just guessing, but I think MM looks only at rank for selection, and I think it looks at efficiency rating for sorting the players to teams. But, that is a guess. Who knows? What made these two teams so lopsided? Blue totally dominated, and as well as I could tell, Red was playing right, and their players were playing well, effectively. Why did Blue keep the advantage all the way through? Though Blue had a mathematical edge on GS, our two Generalissimos were the only players limited on their equipment potential. Buyers versus nonbuyers was not an issue here. We all have played too much to be restricted in that regard. Totally lopsided battle. Blue dominated from the beginning. I consider myself above average, but there was no particular reason I lead the team. I captured three flags, as I recall. Catching flags is mostly dependent on luck, but supportive teammates sure help. Determination is essential, but determination doesn't equal success if you get no support or just get unlucky. This account is just one data point, but my experience indicates it is the norm. Though of limited value, it is evidence that MM cannot balance battles.

Most of what was said upstream on this topic is valid. It is hard to guess what "GG" meant at the close of a game, even in a blowout. I suspect the main problem is how quickly most players leave. The close-out screen shows, and players start listing as exited. Typing something meaningful after battle end is pointless because by the time you've entered it, nobody is left to read it. Most people understand GG to be "good game," and for a lopsided match, some will feel it is better than nothing. I know I always feel as bad on the winning team of a 7 to 0 blowout as on the losing team (but less frustrated). I try to hope for and expect the best of intentions. That proves out more than half the time.

Yes, agreed, to most everything you stated. I emphasized GS because people keep calling for using it. GS is meaningless in comparing tank-configurations. (I've written pages pointing out the whys of it all.) MM cannot make balanced matches. It is just luck. There are a few (between 5 and 10) quantitative parameters Tanki could automate into a Google-like algorithm that could better build teams for MM, but while I'm confident one could quantify the improvement, I don't believe it would be significant. There are still a few subjective assessments that would have to go into balancing teams. Kids on a playground do it. They know what they have; they know what the other team has, and they judge each pick accordingly. As long as there is no single dominant player, even little kids can pick fair teams. It comes down to subjective judgement, and that is not possible in an automated match-making system. I say again, we must abandon the match making system, at least for the most part, at least as a requirement. From the old days, before MM, the primary drive for MM was battle raiding. Some of that was already dealt with before MM. I suspect there is a better way than MM. (The early system was susceptible to all sorts of abuses. That was mostly fixed before MM. I see no real impediment for abandoning it.)

Since it is a complaint about missions and match making, I wrote it in the Missions thread. I point to it here in the complaint thread. http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=377889&p=6648582