Not allowing "battle groups" to play against a team of random players would be a start. Those battles always end up in a slaughter...

I have 42% against Magnum. Barely seems to make a difference. Well maybe a little - I die in two shots instead of one I guess. <_<

Isn't Tanki-O supposed to have "Custom Battles" that basically replaces the Pro-battle pass, but is free? Supposed to be able to earn xp & crystals in Custom Battles.

You don't think holding onto a flag - not capping the last flag (to end the battle) is a negative? (leave gold dropping out of current equation - diff situation)

Affirmative. More prevalent now with shorter battles.

Correct - Tanki-O is not Tanki-X but... there have been changes introduced over time that have similarities to Tanki-X... - shorter battles - containers - soon to be introduced MM I'm less concerned with battle-fund than I am with gameplay - or style of battle that results from shorter battles. - First team to cap a flag wins >> 75% of the time. --- In short battle tankers will bail quickly. "come-backs" will all but disappear. - Mults --- be they actual saboteurs or tankers running around just collecting supplies they have a more drastic effect in a 10-min battle than they do in a 15 min battle. Visiting garage also has more impact on a team in a shorter battle. So far I find the 10-minute battles much less enjoyable to play than previous 15-min battles.

You missed the point entirely. They could have 15-minute MM battles. But for reasons unexplained they choose not to. Judging by the comments here many players prefer the 15 min battles. Tanki-X has MM battles, and guess what... team that gets early lead wins almost all the time. Mines and defense means they just kill more of the enemy desperate to grab a flag - and the shorter battles encourage this strategy.

In these 10 minute battles team that scores first wins > 75% of the time. Cap that flag or 2, and you will have plenty of action defending. Enemy has no choice but to attack. Lay the mines and increase your score and battle-fund by mowing down the enemy desperate for a flag. Your OD will build up faster too - positive-feedback loop kicks in.

What? :blink: You ruined your post with this.

The 33% loss means I likely won't get the mission done in one battle - unless I'm basically first on wining team. 1/20 chance. Also not mentioned... a 2 minute mult on your team has a more drastic effect over 10 minute battle than 15 minute battle. Same with supply-collector mults. By the time they are gone the battle has been decided. We know it's in their plans. But why are 10-minute battles needed? As I have said a few times now - the missions are secondary. They will get completed, one way or the other. 10-minute battles are less enjoyable to play.

The mission completion "issues" are << on my concern-list than game-play is. Played 10 battles last night and 9/10 first team that scored won. It's much more tempting to defend a lead when there's little time left. Much harder to defend for 12 minutes than it is to defend for 5 or 6 minutes. So teams are more likely to enact this strategy. Already saw a lot of that last night. Much more so than the 15-min battles. Is it the end of the world? no. Does it decrease my enjoyment of the game? Definitely. I recall GF mentioning the 100 - but - was never aware that was connected to a specific limit. Had just figured that was typical limit due to time. I rarely play DM - not my style. You will accomplish less in 2x15 min battles than you will in 3x10 minute battles. Starting a new battle always results in loss of efficiency. Unless somehow you are starting each battle in enemy territory? I usually finish an individual mission within the 15-min battle - unless it was for a larger than usual reward. So yes, 33% less reward in a battle will influence the completion of a mission based on rewards that were established on the 15-min baseline.

Crystal missions are different from all the other ones. You have to complete each battle you start to collect even "part" of the reward. So there's no way 10-min missions make it easier to complete crystal missions - especially considering a 33% smaller battle fund. And as I've said before - splitting a task into 3 is less efficient than splitting it in two. You have 3 "starts" that waste time. See my hockey analogy further up. #323. :P

How are crystal missions completed easier if the battle is 33% shorter? The battle-fund will be ~ 33% smaller... so the payout is smaller as well. IF you're at top of winning team this could happen (with a low crystal target). But for the rest of the 17-19 players in battle it certainly won't be easier. The payout for losing teams is gonna be terrible.

When matchmaking comes back we won't be able to stay in battles though... With each new battle there is some time loss - spawning, orienting, maneuvering. Getting to the other side of a large map (lower ranks will be even worse off as they are so slow) Just think of a hockey game - team has control in offensive zone. But period ends. Start of new period you face-off at centre ice and must begin the assault again.

"Kills limit in DM and score limit in CP reduced from 100 to 50;" There's a kill limit in DM? That should be TDM, no?

Not a fan of DM [often just too many tanks in crowded map] but could be accurate - aside from the odd "teaming-up" pairings.

9/10 battles I played in last night the team scoring first won.

Not trying real hard. At all. And you are starting to sound a little preachy - and have no more for-knowledge than anyone else posting. Maybe I'm wrong - and I hope I am. But my experience with what they've done in tank-x says otherwise.

3x10 minute battles will not be the same as 2x15 minute battles. It's not just a simple sum-game. You are starting fresh three times instead of two times = less productivity. All things being equal, the 10-minute battles will not generate 2/3 the battle fund a 15 minute battle will. Nor will they generate 2/3 the experience. It's like splitting up a task you are working on - are you more productive starting and finishing it in one go? Or interrupting it multiple times? And, except for crystal missions, you don't have to stay for 15 minutes after first battle. All the above aside - I just find 10-minute battles less enjoyable - less flow and - cap a flag in 10 minute battle watch the lock-down occur. "come-backs" will disappear and more people could ditch battle after just 1 or 2 flags capped.

Doubtful. easier to protect lead (in CTF for example) in a shorter battle. Get ahead by flag or two? Button down the hatches and just slaughter the incoming tanks. Defenders will just be padding their score (and crystals) True. Same with experience earned toward missions.

Yup. Mission chain updates could be good but... Going down to 10 min battles? Mistake. Early leads will = wins, and "comebacks" will disappear. Easier to protect a lead in shorter battle, so it just gives the team in lead a larger advantage. And the "players will stay if only getting slaughtered for 5 min instead 10 min" is rubbish. No one will waste 5 minutes of being spawn-killed for the token reward that is currently rewarded to losing team. Would be quite ironic if player exits that horrible battle, only to be placed back in there by match-Making trying to fill it up. :o

Yes there is - one-shot kills. You can't heal the dead. ;) I've found the worst times for isida are when... 1) your team-mates are mostly light hulls that die quickly 2) team-mates run around a lot and don't pause for healing (it happens) - I'm not chasing them out in open to just get killed overall theme is - isida is somewhat dependent on the team - and how difficult tthey make it for you to heal.

Hunter is more stable and Viking faster top speed. You should not buy a Hunter m2 regardless - since you already have Viking m2 (m1 10/10). If you really prefer stability, keep viking until you can get an m3 kit with Hunter. Hopefully you have the Ricco long-range alteration. If not, get it as soon as you can.

Smoky and Ricco are fairly similar and used in similar "ranges" so... since Ricco is ahead, keep going with it. But you mean Ricco m2 right? M3 does not unlock yet and would be ##/20. Sticking with Viking is good idea - too bad you have to wait a couple ranks to upgrade. Get a short-range turret like isida/fire/freeze for close-quarters. But with 2 m2 turrets already, not sure you should spend on another m2. You could wait until kits unlock and get a short-range with different type of hull - hornet or Titan. Problem with kits are - hit-and-miss the one you want is available when you have rank + crystals.

My way of "getting accustomed to it" is parking the the silly thing in my garage. I feel like I'm handi-capping my team when I use it and quickly switch to Ricco - the performance is like night-and-day.