BLUF: It is much easier to get first on the losing team than third on the winning team. I mostly play my Marshal account now, Ricosck. M4 Rico-Dic, with 3 good protections and Trooper drone equipped, GS 9007 as configured. Highest GS in the match. (I checked.) Mission for TDM. Battle started out lopsided with multiple Red moving immediately, and only 4 Blue showing on my side, with only me moving. I was 0-4 before our team got going. By the time I was 5-5, our team was down about 20 to 12. It didn't get better. Blue lost at about 7:30, score of 100 to 64. Ricosck had 14 of those kills and lead blue team. Second place had 12, and the five other players listed on the end-panel had 35 kills. So, only three kills unaccounted for. It would seem our players held strong and finished. I assume we only lost the one player. I suspect we had only seven players for much of the time. Hard to tell, even harder to prove while trying to play. Obviously, MM doesn't work. The match was totally lopsided from the first seconds. There were 8 Legends on Red (ranged from level 2 to level 36). The top four each equipped 50% protection against Ricochet. It obviously mattered to them. I led Blue as Marshal, we had four Legends, another Marshal, and a Generalissimo. I looked up our second place finisher, a Legend 5 BP, and our third place was a Viking-Firebird Legend 4, who managed a rather astonishing 0.4 K/D for a third-place finisher (9 kills to 21 deaths). I trust he wasn't an intentional mult. I suspect he didn't have Vulcan protection. (Red had two, and an Isida each.) Our 6th & 7th finishers had 0.4 K/D also. We were woefully outgunned. In looking at details of this particular battle and the profiles of the players, I can see no pattern. I see nothing that would provide a suggestion as to how to actually balance MM battles. Since Ricosck, as a Marshal, had the highest gear score, I again assert that GS is meaningless. It tells nothing useful in typical MM battles. First place on Red was a Legend 36 with Vulcan-Dic, GS = 7955. He had double my kills and less than half my deaths. 9007 - 7955 = 1052. From this single example it would seem that having 1052 lower gear score makes you twice as good. Ricosck had 42% Vulcan protection equipped, BTW. Second bottom line: Regarding match making balance potential, it seems hopeless. MM doesn't work. It cannot be fixed. It must be abandoned.

It is amazing how hard it is to get 1-3 on the winning team. I was leading, solidly in first place, but I got unlucky on a couple of the flag runs. The Blue team (Assault) happened to all spawn near the point. Ricosck, even as a full M4 against mid-M3s, can't win over four defenders. The match was a total massacre by my Red team, but I missed third with 390, 5 points behind in fourth. First had an even 500. Red had no problem at all, but I failed 3rd mostly for being unlucky on two flag runs. I'm complaining more about the significance of luck than the 15X-top3 mission. 15X-top3 is a bad mission. It requires much too much time. It wouldn't be nearly so frustrating if I had only to depend on my own skill, but skill matters too little. Equipment matters too much. Being able to change equipment only once in a match matters too much. Luck of the draw on the team matters too much. Whether match-maker drops 8 and 8 together within a couple of seconds matters too much. (And MM never gets everyone in within the first ten seconds.) Too much depends on luck. It is like rolling dice. Sure, you win some, but you lose some, and there isn't really anything the player can do about it. Tanki has lost sight of the players. They focus only on the next new thing, the next thing that will bring in some cash as players want it or realize they need it to keep competing. Of course, in the long run, players keep realizing too much depends on luck. They are either okay with that, as attested by very high level legends, or they quit. I've seen Legends as high as 83, and just yesterday I saw a Legend 68. So, obviously some are sticking it out. Embrace the suck, as they say.

They need to add a check-box on items for storing in a storage room. (And a button in the garage for the storage room.) Then we can click the check box for items we don't presently want to see in our garage, we won't see them. But, if we change our minds, we can go to the storage room and uncheck the check box. (Yes, I've said that a time or two in the suggestions forum.)

Crap. Container: special affect, so my anticipation goes up: I received a violet effect, cool, but, wait, it is for Striker. I don't have Striker. I don't plan to get Striker. Crap. I figured I better double check before posting. Confirmed. My Ricochet does not have an option for violet. Since I don't have a Striker, not even an M0, I can't even tell if it is in my garage. Awesome reward. Awesome. Frankly, it is chincy. You really should set rewards, especially containers, so they won't give something that cannot be used, that cannot even be seen as owned and potentially equitable. Chintzy is much too mild a word.

You might wish to review recent comments in the Missions thread. [ http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=377889&p=6647102 is one I wrote.]

I feel your pain, and I've expressed the same upstream here, and similar many times before. Most players will finish in the top three for their team at least some of the time. Of course, half of those times, the player is on the losing team, and the top-three finish doesn't count. No one gets it if the game ties. (Yes, it makes me angry and frustrated also.) In my opinion, based on my own experience and observation of others, average (most or slight majority) players will finish in the top three on the winning team in about 1 in 5 battles, maybe 7, maybe 8. 5 x 15 = 75 I'm confident that nearly all players can finish the 15X-T3wt weekly mission assignment in less than 100 battles (but more than 50). With some level of verification, I assert 5 battles require a player to be logged in and playing an average of one hour. Accordingly, 100 battles requires 20 hours of play time. I'm sure only a small handful of players play that much per week. A player with skills and focus well above average is still going to require 10 hours (45 to 50 battles). (A few players can count on finishing top-3 in DM at least half the time. That would put them needing only 30 battles for 15X, but that is still about the limit of what most players play in a week. {My estimate of playing time is very subjective with little evidence. TMK, Tanki has never shared stats regarding how much typical players play.}) So, I agree. the 15X-T3wt mission is more than one week for the majority of players. I expect it takes two or three weeks for most players, maybe four weeks. Finishing near the top in a battle is a good thing to reward, but setting it as a weekly mission that is nearly hopeless for most players seems very poor judgement. I hope Tanki changes things soon.

Give me your opinion! Hello! I saw something new in the Communicator bock. It asks me to take a short survey. Really? Vampires? "We are currently trying to determine what does vampire look like to you and what do you see as a vampire den or living place." Again, really? You meant to do that? It isn't a joke? Good grief.

I'm bragging, but with OKDad70 and Ricosck, I'm good. I get top 3 often. Sadly, it is often on the losing team. Frankly, it is easier to get first on the losing team in most battles than top three on the winning team. The more lopsided the battle, the truer. As soon as the battle starts looking hopeless, players on the losing team start to leave. On the winning team, the lead players, especially those fortunate enough to be forward and near the spawn zones, start pulling away with the lead. They get an extra overdrive, and they simply have first dibs on the targets. Those in the back and behind in score, especially if they have weaker equipment or their skills are above average for their current configuration or the map, well, tough. So, I think it would be good to let first place on the losing team count, but I emphasize first on the losing team is usually easier than third on the winning team. As to finishing battles, I like that, but it takes so long. I've requested incentives for completing battles many times. Mission rewards for doing so is a good incentive. It is hard to see that it is working. Perhaps the devs have better stats. I really don't know what to suggest for missions. Whatever the combination, three daily missions should not require an hour of player with average or above skills. (The weaker players may benefit from needing more time as they get more practice and get better.) Weekly missions that require more than seven hours playtime seem excessive. 20 daily missions is reasonable, but when a typical daily set requires two hours, that is excessive, even extreme. It will lead to burn out for many players. It is also unreasonable to ask for 15X-top3. That is a two to three week goal for most players. Perhaps a tiered system of daily and weekly missions? With missions, as with most every aspect of the game now, luck matters most. My skills, my ability to plasma on target, doesn't matter nearly as much as luck. My ability to pick protections quickly doesn't usually matter because opponents change turrets. My sense of how to advance the team in the different modes doesn't matter if I'm on the weaker team. Granted, my skill level seems to be significant in 20% of matches, when the teams somehow balanced, and the battle isn't decided until the last seconds. Seeing a teammate pull a particularly skillful maneuver (or being that teammate) and pulling out the victory just before time expires is still exhilarating, but so rare. Luck matters on the containers. Most containers hold speed or mines. Good, but with thousands of each, it gets disappointing. I can only wear so many paints. I'll never be seen in most of the paints in my garage. Even the coolest paints can be disappointing when I already have four high-level paints, three of which I like a lot. The blue-weekly-containers are fine, but it is currently unreasonable to play enough to win all three each week. Average looks to be less than two per week. That is a reduction in supplies. "Opening" the weekly reward is a good idea, but it is of rather limited utility. The overall point is stated more than once in prior comments, the effort required went up about three-fold, while the rewards went down more than a quarter, and is much less for those who play less than four hours per week. The incentives in missions are mixed. So far, the balance is heavily toward disincentive.

I doubt anything like that is going on. I assume the thread was intended to do exactly what it has, I'm simply surprised Cedric hasn't joined with any feedback.

Mods, Devs, serious question: For most things, ties count. For missions requiring top three on winning team, No? Do ties not count for Top-3? I have 15X Top-3-on-winning-team. I completed a Rugby that ended tied. I was a solid third on our team, ahead of third on the other team. It didn't give me another tally. And here I thought five battles was a reasonable average for Top-3 requirements. I guess the intent of a 15X Top-3 weekly-mission is to require three or even four weeks. More frustrations.

Cedric, you started this Posted 09 Nov 2018 - 09:11. It is almost three whole weeks. No replies? No assurances?

My latest set of daily missions included 2X finish in one format, modest crystals in second format, and 1500 points in Assault (third format). The first two missions were three battles. No worries, but 1500 points in Assault will take at least 8 battles, probably 10, especially if more than half are Blue. Points come hard on Blue team in Assualt mode, especially if the battle is lopsided (which 80% are). To be specific, I've completed five battles, over one hour play time, with the third mission still an hour or more away. So, forget it for today, and forget the 20-Weekly this week. (Not that I ever count on it in seven days.)

Another MM failure, Assault, all Legends but Marshal Ricosck (full M4), and Red ran the score to 90 before focusing on spawnkills instead of flags. Final score was 100 to 34. Disgusting. The top two on Red had modest reward. The rest sucked hind tit, with Blue getting almost nothing. MM is totally defective. It must be abandoned. At least liberate missions from dependence on MM. Allow missions to be completed on any open battle, open to more than 9 total players. Frankly, the MM experiment has failed too long. End it.

Another MM disaster (Rugby): Red - 0 Marshal Ricosck 240 (13/10) (me) Generalissimo Timoxa_Meg 215 (10/8) Generalissimo old170 185 (8/8) Legend20 L_174_K 130 (6/10) Legend15 TIGR_DCV_3 100 (5/13) Legend1 XoMkA_30_RU 100 (4/10) Legend1 RUBIK994_XXX_RU 55 (3/12) Blue - 2 Legend9 sokolyuu 320 (13/9) Legend4 shedowXXX 245 (10/9) Legend1 beastapostolos 240 (15/8) Legend5 somikik 205 (11/6) Legend4 kolprikol 145 (7/6) Legend12 1qazWSXDD 120 (6/5) Legend1 aspud4 115 (6/8) Legend1 Razbornoi 110 (6/6) Note, 7 to 8 players. MM cannot keep games balanced even in numbers. The game was hopeless from start. As M4 Marshal Ricosck, I had no problem fighting. but my team just couldn't compete. I'm not sure what it was. Blue had two Freeze, two Fire, two Rico, a Rail, and a Twins. It seemed that way the whole time. Red lost and added a player or two. It is hard to quantify, since one tries to play effectively. Though score ended only 0 to 2, it was never close. Twice for extended periods my teammates and I were being spawnkilled. I moved the ball to their goal once, but didn't get close. One other Red player got the ball to the Blue side once, but not close. Blue seemed to play the entire match on Red side. How to fix? Ricosck can play (obviously) with and against high-level Legends. Rank is not a factor here. What was? Why was Blue team utterly dominant? Most matches are like this. MM does not balance teams. MM is counter to good play. MM makes everything depend on which team a player is assigned to. It is like flipping a coin. Nearly nothing depends on skill, tactics, and tenacity. Nearly everything depends on the luck of the draw. Did you get put on the dominant team or the dominated team. I honestly don't think MM can be fixed. It needs to be scrapped.

Cool. Your play time is consistent with my assumptions and guess regarding the average time in game for most regular players. You point out something that in hindsight I think is significant. The fact that I bought some early gave me a small edge that likely continued to pay increasing dividends as I advanced. It helped me earn crystals more efficiently. Don't consider hours on profile without remembering many players played years before the profile started keeping track of hours. Look at kills. OKDad70 has 117k with 1.67 for K/D. Also, note the Efficiency rating. It is a complex algorithm, but the main thing it indicates is how efficiently a player earns crystals. (It isn't effective for comparison at other than Legend rank. It is somewhat indicative Legend to Legend.) For OKDad70, keep in mind that I didn't play at all for about 11 months (late summer 2017 through mid-summer 2018). Consider elder son, Commander Donut70. He started playing Tanki sometime in 2011 (maybe 2010). He has seen most of the changes in Tanki, and he has stopped playing for extended periods a couple of times. He has two lower-ranked accounts that he gives more time than his main nowadays, meaning he has only 150 hours on that account since profiles were implemented. You might be surprised at his garage. He likes the Smoky, and he doesn't think a Wasp on nitro is half as fast as it should be. I suppose I did buy him some crystals a couple times early on. Probably made a difference for him, too. (An aside, he has the Moonwalker paint, which he earned from the first Moon Silence competition, and Traceur from one of the early Parkour competitions.) Anyway, Kills and K/D are the only practical way to compare accounts unless they are newer than profiles, especially at differing rank. I wrote a lot that is mostly related in my reply at "Posted 25 Nov 2018 - 23:57". Finally, while a low-rank having significantly more and higher equipment for the rank is a giveaway for buyers, I think it is harder to tell for most players. And, yes, Tanki is two-tiered now. It has become P2W.

Awesome, good to hear. It is sad, however, that MM ruined the cooperative time. My son's and I join team groups from time to time now. (The older one is working and has little time, but we manage once in a while.)

Well, you have me convinced you aren't intentional trolling. (Thanks. Good on ya.) I'll say more in my reply to cyborg below, but I made my supplies in the events. The Game, and other events that gave everyone supplies, were how I gained supplies, and the mission chains when that started. If I was out, well, I did without. I almost never ran out of anything except repair kits, but I used to run out of RK often. RKs are not as significant now as they used to be. (I got good at picking up boxes, too, which they've made harder over time, and lengthened the time between drops.) I suppose my early buying, which was partly because I used to feel the game was worth it--the devs had earned some cash from me, but I do think the buying gave me an edge that I can only see in hindsight. Kits were critical to my success, and kits were much better long ago, as I'm sure you recall. I would also like to emphasize my K/D. I complain that respawning occurs too often now. Our hulls die too easily these days. My K/D has lowered on every one of my accounts since The Great Leveling when they took away most of the uniqueness of the turrets and hulls. We play to have fun, but I've always found winning more fun than losing. Accordingly, I've always focused on helping my team win, and that means flags in CTF or capturing points in CP. (More options now of course.) My point is I earned more crystals than average that way. I don't like playing the role of a sniper, and I don't like the way the game rewards snipers. I generally think of snipers as liking to lose. Though some snipers are extremely effective and tactically aware and generally assets to a team, many are not. They get their kills and seem to think being on a losing team is no big deal. Being on a losing team with high kills is still a weak payday in crystals. Tanki took the 1500-supply kit out of the garage just before OKDad70 ranked to Generalissimo. I had some anger issues with that for a little while. It is correct that it was a bad idea for Tanki cashflow. The 1500-kit could be expected to help a player earn significantly more than 100k crystals. I gave Tanki-X a good faith try from beta testing and into full release. I gradually quit playing it. They never got the feel right. There were a lot of aspects of it that I just didn't like. It has been nearly two years since I was paying attention to Tanki-X. The recent changes make Tanki pay-to-win. The current mission system will probably allow a nonbuyer who is willing and able to play 0.9 to 2.0 hours per day to keep up with buyers, assuming a specialized (not generalist) account. Before, only patience and planning were required. That is, at least 20 minutes per day, averaging at least four hours total per week should have let nonbuyers nearly keep up. The disadvantage could be ignored with a little patience and a little pride in showing a good skill level. Now, just about an hour minimum and at least 10 hours per week are required. I'm still not sure nonbuyers with average-level skills will be able to keep up even playing that much. So, I agree fully with the assertion that Tanki has become a p2w system. Buyers have obvious advantages that are insurmountable by nonbuyers. Regarding making match-making work, there is a lot to it. I've written several pages of posts about it, both when it was introduced (before I took nearly 12 months off), and over the last four months or so since I started playing regularly again. Nothing purely quantitative, automated, and algorithm-based will work. GS can't work because an M4 Titan is the same score as an M4 Wasp. On some maps in some modes, the Wasp has its place, on most maps in most modes, the Titan is far more valuable. An algorithm that treats every possible combination individually and uniquely will help, but it is only a small part of the complex and interdependent mess. Using player's "Efficiency" rating will help a little, but also players need to be rated for each mode, and how much they contribute to the mode, and that requires subjective judgement. Further, self-sacrificing hard-chargers need to be teamed with more cautious players, and the balance will be different for different modes. (I've written, now in the archives, a few pages about why GS doesn't represent a player's effectiveness.) In short, match-making cannot be made to work well reliably. It just can't. The problem is too complex even before adding in the variables dependent on each individual real-person player. If they could improve it enough to where I never waited more than twice as long as the average wait indicated, that would help. Mostly, I want the majority of battles to be even, competitive, and not determined within the first three minutes. Right now, I think it is about 20% that meet that criteria (based on my experience).

Cedric, when you asked for our comments on the subject, I assumed you'd reply to at least a few of them. We have vague assurances from others that you have read the comments, but we have no comments from you. You've left us hanging.

loginci, you are not paying attention and didn't read much of what I wrote. I'll elaborate a bit more. I started playing Tanki at the behest of my sons in early 2014. Yes, I spent $100 to $150 each year the first two years (2014, 2015). I haven't bought since. Profiles do not give accurate representations of players who had accounts before profiles. (BTW, I'm actually old, a dad, and an engineer. I can afford a lot more than I spent. I've even bought a little for my two sons over the last six years, as they played long before me, but their fundings were quite limited, small Christmas presents, or birthday.) I took a year off. The game grew too frustrating. I've been playing regularly again for the last four months. Make of it what you want. It seems to me your aim in your comments is intentional trolling. Your comments seem contrarian. Gear score means nothing. If you bother to take the time to quantify performance, you will find GS has no correlation to success in battle. Drones do, but mileage varies. Some players seem to have astonishing benefit from their drones, others seem to have wasted their crystals. (And that is why OKDad70 doesn't have any drones. When (if) I eventually have the two protections I need, upgraded to 40%, then I'll start saving for drones.) Playing daily is key. I have not played OKDad70 daily for almost two years. Saving up crystals and taking advantage of sales is also important. Have you bothered? Focusing on the things that will matter to you in the game are key, not wasting crystals on everything else. I used to think I could tell the difference between buyers and nonbuyers, but I've seen too many persistent, patient nonbuyers do very well, and too many spendthrift buyers who really weren't getting a return on their investment. It is hard to tell unless they elaborate. You can find YouTubers explaining how to do well without buying. Participating in events is very important too, like "War," especially at the lower ranks. BTW, I have five secondary accounts specialized on different combinations. My youngest account is still significantly older than profiles. The only stat one can rely on is kills. Tanki has always kept track of the number of kills and deaths. My total kills in this game are 285,639 (and 149,781 deaths, total for six accounts). My firsthand experience in the game started early in 2014. My two sons were playing about 2.5 years before me. I have significant knowledge of several pertinent aspects of this game and its evolution. I have been paying attention across these years. I have tried to offer suggestions to devs and players, but all to no avail. You should be able to find my pages of text in the archives. I've grown to understand my typing serves no purpose beyond venting my own frustrations. (Feel free to provide counter arguments and/or prove me wrong. For that matter, if you'd actually care to discuss, say so. I'll take the time and give a good faith effort.)

Agreed.

Got a few microupgrades on two of my accounts. Nothing significant. This event was nothing significant.

For whatever reason, debit cards will not work. (May nor may not apply in your case.)

Addressing loginci, Captain Riconot has a current Max GS of 6290. Though, most common GS for the protections I use most is 5755. Same tank overall. There is no real difference between 6290 and 5755. A nearly as effective configuration gives GS of 4755. So, 1000 GS points probably makes a little difference, but I was just as used to being cursed with that configuration as the other with the much higher GS. Just in case you never noticed, Ricos suck! Accordingly, I started "Ricosck" on the basis of, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Marshal Ricosck has been dedicated to Ricochet since inception. I'm currently most active with Ricosck. I've managed several containers and have several high-level paints. Marshal Ricosck has benefited from dedicated effort specialized in Ricochet, and fortune has smiled with a few of the containers and fortune in the "War". Accordingly, while still Marshal, and not acquiring M3 turret and hull until attaining the rank, Marshal Ricosck has recently completed upgrades to full M4 of the Ricochet and Dictator hull. Ricosck has a single drone, upgraded 10 so far. With drone equipped, and my highest paint, GS is 9092. Protections were another fortunate circumstance for Ricosck, who had bought (with crystals, not cash) a broad set of old-school paint/protections. The conversions were good. Still, Ricosck has no protections near 50, but all 14 protections at 15% or more. I find anything over 35% effective, but it always seems most opponents are shooting me with something I'm not protected against. Unequipping the drone, equipping my most common protections, and sporting my favorite aesthetics, Ricosck's GS drops to 8288. This the same M4 rig, that will spank you any day you care to engage. Further, Ricosck can equip the original Hunter-Smoky, and GS drops to 4288. Of course, I wouldn't fight with that, but I could enter a battle that low, and immediately switch. GS is nothing. GS is meaningless. I have no idea how you can have such a low GS. Still, GS is meaningless. My OKDad70 account has M4 Viking and Titan, and M4 Twins and Thunder, with Vulcan and Rico at respectable levels. OKDad70 doesn't have drone, does have three high protections, three protection modules not yet acquired, and the others above 40%. Being more broadly interested with OKDad70 as my main account, it is a bit behind Ricosck. Each of us make choices. Some choices prove wiser or more effective than others. Of course, Tanki thwarts some decisions and choices by changing the game counter to the choices. Still, Rail and Hornet are probably the closest to the original throughout Tanki history. The XP configuration is still the central guiding line for Tanki. Your complaints miss the mark as well as I can see.

You sound like you are talking out your backside, making things up as you go. I don't buy. Your profile indicates you have over twice my experience, over three times my hours in game since profiles. It isn't my fault if you cannot use your crystals wisely. Protections are not OP. Protections are too restricted with only three. 50% against ONLY three turrets is not OP. Troll all you want, but only better decisions will improve your lot in the game.

You drive a Viking-Freeze most of the time. Protection against the Freeze is hardly useful if you know how to stay away from your opponents field of fire. Though they did recently have the Freeze protection slow down the freeze rate, it still works. You can still slow down the opponent and stay behind him. Even with 50%, you will kill a frozen tank soon enough. No, protections are not OP. Protections are too limited, too few. Hulls are too limited, especially in speed.