I'm convinced that shaft lovers also love to lose. Anything for a good K/D, I suppose.

The MM changes were for the worse. MM average time is much lower, but wait times are at least as long. WUWT? Freeze nurf? I can't tell. Still OP. Isida is also absurdly OP. Recent changes are not for the better. MM really doesn't work. MM needs a ranking for players that measures effectiveness in winning battles. Obviously, not easy. How does one rate a sniper? Most are sad and worthless, but they get good K/D. Of course, some snipers are very tactically aware and indispensable. Some players rate low because they effectivelly use respawn tactically, sacrificing effectively, contributing much to the team win. I don't know how, but you have to even the teams with strong team players. It seems most battles get 3 to 5 effective players with the other team getting one or none. It makes for frustrating battles, especially for the loosing team, but even so for the winning team. Hard fought, close battles are the fun ones.

Please change the color of the Change buttons in missions, perhaps yellow or red. Perhaps add a confirmation button.

We have a birthday field in the profile. I doubt most people want their actual birthday known, but it would be cool to list the initial signup date there. Perhaps a small gift of crystals and/or supplies on each anniversary.

I suggest a set of option toggles and radio buttons on the Battles panel. I'd like to have a few preference options for battle buttons. Perhaps a subset of maps could be an option. Perhaps an option for battles that exclude a particular turret.

I suggest a toggle on each supply in the garage. That is, let players turn off (or on) their own supplies in the garage. If a toggle on each supply is hard, perhaps on supplies overall? Sometimes I want to conserve one or more of the supplies, and it would be nice to not accidentally use.

Well, LittleWillie, no big deal, I suppose. You simply seem to be advancing slowly. It seems you were just about this rank last I was reading forums. I'm probably remembering wrong. No worries. (One cannot check. The rank on old posts updates with you.) Also, I was looking back, and I stopped playing Tanki in August 2017. So, nearly one year, not nearly two. In rereading my departing comments from last year, it seems little has changed overall.

My concern with the clock is listed times, particularly for expiration times/dates. If there was a statement of the time definition with the expiration time, that would address my suggestion. If the time had a definition beside it (under it), then there would be no doubts or misunderstandings.

Grammerly.

Opinion of this game: I started playing early 2014. I found the game fun. Some aspects were frustrating, and some of those frustrations were addressed and fixed. Others arose. Sometimes addressed, sometimes not. After a year or so, I'd settled into a style I liked and was good at, with equipment I'd become skilled with. Then there was the Great Leveling (when, I forget, wasn't early 2016?) The game changed everything within it to make everything more similar and less distinctive. (Second time of full overhaul of the game, but first was before 2014.) I wrote a lot about the problems of the changes. Mostly, it took away the things I found fun. It allowed the ineffective players to be mediocre, and it brought most of the best players down to mediocre. (Thus, I refer to it as the great leveling.) It was shortly thereafter, if I recall correctly, that they reduced the hulls to three rather than seven, and they kept upping the guns, and they reduced the number of protections. The last change on protections was while I was away. I'm okay with the change, but three protections against at least 13 potential weapons is quite frustrating. I appreciated all the new turrets except Magnum. The Magnum turret is a good idea, and it can be an entertaining addition in a match, but too often it is decisive, and it significantly changed the game. That is, the game is designed flat, essentially 2D. Magnum is 3D. It changed everything. I think the overall effect is detrimental. It adds more frustration than fun. (Most Tanki changes since early 2016 have added frustration and subtracted fun.) I'm back for now. Perhaps my rusty skills will develop in ways more suited to current Tanki, rather than pre-2016 Tanki. There have always been lots of complaints in the forums. Most were legit. Many were effectively addressed, but the "dying" factor simply took over. I really can't fault Tanki as a company. They have agilely adapted most of the time, but while the adaptation has kept Tanki viable, it hasn't generally been fun. We play games for fun. If I'm still active by September, I suppose that means I found it more fun than frustrating. Matchmaking is currently a failure. It rarely provides balanced teams. It can be thrilling to be on the strong team, but the effect wares off soon and becomes boring, and being on the weak team is frustrating and discouraging. There needs to be an incentive for players to stay in battles through finish. It cannot be enforced, so it must be incentivized.

Little Willie, how much do you play? You've been here for years. I haven't played in nearly two years because of how frustrating the game became. It isn't much better, but I'm determined to give it a fair shot. At your rank, I would guess you play one or two rounds each day to keep a mission streak going, but you don't seem to play. Do you just make all this up?

We need a game-time clock. Probably something to click somewhere in the garage. To verify local time versus game time.

Maf, I have respect for you, but sometimes you don't pay attention. The vlog clearly admitted the test was only of how bad the matchmaking system was. It had nothing to do with the servers. It needed the real, regular players. The MM algorithm needed exposure to the millions of variables that real, regular players bring. As I pointed out up stream, the need was for data of how the algorithm matched players. That is why battles were shortened, so as to ensure more matchings. That is why there was no option to continue. Everyone had to go through the MM for every battle entered. (It is sad the group-function was abused. But, what did the devs expect when abusing the players? They fight back.) The servers were never taxed in any way. The server play and load was well balanced and totally irrelevant to the MM test. There were map issues, but they claim they fixed. There should have been no map issues because they should not have tried to optimize maps while trying to figure the MM algorithm. As indicated in the vlog, they changed the maps because they are trying to make them all equally profitable. That is, they want all matches to have high crystal totals like Polygon-CP battles. I accept that goal as legitimate. It was dumb to try to do both tests at once. Counterproductive and against all sound experimenting procedures. (I don't see how making doorways wider might help crystal totals. I also do not support the notion of making ever map a variant of Polygon, which is what they looked like to me.)

I give up. It is just too frustrating. Nothing matters but luck. Fortuna rules the matches, and maybe she puts the right turrets on your team. Maybe she gives you the right protections. Mostly, she punishes the cautious. Luck, not skill, is all that matters. Sure, in DM, skill is probably biggest factor, barely, but missions favor team battles. Team matches are rarely competitive past three minutes. By ten minutes into the game, players start abandoning the losing team. Nothing like we are hearing is going to fix that. Rating system is sad. It will not fix MM. I was approximately 20,000th rated tanker as Gismo, and was 987th after I ranked to Legend. I played every day, and I've dropped rating every day since. I stick out losses. I suspect that is why the rating system punishes me. I nearly always finish in top three for my team or for DM. I have no trouble filling 1st-place missions. Yet, I drop in efficiency rank every day. 1,151 today if I recall. So, for all the doubters, I've finally had enough. 542 hours in game since they started keeping tally. Oh well. I suppose I have better ways to spend my time.

I keep wondering why they changed maps and changed battle duration for the test. One never changes other parameters while testing a specific change. Confounding combinations are impossible to account. The maps I do not understand. Changing the maps was an unjustifiable mistake. I suspect the intent was to allow for easier driving and more direct combat. I assume they enlarged the maps that were a bit too small for 20 players. There are enough maps for 20 players. It was wasted effort and counter to the objective of testing. However, I realized why 10 minutes instead of 15. The test truly was of the matchmaking algorithm. They knew it was inadequate, and they foisted it on us anyway. They subjected us to the torture of it, and to ensure sufficient data, they shortened the battles and forced us out at the end of each one in order to have a large enough sample to analyze and solve the failings of the algorithms. Well, if it worked, maybe it will be worth it. I fear the altered maps added unworkable complications. If the matchmaking system can be improved to actually set two balanced teams, it might end up being an improvement. If! If the matchmaking system can throw 20 moderately comparable combatants into death matches, it will probably make for more enjoyable DMs. If the system can match players stats, player style, and player equipment, it just might make for interesting DMs where some players find themselves in a perfect circumstance, and others find themselves scurrying to the garage for just the right equipment to find an edge against the starting field. That could be interesting. Sadly, I do not see such arising from analysis of the trial we where subjected to. For those who doubt me, note that there were dozens of complaints within minutes. The negative feedback was coming in as fast as players were leaving battles. No one liked it. Within six hours of initiation, the test was an obvious abject failure. By noon-UTC, no one could doubt. It proved the matchmaking system and the overall experience were dreadful. I assume the no-ranks against legends were intentional by players intending to embarrass or simply frustrate, and that is another detracting factor frustrating dev's efforts to make the matchmaking algorithm work. Shame on us players for adding to the harm, but one must understand that individuals will band together to fight back when they feel they are being abused. So, the fact that the battles were shortened and the test was run its full duration convinces me they were trying to figure out the matchmaking algorithm. They knew it was bad, and they subjected us to it anyway. It seems fair to suppose we were getting very restless about it. Both fears and hopes were growing too intense. Still, testing MM while it was that poor was simply a mistake. I do hope you got your data. I do understand the aim. If you can hit the mark, the game will improve, but I just don't see progress. I lost hope. The request for feedback was specific, and I believe sincere, but we players know the feedback is mostly rejected. You are looking for data and analyzing. Our feedback and suggestions are just part of the analysis, nothing more.

More or less. I have suggested a rotating map of the day several times with several different ideas of how. I like most of the maps. I miss not getting to play them. It sure gets old playing on the same mediocre map match after match. MM put me in industrial zone 8 of 10 matches. I like the map, but not nearly that much. (Not to mention the screwed up version for MM. I hated that!)

Thanks Cedric. It is my intention to give grace, but it is getting too painful.

Regarding server load: Geeze! Give me a break! The load was spread proportionally over the servers every time I looked. No server was stressed to any significance. I looked with the intension of checking, but of course, my inspection we limited, and there may have been load when I couldn't check. So, if you know the servers (or even just one server) were heavily loaded at some point, please provide details. Otherwise, quit pretending server load was part of the trial. The server capacity could not have been a concern at any point. Server glitches, maybe, but not load. Testing on the standard servers was obviously needed, but the MM was NOT ready. The matchmaking algorithm was no better than rolling dice. It is silly that queues were ever more than a few players. With practically any rank in any given battle, the queue should have never exceeded a few dozen or so, as 20-players could be randomly shoved into any new battle. Please, no more nonsense about server load.

This is a great suggestion. Very much on the right track in the right direction.

I am glad the test is over. I had no problem finding an appropriate battle and joining in just a few seconds at my leisure (now that the test is over). That part was nice. /Rant on/ However, DAMN ISIDAS STINK! Sure, I appreciate the good ones that don't constantly ram me and get in my way while they try to heal, but the enemy ones STINK! Heck, most the the teammate isidas are more annoyance and frustration than help. I recall Hazel Rah saying specifically that isidas had gotten too dominant before that last Nerf. Well, they are again! Heck, if they were just powerful, like good Magnum players, I'd mostly deal with, but most isidas are poor players. They seem to have no sense of tactics and close combat. I play in your face. I'm going down, but I'm taking you with me. Isidas in the mix make it frustrating. Heck two isidas zap me and I'm dead before I can tap a number key, less than half-second! Enough. I realize you don't care. I assume players that prefer isida must be heavy spenders./Rant off/ Anyway, I've said my piece about the test. Changing the maps was stupid-dumb, dumber than dirt, dumb. The MM was too flawed for even a trial. I hope you work it over effectively before the next open-server trial. The overall system and game is still good as it is again, but there are too many turrets to deal with tactically. Something has to change to reduce frustration. I suggest specializing the maps. Limit the turrets for maps. Set some long range maps that don't allow Magnum. Set some short range maps that don't allow isida. There are plenty of maps. Make them all format with some restrictions. Then players that want to specialize can stick to maps that favor their equipment preferences. Again, most of the nonbattle changes over the last several months have been good and improve the overall game and player experience. It is the dramatic changes to the game play that are problematic. You say the seven hull-specific overdrives will help. You were adamant that matchmaking would dramatically improve battle dynamics and balance. Well, I don't believe overdrives are a reasonable concept. And, over 2000 negative comments on the matchmaking seem to negate your claims about it. I haven't checked, but there were comments about the Russian and German forums being exactly the same. The test was an abject failure from the perspective of the players. I sure hope it gave you the data you need to actually make a matchmaking system that works. I thought the matchmaking system would use player ratings (efficiency/effectiveness ranking) for matchmaking. I thought maybe that was why my M2 Ricosck account was thrown in with Legends, but then I saw examples of every rank against Legends. No, it was just broke. I assume you were not using actual player stats in your matching algorithm. If you had been, most of the extreme examples could not have happened. I have no faith in the ratings (efficiency/effectiveness ranking). It obviously doesn't mean what I thought it would mean. Despite regular first place finishes in DM and first for my teams, my rating goes down most every day. As I have said repeatedly, Fortuna seems to be the only meaningful factor in every aspect of game play, including the rating. I suspect if I was always on the winning team, I'd have gone up 100 spots, instead of down. Fortuna doesn't often put me on the winning team, which is why I find myself playing more DM. With General Ricosck, MM battles were never balanced. With Legend OKDad70, slightly more than half my MM battles were balanced, but winning seemed to depend mostly on which team had the better luck with the overdrive. It seems there is promise, but please don't subject us to the abuse again. Be sure the MM system will actually fill matches with comparable-level players. I honestly believe the effectiveness rating should be able to work, and I think it should make possible balanced matches. As is, I hold out no hope. It just doesn't seem to me you are getting where you say you want to go. I see fits and starts and direction change and emphasis change. I don't see progress. It is frustrating.

The saddest fact is the overdrive has ruined team games. Most of the time, whichever team gets ahead first wins because of the advantage provided by the overdrive feature and the ever-increasing positive feedback loop of effectively using and sharing it with the team that is ahead. At this point, I only join team battles when I have a mission for a team battle, or when there is a friend I can join. (But can't join friend's battles now.) I'm playing mostly DM, though CTF is my favorite by far.

That was something I intended to complain about, too. I can see friends in the list. I can go to their servers, and if they are in player-created pro-battles, I might be able to join (if format permits), but I cannot join regular battles of friends. I'm not even sure if the friends screen shows MM-created battles. I think it doesn't. Regardless, if a friend is on, I cannot join his battle. That seems very counter to inducing loyal players. Camaraderie is important to games like this, and extremely critical to some of the more devoted players.

I always kick butt and take names. Before The Great Leveling (last October), I was called a hacker every game (and noob-twins). I lost a lot of that, but I've relearned the skills necessary to be effective with my M4-Viking-Twins. Twins is fun. Twins suits my preferred style of brawling in close-combat. I'm still able to be at or near the top in nearly every battle. (Sure, I get outclassed once in a while. I know I'm not the best.) I assure you it is much more satisfying to have Gismos and Legends calling me names as I kick their butts. It just isn't satisfying to curb-stomp inexperienced M2s. I was playing my (now retired, due to this mess) General Ricosck in Legend battles. I wasn't much surprised, given that I have fully upgraded Boar Kit, and the old system always started me on server 3 or 4 with nothing but Gismo battles to choose from. Then, I saw the examples of recruits in battles with Colonels, Majors in battles with Legends, and I realized it was just dumb luck. Bleh... I don't know why I keep trying. I realized I lost my give-a-damn, but somehow, I soldier on. Shell-shocked, perhaps.

You had to know within six hours that the test was a bust, yet it continues. You had to know the fairness of the matchmaking algorithm wasn't ready for open servers, yet you deployed, and then didn't take it down as the negative comments started rolling in. The old rule is, if it ain't broke don't fix it. And, if it is broke, fix it. Y'all been "fixin" the stuff that worked and bustin or replacin everything else with things that nobody even recognizes. Massacre map? Geez! Totally lost the point. Highlander? Yeah, there can be only one! What is that substitute? Absolutely different concept for that map versus the old Highland. (BTW, maps in MM battles are altered. Created "pro" maps are the same as old.) I assume you had too many reports of too much vodka and too many tankers not being able to negotiate the tight turns in some of the maps, so you widened everything so the sorry drivers could still get around. If you want to sip the sauce and battle tanks, go for it, but know you are going to have problems driving. Don't make the maps easier for them! Seriously, why? Why change the maps for a test of something totally unrelated? Also, lag is not caused by lots of tanks on the map. It is caused by lots of lines of sight on the map. For example, Berlin was always the problem map, not because it was big, but because it was open! Shafts could see almost everywhere from almost anywhere. Those lines of sight have to be tracked and calculated so the shaft can see what he's looking at wherever, whenever, he decides to look. (And everyone else. It isn't specific to shaft.) Düsseldorf could be full with more players than Berlin and rarely have lag problems because most tanks only had a few lines of sight at any given moment. The obstacles block view, and few lines of sight need tracked. These altered, more open, maps have more lines of sight to track, and many people are noticing the extra lag and glitchiness. I had such high hopes. You dashed them. Now I lost my give-a-damn. It broke off, and I don't care to even find it. I am long suffering. I'll stick it out a while, but these comments have been running about 99% negative. There have been some thorough, and thoughtful comments. Hopefully you take them to heart. Mostly, I hope you don't pretend the test was a success. I hope you don't report it was popular. Honestly, except for proving the fairness-balance algorithm isn't as good as casting lots, this test shows nothing. The map differences will surely get mixed reviews. However, the altered maps blew your test from the moment of deployment. You simply have too many variables to tell what might matter. From the looks of the comments, you really used up your grace. Another observation of the comments, the overdrive mess drew lots of negative comments and suggestions for change from very longterm players. Those players seem to have given up on commenting, or left. This time, I note comments from many high-ranking players with very few forum comments. That means these folks played and didn't complain. This test has them complaining now. The test was bad. You should have stopped it by at least noon-UTC. The only useful information from it was that the matching algorithm doesn't work yet. You knew that within a few hours. ------------------------------------ I have no more love to give. I have only anger in my heart, today, and I want you to be angry with me! (Mississippi Burning)

I realized something: My give-a-damn broke! It fell off, and I don't even wonder where it went. BTW, it sure seems the devs lost their give-a-damns too.