I've tried to stick at it but my interest is dropping. Last night I joined 3 CTF games (my missions were ASL and TDM but I doubt it matters anymore) and just TABbed to find out the opposing teams were all clans of legends, so I instantly dropped out. The 4th Rugby game was more balanced but on the map i least like. I stopped after that. With battle lists you can see where Clans are going mad with supplies and you avoid those games and go straight to one that looks evenly matched... I even like joining games that are 1-0 down because - if the team still has its overdrive - it's more hectic. With MM I have to wait, join and then check whether I want to play in a joyless drugging game. And the fact I have yet to see any game on Serpuhov or Cross or Industrial or Alexsandrov - my favourite maps - and instead end up in maps I either find bad or just dislike (Kungur, Silence and any map with castles and my least favourite Tribute) In short - the mults ruin tanki but at least you can see active games where mults are not playing. With MM there are no mults (except there will be when groups catch up) but the real problem is the fun has been dragged out of it. I'm sticking around but my playing will continue to drop off until I forget about it altogether.

The biggest problem is not MM, but the fact this is a continuation of the MM trial with all the same problems. The developers want time to fix the bugs, but they really mean they intend to keep this flawed design of MM. If MM went down to map-level, and rank-range level, then you wouldn't have nearly as many detractors. They've had a long time since the trial to implement such suggestions and phase MM in, but its obvious that none of the suggestions will be incorporated by choice.

Indeed... they had a year to come up with a way of phasing it in - to give options like choosing map scales or games with a range of ranks - whilst still keeping the normal list of battles. The fact they have kept it the same as the trial MM system, with the same problems, means they do not want to fix the same things we want fixed. No amount of development time will fix the basic problems of their MM design.

4 games - all ruined by megalag which reminded me of the MM trial last year.... as did all the other things wrong - waiting for a game, no choice of maps, entering a game where the quickest team to drug encourages the other team to leave and you join a game where your whole side is 0 and you are swamped - that game never ends because people are queuing to join and get swamped. I thought the MM trial created some good feedback but none of it seems to have been taken on board. I'm a couple of games away from generalissimo and I have a pro pass so it'll be a good time reach a new level and then quit. I think I may find an entirely new game.

Interesting - first impressions (having been swarmed twice) - I haven't seen the strategy of CTF and wonder if it is doomed to just become a melee like TDM. Couple of points - as has been pointed out the ball is difficult to see, unlike a flag. When a team scores (or are 2 goals ahead) perhaps the ball should be given to the other team to start? That may help balance mismatched sides, and should add a bit of strategy as teams reform after a goal. Please - PLEASE - get rid of that awful 'Touchdown' phrase... the fact it's not a rugby term is irritating enough but it's just too repetitive. Perhaps something more along the lines of a whistle (and, also, perhaps some sound confirmation when the ball is back in play). HTH,

Why shouldn't it 'take away'? If 1000 people disapprove and 100 approve, you end up with 900 disapprovals, not 100 approvals. By all means create a system that the 100 can use, but forcing the other 900 to use it to complete missions is topsy-turvy. How about missions can only be completed in a normal map-choosing battle list, and see how popular all the benefits of 'populated, unpopular maps' are for non-missions? I mean - if MMS has benefits to the players they will flock to it, without being forced, won't they? You think that even if you keep the battle list - for missions - then the MMS will be more popular, right? Put that on the EU servers and see...

After a day... I think matching has potential... Matching by language is good Matching by ranks is good Balancing teams is good - if it can be made to work 10x better than currently... which is probably not possible. Stopping mults is good Not choosing a map is terrible - this alone turns a game into a missions-chore. Not staying on when you have a good balance of teams is very bad, especially when most games (ie your next one) are badly balanced Having low rank team players drop out because they never chose that game makes some games pointless. Changing the maps is interesting Changing the scoring is interesting, but may be encouraging saboteurs Changing massacre CTF to standard flag format is really bad Changing to 10 mins is bad Before today removing mults was my #1 gripe...

Bugs me as well... I have learnt 'cnc' but I have no idea how to write their 'phi' letter for flag, let alone all the other weird characters :) I'd much rather words were translated - 'base' 'left' 'isida' 'attack' etc can't be more that 200 or so... be nice to have 'preferred language' flags against IDs as well.

Someone mentioned that a new scoring system encourages tanks to turn on their teammates. My 4th game today my isida got the flag and a defending thunder deliberately flipped me. I've seen people fight over who should cap a flag but this was different. I hope the scoring system doesn't end up encouraging saboteurs...

2 matches so far, one full of legends on a map I don't like... one full of majors on a map i've never tried (a changed version of one i've seen before? not sure)... both times the teams were very imbalanced, both sides had lots of players on 0 flitting in and out, lag was so bad it was funny at times. The worst part is I can't select the maps I like... A better version would be to have preferred maps and show the battles (or randomly select if this is about curtailing mults) the map on any server. I don't iike searching for serpuhov, skylark, bridges, kolhoz and cross battles on every server... but that's way better than being dropped into maps i don't like, or having a steam of players joining and leaving the map i do like.

Interesting update but I sympathise with those that like to join a losing team and turn it around. I just watched a Highland CTF game which was 3-0, then 4-0 and just as I was watching to see what happened at 5-0... 2 tanks joined the losing team and scored qute high before making it 4-1. A game was on! You may want to consider a *difference* in scores.... i.e. 5 flags more than the other side. As a side note, my main problem is the number of 'paused' players - mults or offline - which substantially lower the strength of a team, and this may be more obvious in short games where they hang around for 5 minutes. For 15 minute games the pause could just be for 30 seconds?