Don't worry y'all. Maf finally got around to noticing my comment in the I&S that suggested the wait-time, which I wrote a day or two before this post. That suggestion is listed as declined.

I suppose one could look at it that way, but if the player who just existed chooses the same battle format (such as flags), the MM is likely to put the player in the same battle he just left. Entering the same battle makes it that much more likely the player will leave again, worsening the situation. I hope to see incentives much more than I want a disincentive. My main reason for the suggestion was to offer a possible way to not take anything from the player's "property" in the game.

Again, you raise valid points. What I know is that I have been in battles that appeared to be balanced in my team's favor according to ranks, but players leave, and new players are stuffed in, and quickly the advantage is lost, and then the slaughter of my team begins. Sometimes terrible imbalance seems set from the start, and players leave and make it worse. Most times, though, it seem the imbalance only starts after some players leave. Part of the problem is missions where a player has one box remaining to pick up. That player starts a new battle, rushes to the needed box, and exists the battle. It would seem that wouldn't matter much, but there was a hole created by that player, first because his only objective was the pickup, second, because there is a vacancy until another player gets in. Further, the new player is often of lower rank, since the MM system needs to look farther down the chain, given that making the battle already depleted the closest ranked players. Tanki needs incentives to encourage players to play full battles. Some disincentive seems useful, but I'm sure taking anything from players will raise ire. Restricting players from rejoining battles for a short time seems fair to me and an adequate disincentive. Perhaps the inactivity could be 5 minutes. Perhaps it could be applied only if a player left before the 3-minute mark, or 4-minute mark in the battle, while there was still potential time for turning the battle around. On the whole, though, my main point remains. Everyone complains about MM, not just the people who used to leverage rank advantage. MM doesn't generally result in evenly matched teams. Things like Overdrive exaggerate leads, making it easier for the stronger team to dominate even more. The old system had its faults. MM isn't much worse, and it might be a little more fair, but very little. Regardless, it is not generally giving most players challenging battles. It usually gives the players on one team too-easy of a match, and the players on the other team nothing but frustration.

Valid points, though I don't think many would quit playing Tanki over it.

Maf, congrats. Good job. Regarding MM, sure, it works when it actually works, but that is a bogus argument. It basically is saying, "The Devs say it works, so shut up." Argument from authority is invalid. We need real data, or they need to quit preening. I'm still seeing over two-thirds of battles being slaughters by one side or the other. Teams are rarely balanced. Battle group on one side vs battle group on the other is good, but it doesn't at all address balance. One battle group might be friends who simply like to have the same side, and they don't have any other advantage. That is, they don't have voice communication in the battle, and they don't practice together to know how to complement one another. Another battle group might be clan members, or players who do work together to know how to coordinate and complement, and if they have voice communication in the battle, they have significant advantages. I understand that is little can be done for that. Still, something needs to be tried. Perhaps joining battle groups can carry a set of flags that will increase the players effective rank in MM placing when that player is in a battle group with others he regularly joins with. There have to be ways to track effectiveness, and effective groups can be paired against other effective groups, and groups that seem to have little extra effectiveness can be paired with similar battle groups. Some are complaining you are using GS with MM. I sure hope not. GS cannot be useful for comparison of effectiveness. The effectiveness or efficiency rating seems somewhat useful, but too limited. There has to be a way to track and rank players overall effectiveness, but I know it can never be fully objective. Subjectivity matters, and I can't expect human judges be involved with day to day ranking. A big problem is players who leave battles early. We need incentives to encourage players to stay in battles, and we need a disincentive, and I suggest a 9-minute delay for leaving a battle before being able to join a queue for a new battle. There I no way to force players to finish battles, but with some incentives and a 9-minute wait after leaving a battle early, players will be more willing to finish even a hopeless battle, because some crystals for 9-minutes playing is still more than none for 9-minutes of waiting.

I absolutely agree. GS is only a prestige or vanity score. Still, I'd like to be able to look it up at leisure. It is hard to see in battle, and currently impossible to double check.

Agreed. Show MUs and GS in Profile. Why doesn't the suggestion have thousands of likes? Yes, TiQ would be a very useful bit of information.

Gear Score in Profile Add GS to Profile.

eSport, I'm not sure I'm following you, but I say you aren't being fair to Wolverine. I detect no crying. He doesn't like Twins the way I don't like Isida. He just doesn't like it. (I find it fun, especially when people start cursing me and complain that I'm hacking. Twins and contact-combat suite me. I fight almost as close with Ricosck.) I'm not sure why a multilevel Legend wouldn't have multiple turrets and hulls fully upgraded. Ricosck is Marshal and he has one turret and one hull at almost M4, and a few MUs on one drone. It isn't that hard. OKDad70 has two M4 hulls and one M4 turret, and will have three more before Legend 3. I'll have Thunder to M4 before I make Legend 2. Ricosck got lucky with the Module conversion. Ricosck has good protection on all 14 modules. OKDad70 is still short a couple protections, but three protections are at 50% and one at 49%. I do okay. You mention massive buyers. Ricosck has spent less than $50US on that account, and I've mostly spent on OKDad70 at birthday and Christmas, to less than about $100US per year (four years). Not massive. Of course, I'm a grown man with a good job. I'm going to spend some on my hobbies in one way or another. I realize that amount of money is a lot to young people in school. It is not, however, massive buying. Also, there are folks running YouTube, etc., showing how they manage to do well in Tanki (and other games) without spending cash. It just seems to me that high level Legends are going to have multiple options with M4 equipment and high-protection modules, and I reiterate, only one set can be used at a time. Garage changes can tip battle balance, but just being Legend 20 isn't all that important in a random battle.

Ricosck often meets opponents with 40+ protection against Rico (see above). I kill them anyway. It only takes more patience. You really need to get over your Twins phobia. Twins are fun. There were three players with Twins in that battle above, only one of them did well. Smoky did well, and Smoky is never the advised choice in DM. It is not the turret as much as the player. Being Parma, one might wonder that no Shaft was in the top 8. There were at least two Shafts, but I didn't look up past the first 8 players. My point regarding Twins is that I rarely find it necessary to switch to a Twins protection. Protection against one or more of the short range turrets is often essential. Protection against Thunder and Shaft are essential often enough. I rarely find Twins among my most significant opponents. Watch out for OKDad70. If you find my M4 Twins-Viking/Titan overly hard to deal with, well, what can I say? :)

Being in the mood, and having had a good battle for example, I wanted to show Marshals beat Legends: Being a Legend 20 doesn't seem to be that much advantage.

Regarding high-Legend rankings and MM battles: For those who may care, perhaps Bydo, Wolverine, et al. As OKDad70, I'm not yet Legend 2. I have M4 Twins, M4 Viking, M4 Titan, and three more turrets at least M3.16. As Ricosck, I'm Marshal, and have M3.17 Ricochet on M3.18 Dictator. With both, I generally find myself against very high level Legends. If I recall correctly, I recently played in a battle with a Legend 72, who had over 5,000 hours playing time since profiles began. I admit I notice these players have skills. Some are quite impressive in battle awareness and tactics. They are good, but I seem to keep up with both accounts. High-level Legends almost certainly have multiple M4 hulls and turrets and high MU drones and other goodies, but only one set of equipment can play at a time, and I just don't see a problem. As General, with M2.10 equipment, Ricosck was playing Legends and managing well enough, if disappointingly. Marshal Ricosck continued to have a rough time of it until the equipment was about M3.14, but Ricosck has managed first against high-level legends in more than a handful of battles. (On the winning team. I'm not impressed when I manage first on the losing team.) My conclusion, there is no reason to restrict battles with Legends of high levels versus lower levels. In fact, I think there is no reason to restrict Commanders and Gizmos from Legend battles. M3+ equipment is available by at least Fieldmarshal. Ricosck's equipment will be M4 before Fieldmarshal. (Ricochet and Dictator only, that is the point. I might eventually switch to Hunter, but only after upgrading it. Actually, I might give up on Tanki before then. C'est la vie.)

Yep, for the most part, I agree with you and all you said in that one. However, screenshots of the battle-end tell us nothing of how active a player was. The player may have 5 kills and 20 destructs and get one star, despite actively participating only one minute out of the nine minute battle. Or, he may have had the same result while hustling his butt off but just be outclassed and outgunned (or downright unlucky). The first one shouldn't have received a star per the criteria of "active." The second should. It seemed to me that total score in a battle mattered more than the lowest scores. The higher the total score, and the more players who had high scores, the more likely the bottom scores didn't get stars. Maybe 90 was a threshold under some circumstances, but it sure didn't seem to be under all circumstances. If I haven't made it clear, I really don't care what the objective criteria was BECAUSE the stated criteria is subjective. "ACTIVE" is not quantifiable with a score or kills. The criteria was never indicated as objective in any way. It also wasn't "valued." The criteria wasn't "play hard." The criteria wasn't "play well enough." The criteria was "be active." I recall a statement that being AFK or hiding in the garage would disqualify a player from stars in that battle. I don't go AFK in battles. I go to the garage, make the necessary change, and get back to the battle, ALWAYS. I'm never inactive, yet I have failed to qualify for stars in many battles. It is frustrating, as far too much of Tanki is.

Sometimes I think an actual bug report is worth some extra effort. Usually, in context like Viking was asking, it just ain't worth it. Viking was guessing, based on reasonable observation, but impossible to support without loads of data and screenshots, or an actual disclosure by the devs. My point is that it wasn't worth it. Trying to support a guess in a game is opposite of why people play games. If the devs care about the stars, they should clearly define how to earn them and how to miss getting any in a battle. The stated criteria is "active." That is nonsense. A player can be fully engaged, active, and even contributing, and not get stars. That is my point, not whether 90 is the magic number.

It is hard for me to believe most of the cheats can't be caught. I've wasted time getting an occasional player suspended. I think one got permanently banned. However, it was probably a hacked account and the hacker will scam some other poor sod out of an account, apply the cheats or play counter to the rules, and get that account suspended too. It is hard to report cheaters. You can act like it ain't, but it is hard. It has proven unuseful to me. I no longer bother. Part of it is the discouraging self-destruct when accidentally running on top of another tank. That is a really stupid and useless attempt to thwart speed hacks. It is hard and produces no perceivable good, so why bother? About the only cheat I ever notice is a damage-reduction. I'm never sure of it, but some players seem practically indestructible under all circumstances. One time I was able to record a battle where two players had it and were totally indestructible. Both only had a couple deaths in the battle due to self-destruct. Many noticed. I was unable to follow-up on that one and determine if they were punished, but ever since, I've thought it the only common hack. It seems if it is used, it is only partial, like having a permanent double armor, and half again with an actual supplies double armor. Regardless, it just has never seemed worth it. Besides, most of the complaints aren't supportable. Many complaints are more about effective supplies use than any sort of cheat or real hack. So, hopefully the anticheats will get smarter and catch the cheaters. The players can't help as far as I can tell.

You ask people to give you screen shots. What was unclear about what I said? You ask people to prove you wrong with more effort than most are willing to expend. You ask for more effort than most put into the game overall. I sometimes want to make a point and take a screen shot, but I usually just keep them for my own reference. It is difficult to get the screen shots to load here. I know it isn't that hard, but it takes time. Time I and many others don't care to expend.

You ask a lot of people, most of whom play less than four hours per week. Not all players have master-level computer skills.

I think you are guessing. Regardless, including times when one starts the battle, if one is on the slaughtered team, the battle may end after only about five or six minutes, one can hustle and fight and be fully active the entire time and not get 90 score. It is stupid. The criteria is stated as "active" in the battle, but some esoteric criteria is used, that you assume is 90 score, and no star award. It is crap. Stars is a bad deal. I had obligations over the last week and my time online was limited, but I only had five stars on my main account, and I think 18 on my Ricosck account. Ricosck had at least three battles without stars, and I assure you I am always active, always committed to being an asset for my team. The criteria of "active" is total crap. It is bogus. It is even dishonest. They need to stop stars. Perhaps in future "War" events. It seems justifiable there, but even in War, they need a better criteria for withholding the star award.

Best I can tell, stars was supposed to go to tomorrow.

Yes, Ricosck is my Ricochet account. OKDad70 doesn't have the Rico MU'd well yet. M4 Twins. After they screwed up Twins so bad I was playing mostly Vulcan (M3.17), but they screwed it up with the Firebird fiasco. I've been playing Thunder more lately, and been playing mostly my alt accounts, mostly Ricosck. (That is pronounced, "Ricos Suck!" It was a realization that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.)

Addressed upstream, but Twins does not have more range than Rico now. Twins range for full damage is 20. Rico's is 60. The range reduction for Rico is extreme. Why? What was the rationale? (Don't insult us by repeating "intended to be short range.") Again, you change the required style and tactics of the equipment. Rico is more comparable to Thunder and Smoky. It isn't like Hammer and Twins, both of which are supposed to be unique. Rico was a much more all-around turret like Thunder and Smoky. Shots Ricosck used to make regularly now fizzle out with no damage tallied. It is frustrating. Now I have to learn different skills than what made me like the turret and devote time to developing. It is like starting over. At least it only requires time and frustration and not a million more crystals. I don't have time at present to run the numbers, but the change is an overall buff for Ricochet. It seems an effort to give it less dismal prospects against the three melee turrets. The melee turrets are extremely OP. Trying to bring other turrets up to them is counter to good play. It makes things MORE imbalanced, not less. BTW, Hammer range is too long. Shotguns are shortest range. As ByeByeBye pointed out, Tanki keeps taking away uniqueness and making everything more alike. Increasing parameter beyond design reasonableness to "keep things even" is counterproductive. Things were different for good reason. You are fully qualified to address this point: Ricochet is an all-around turret much more comparable to Thunder and Smoky. Twins and Hammer are unique turrets. Ricochet is not comparable to either. Agreed? "Intended as short range" is a throwaway excuse. Further, have you used Rico enough since the changes to consider the changes an overall buff? How much has the range loss altered your style and tactics? I feel your pain. (My Ricosck alt account is 100% Ricochet.) Ricochet is an all-around turret much more comparable to Thunder and Smoky. Twins and Hammer are unique turrets. Ricochet is not comparable to either. Agreed? "Intended as short range" is a throwaway excuse. Care to comment? Further, have you used Rico enough since the changes to consider the changes an overall buff? How much has the range loss altered your style and tactics?

When will the Wiki be fully updated for the changes announced here?

Typical battles for Marshal Ricosck: Enter battle with Legends (all or mostly) and notice I have the wrong protections. Ricosck has all the protections, most of theme over 35%, so I change. Then the other team changes, either turrets or players. Then I'm being one-shot'd again. Even if I manage to have enough time to change protections again, invariably, a turret I'm now at 0% protection against is shooting me. I can hang with the Legends. That isn't an issue, but only three protections against multiple turrets that can one-shot me is overly frustrating. And, sometimes, Ricosck still plays with Generals. The protections problem is still there, but much less frustrating. There are other ways to increase the protection, perhaps four, with a progressively larger reduction multiplier on three of them, and then three more available only in DM, where 8 to 10 different turrets is normal. (These would have a reduction multiplier, also.) There needs to be more slots, and the 150% limit needs to be increased, at least a little.

I still think it is pathetic. The stated criteria is "active". If there is a lower limit, it should be stated. As OKDad70, I was just in a full flag battle where the team I was on was so dominate it was over (7-0) in less than five minutes. I managed only 4 kills. I think I had exactly 90 score. I did get a star. The two players below me on our team did not. (I didn't pay attention to the other team.)

Hard to get five kills when dropped into the last three minutes of a spawn-kill slaughter. The "active" definition is broke. It isn't reasonable. IF they are saying one must get 100 score and 5 kills, spell it out plainly. Then when I see I'm dropped in a battle half-over and hopeless, I can waste my time waiting in the MM queue instead of wasting it being spawn killed in a vain effort to help my team.