Is this more appropriate? http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=377889&p=6644469

Missions? No, frustrations. Quantification, a data point. I had a 1500 points mission in TDM. That took two days, requiring 12 matchs, maybe 13. Completed four of those today, and one good match of control points, but zero of my 15 first-place missions are done. Five matches, zero first-place. Yep, those complaining about 15 firsts have a valid point. 15 firsts will take most players between 50 and 80 battles to accomplish. Averaging about five battles per hour means at least 10 hours and as many as 16 hours. I admitt I'm guessing, but I assert most players, typical players, play less than 5 hours per week. One container and a set of supplies is a meager reward for so much effort over two or three weeks. Many of the daily missions take too long for the reward, even the higher rewards. The floater weekly mission must be avereraging two weeks for most players, with only one container (which is likely no more valuable than 125 speed boosts) and one set of supplies. Please examine, collate, and disclose the time requirements for the harder missions, and reduce accordingly. It seems fair to me to expect a weekly mission to take five to seven hours of playing (for a player with median-level abilities). It seems punitive, a counter-incentive, to set weekly missions that will require twice as much time as most players play in a week.

Too true. It is easier to give advice than implement it. I do try hard to give reasonable suggestions and quantify details accurately most of the time. Opinions, of course, may very. And, you know too well my rant is accurate. And I have written pages of suggestions over the last few months.

It looks like this event is for nothing but cold hard cash. No extra anything. Oh well. I'll initiate a couple of upgrades and forget about it.

Over the top and hyperbolic, but your generalized points are certainly true. Venting is okay once in a while, just don't make it a habit or everyone will block you. (More flies with honey..., ya know.)

MM utterly sucks! I try not to care about Marshall Ricosck being dropped into all-Legend battles. I am experienced. It is a full M4 Rico-Dic. I can hang, but it is that much more frustrating when my whole team is being spanked and spawnkilled. I'm needing a friggin-unbelievable quantity of points in TDM for the daily mission. So, I click the TDM mode button. Wait wasn't bad, about 40 seconds, and I got dropped into such an unbalanced battle that having 7:50 playing time, I didn't manage 100 points. Good grief! The battle was about 25 to 80. Ricosck was about middle of the team ranking. I was too disgusted to pay attention to how much better the other team did. What gives? How does MM put 8 Legends against 7 Legends and an M4-Marshal and end up with such extreme inbalance? The first time I looked at the score it was 8 to 20. Geeze! I have made suggestions regarding how to improve balance, but I have no idea how hard, or even possible, such might be to implement. An obvious part of the problem this time was how the 8-tanks on the other team seemed to include 5 Shafts and 5 Magnums and 5 Hammers (and a Thunder and a Rico and two stinking Isidsas). Yeah, obviously it wasn't that. Perhaps 2 each instead of 5. Maybe one or two of them changed turrets along the way. Regardless, how can anyone even hope to fight such a combination of turrets? The multilevel Legends may have high-level protection against all those, but I don't. Everyone knows Shaft is designed to have one-shot potential against heavies. Magnums are just as powerful, and Hammers are, too, with the right alteration. Why isn't the MM system designed to NOT put so many one-shotters together? BTW, if this had been a star week, I'd have been denied a star reward on claims of being inactive. No one on our team was inactive. All were trying, but all our efforts were futile. Bottom line, MM sucks. It really does. MM is currently worse than raided battles ever were. (And raided battles didn't occur every day.)

As Hamchunk said, "Ha, ha, you funny." If I log in, check the basics. Drop into the garage, consider options, make changes, and go back to the battle screen, now I click a mode and wait, and wait, and I've been logged on 15 minutes by the time I complete the first battle. Now, I need a different mode, so I drop into the garage, make my changes, back to the battle screen and click the mode button. This time I get lucky, only 20 seconds wait. At the completion of the battle, it is 25, maybe 27 minutes logged in. I click the mode button again, and, wow, only 4 seconds. Oh, the battle has 3:30 left and I've been added to the hopeless team. Of course, I didn't notice the fact until there are only two minutes left, so I might as well finish. That battle completes, and I've made nearly no progress on any mission, and I've been logged on 33 minutes or so. Need I go on? It is ridiculous to assert seven battles takes only 56 minutes. Maybe six battles per hour, but not for most people, not most of the time. Remember, we come here for entertainment and, hopefully, relaxation. It isn't work. It isn't an assignment. Yet, to accomplish the missions and claim the rewards, most days will require more than one hour logged in. My assertion is, most players play between 3 and 5 hours per week, and I just don't see the average going up to 7 or 8. Of course, I have no evidence. I cannot pull the stats. Maybe someone can. Maybe the information can be collected via some public means. If so, I'm sure there are plenty of candidates who can collate and analyze the data explain to me whether I'm right or wrong. (Maybe the devs will do so.) In the meantime, I'd appreciate people being more realistic. 8-minute battles will require 10 to 15 minutes of the average player's time. Further, 8 minute battles do not accomplish as much as a longer battles. Of course, if the mission is stay in a battle, then the 3-minute hopeless spawnkill fest is as useful as any other battle (but more frustrating). In general, overall, only the most extreme and focused players are going average over about five battles per hour.

I tried to play my BP account today, First Lieutenant DH.98 (Rail-Wasp), I managed to play two matches, assault, completing one mission of finishing two assault battles. I estimate it will take five or six battles to complete the remaining two missions. Then I will have meager progress on the weeklies. One is 10,000 points. I simply don't have time to play this lower level account each day. This new system is exceptionally discouraging. I simply can't justify playing it. I don't want to. Over the last several months, the Wasp has been eliminated as a viable hull. The rail gun is still an effective turret, but it is so different from what it used to be. It doesn't make much sense to try BP now. It used to be an exciting combination. Now, it just respawns a lot, and it takes lots and lots of missions to hope to keep up with buyers. Can't do it. Can't find any reason to try.

It sure would be nice to have more maps. It would be even nicer if all the maps weren't messed up for whatever purpose the devs think they need to be fubarred for MM. Polygon MM is reasonable for TDM, and still good for DM, but it is messed up for the other modes, especially assault. Does red ever win in Polygon Assault battles? I suppose it does, but doesn't red need another flag point? Blue holds a well channalized and defensible position. Even a smidgeon of team works assures blue's win. Another flag point seems essential. Please stop tweaking the maps. I used to have most of them memorized. Now I seem to have to relearn every map every few days. Please put in more maps. If we are stuck with a crappy MM system, at least give us some more variety. Also, please keep track of which maps players have played recently and lower their odds for repeating maps close together. It would also be nice if there was a vote up or down button for the map on the battle closeout results screen. The button could apply to raise or lower the odds for the player to repeat that map and provide devs with feedback regarding the general favorableness of each map.

I know I'm pissing in the wind, but I gotta try saying again: 1500 points in a specified battle mode. I got lucky and one other was the same mode, and the third was not mode specific. So, I only needed seven battles. 7 for the hard one, and the other two accomplished during those seven. Seven battles? One daily mission requiring seven battles? Of course, finish seven battles takes seven battles. Isn't that a bit much for most players? Is the objective to play favorites? For weekly, 10,000 points in battle. In DM, one kill is 10 points, so 1000 kills. Wow. If my argument of a 12-kills per MM battle is valid, that would take 80 battles. Of course, in DM, kill average will be higher, but that still requires 1000 kills. In other battle modes where I can get points in addition to kills, I'm a little faster, but but the fact remains, a 10,000 points mission is going to take more than one week for all but the most dedicated players. Daily missions that take two to seven battles each, and weekly missions that take 10 to 15 days. Hmm... It just ain't right. Franky, most days, I do not have time to play more than three or four battles. Missions are now dreaded rather than anticipated.

Thank you. It doesn't seem that long ago. I suppose being older alters my perceptions, and I'm not taking such into account. (Nor my year off from the game.) Anyway, I assume you looked it up. How did you search? Where did you find it? I only looked a couple minutes in the forum for Patch notes. I had no indications of progress. My suspicion was correct that Sarek was older than player profiles. I wouldn't be surprised if I had more hours with Sarek before profiles than since. I must have if my assertion about average kills per battle is correct. My point remains, 500 kills is a hard one-week mission. It will require 10 to 14 days for most players. BTW, now that I know the date, I found this: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=242832 It seems discussions on Vulcan date back to at least December 2014, but that is irrelevant to the point. Even at my age, I'm susceptible to distraction. I knew I could find it, but I thought it would take too long. (It would have. Thanks again.)

Can anyone provide the date Vulcan was introduced in the game? Can anyone provide the date the Player Profile was implemented? My youngest account is Sarek_V, a dedicated Vulcan, started when Vulcan was introduced. Sarek's kills per hour are too high. Thus, not all his hours are recorded by the profile system. (Profile must have been implemented after I initiated Sarek_V.) I'm looking for accounts created after Player Profiles were implemented, such that the player has all hours played accounted for in the profile stats. Anybody care to volunteer? If your account is younger than the profile system, how many kills do you have? How many hours have you played? Kills per hour equals? I bet not many have more than 100 or so kills per hour average, and I suspect most are closer to 65. I also think players, on average, are only getting about five MM battles per hour. 65 ÷ 5 = 13 kills per battle. A 500 kills mission is more than 30 and less than 50 battles for most players. That is a lot more playing time in a week than most players play. (If holding a steady average of 5 MM battles per hours, one hour per day for seven days is 35 battles, which I am asserting is at least as many as most players will need for a 500 kills mission. Accordingly, a 500 kills mission is a 10 to 14 day effort for typical players. Two-weeks, not one.) Tanki should include the "born" date (or "first activated date") for each player account. That would be cool, and it would allow Tanki to keep track of the account's birthday and provide a small gift each anniversary. It would allow us to know for sure when we started our accounts.

He hasn't replied or added any comments.

The major changes, of course. What date introduced the first overdrive? What date did they change most parameters to even things out (The Great Leveling)? What was the date when they change from 7 hulls to 3? What date was MM permanently installed? The main dates over the last 30 months. Cedric would know of a few that far back, but my point is it would be nice to have a timeline of the major events, perhaps even from the beginning. BTW, all these changes I mention were changes that made the game more frustrating and less fun.

That is the kind of comment a jerk would make. Were you intending so be so offensive and belittling?

Howdy Cedric, Welcome back. I always appreciated you, and I'm happy to see you return. (I appreciated Nives as well.) I assume you know the basics of what has happened in Tanki updates and changes and additions. Might I ask you to post a date list of the features for the last several months? (Or perhaps someone could painstakingly go through the patch notes for the last several months and create the date list for us.) My own last 18-months (approximately) with regard to Tanki has been mostly frustrating, except for the 11 months I left the game unplayed. My memory and internal timeline are foggy, but my vague recollection is Tanki changed most everything in what I call the Great Levelling, and right before or right after they switched from the 7 traditional hulls to just three. (I know, that isn't quite accurate, but close enough.) And change after change, and sucky MM system was implemented, and I gave up. This summer, I started playing again. Most of what really frustrated me was distant memory, and rebuilding my battle skills kept me occupied and not taking the frustrations to heart. Tanki had changed Twins so much it was a pain to play, and I started using Thunder and Vulcan, mostly Vulcan, but then they barfed all over Vulcan with the Firebird's burn update, and Vulcan was an absurdity until they got around to making overt, obnoxious changes to it, totally changing the way one must fight with the turret. They tweaked it here and there, but I moved on. I started playing Twins more again, and developed the new, totally different technics required to make it effective again. It isn't anywhere near the fun it used to be (before the Great Levelling), but I mostly enjoy it now. I also note they've tweaked Vulcan enough to make it rather effective again. There must have been some small changes I missed the announcements for. While I was on hiatus, Tanki beefed the missions system. I was quite enjoying that aspect of the game after I'd been playing for ten weeks. Of course, they were giving us unlimited sweets, and now they are telling us to keep the treats flowing we have to work much harder and at least three times longer. I'm not sure that is going to work out. I'm sure they are working tweaks. I think they will need more than a few tweaks. I notice there wasn't one word in the VLog regarding all the complaints voiced. Overall, for me frustration levels have been very high. The match making system makes about 1 in 5 battles that are reasonably balanced and challenging. The Massacre map is extremely frustrating in most modes, especially with the "invisible barriers." They claimed they improved that, but I can't tell it. Far too often the tank stops in midattack, and only reversing can get it moving again, and, of course, one usually blows up before getting moving forward again. My frustration level is almost enough to make me take another extended break, but they've been introducing so much new, I keep hoping, but keep being disappointed. Speaking of new features, et al., it is good that Tanki has been adding options and features and growing the game, but it seems the pace is resulting in more problems than improvements. I assume new features keep revenue up. I assume that is the drive for more and more new. I no longer can defend the Tanki system as free-to-play, and one can win with patience and skill. No, now there are two tiers, the buyers advance, the nonbuyers slog along mostly grinding until they can accumulate enough crystals and catch a sale to advance only a little. The arbitrarily inflated crystal-cost of batteries is a significant factor in the imbalance. With a drone equipped, a battle can cost between 2500 and 4000 crystals from ones garage (supplies). (8 minute battle, 8 batteries, 300 crystals each is 2400 just in batteries.) With all the turrets and drones and alterations, it is now totally impossible to defend. All emphasis is on kills now. It seems most player's average K/D (D/L) has been dropping. The new mission system takes daily missions from one or two battles to accomplish for most missions to at least two, and sometimes up to five battles for one mission. Most players are going to be getting fewer daily mission rewards than before, and only one or two weekly missions each week. Overall, my frustrations with the game exceed my enjoyment of it, but I haven't lost hope yet. I keep venting on the forum. I know it doesn't help, but the alternative is simply walking away. That will probably make your cereal soggy. Oh well. ;)

Frankly, Tanki now considers these SDs as features, not bugs. The SD occurs because you exceeded parameters the game systems monitor. The game assumes you cannot exceed those parms unless you are fly-hacked, or speed-hacked, or otherwise exceeding Tanki physics. Of course, being on top of another tank going the same direction can more than double your speed, and you explode as an assumed cheater. Same for Jugger push-back effect; in some circumstances, it will assume you are hacking and blow you up. Embrace the suck, or find another game. You haven't seen this before because you haven't played long yet. Lower equipment is slower, less likely to be considered cheating. The better (faster) your equipment, the more you will see the sucky self-destruct.

ByeByeBye, on 07 Nov 2018 - 13:54, said: Yep. Agreed (both of you). This account, OKDad70, is mostly retired. I'm playing Ricosck, and I, too, will be only trying for ten missions per week. (My four lower accounts have all been mostly retired for quite a while.) Ricosck has the current advantage of being an M4 Marshal. (It is much easier to upgrade a specialized, dedicated account than to try to keep a generalist account upgrading well.) As to the first weekly, the one many seem to be referring to as the "floater," well, it is proving hard also. I had 10000 points last week. Took me six hard days trying to get all daily missions done. I must have started late because the week reset, and I only had 17/20. So, got that one today, and I have six days of nothing on it. And, the floater today is 500 kills. Okay, but even trying, that will take me over 40 matches, which isn't going to happen in one week. I know some are good at kills, but I fight with plasma. I like Twins best, and Ricochet next, those are good effective guns for team play, but not for total kills. 10 to 17 kills is typical for most of my battles, probably average near 12. Add a few flags or a couple goals, and I do fine in rankings, but my aim is to help my team win, not getting the most kills. (That is why I find most snipers disgusting. They end the game with the highest kill total, but on the losing team. Sickening.) The overall concept changing the missions to weekly from chains seems necessary, but this system, as it is, has proven to be a significant step in the wrong direction.

I think the average player should consider an average point score of 200 per match. Thus, a 2000 point mission is 10 matches, a 10000 point mission is 50. Three good matches and two poor matches left me with almost 1000 points. 250 average is too high. Few players will be able to maintain that high of an average of points per match over the long haul.

Fifteen minutes after reset this date, 2100 players online.

Your observation is commonly expressed. Tanki cares, but they seem incompetent at stopping hackers. (I've never heard of garage hacks, btw.) Common hacks are "flying" and supper-speed. One of the implemented features of the game is self-destructing if certain game parameters are exceeded that might indicate the player has a fly-hack or speed-hack active. The general result is you self destruct when you find yourself on top of a fast tank going the same direction as you. Your speed plus the tank you are riding exceeds the parameter and you lose a kill and respawn. At least those two hacks aren't common anymore. The hack that seems common is shields or reduced damage effect. If Tanki has any countermeasure, I haven't noticed. Fortunately, I can usually kill enemies. Super-hard to kill tanks are, thankfully, rare. Tanki does effectively punish or ban caught hackers, but you must take video and submit your Youtube link to the violators page. One can "Vote" players, but I never hear praise for the system, only complaints. Sadly, though, most accounts that implement hacks were stolen or weaseled from unsuspecting players. It hurts a naïve player, and lets the hacker go back to his regular account until he manages to steal another. That is the way I see it after four years of playing.

As pointed out well by a couple of players above, the account must be old. I suspect it is a secondary account of a more experienced player. I have five specialized lower-rank accounts besides this one. Four of them I seldom play. (Not enough time.) Compare Riconot, my short-range specialist. https://ratings.tankionline.com/en/user/Riconot You will see I have a 40% protection Eagle (Shaft) module. Under the system (too old to even be mentioned in the Wiki), one bought paints that included a preset combination of protections. I think it was Dirty that had the high Shaft protection. When modules were introduced, separating protections from the paints, they converted what was in garages to the [then] new system. Then they changed to the current system, everything converted again, leaving some low-ranked players with high-rank protections. On my second account (Ricosck), I ended up with all 14 protections, most of them relatively high. So, it was a matter of fortune and how one had bought protections in the old days. Paints and their protection combinations were tiered, with a few becoming available every rank or two. As I recall, Prodigy was the most favored paint among the high ranks, and Digital for Smoky specialists. And, I find, if you inspect the Paint wiki, https://en.tankiwiki.com/Paints, you can see all the legacy protections from before they were separated from the paints. For protections, one can expect slow-developing players who've had the account for more than a couple years or so, to have a few protections that exceed the current module paradigm. They are not cheating or hacking, but slow and lucky.

New matters. People want to check personally. Also, at the moment, 3500 players online.

I understand. My problem is I've never liked the pro battles. They have several of their own problems and annoyances. Supplies-off battles are good, especially if one is low on supplies, but they have always seemed rare to me. MM is required for missions, and missions are required if you can't or won't buy supplies. If I get too fed up with MM, I'll just forget to login and play. Oops.

The rewards are really not significantly different than before. The problem is having to work 3 to 4 times longer for them. One match can cost us over 4000 crystals in used supplies. Now we have to play three to five matches for rewards that used to take one or two. Sure, we had longer ones, but you could get those tomorrow at almost no loss to your overall rewards. Regardless, the new system makes me inclined to play less.