ASL isn't just "kind of buggy" It fails about 20% of the time which makes it "alphaware". No reputable software developer in America would dare launch software that failed 1 time out of 5. Okay, Tanki's in Russia, and I suppose their standards (if they have any) are much lower. But there's still no excuse for such sloppiness. And it's not as if it's a RECENT bug. This problem has been around as long as MatchMaker - which has existed for entirely too long. And yes, MatchMaker is flawed - so flawed that we were better off without it. I agree it can be revamped - to nothing. If it has to exist, it shouldn't make people wait to get into games. I remember when you could choose your map, choose your game, play a game and at the end, play again in 10 seconds. Not just sometimes. EVERY time. I suppose I've seen some 10 second starts with moron-maker, but only in the "Quick Battle" option. The general rule is 1-2 minutes... that is, 6 to 12 times worse than it used to be. If you had a car that could do 100mph, and the Tanki team said, "Hey! Let's fix that for you!" and they gave you back the same car, but now it could only do 8 to 16 mph - would you consider that an improvement? Yeah, I know you don't care how long you wait, because you apparently have nothing better to do than wait... which makes me wonder - why would you play any games at all? Why don't you just sit and stare at your computer screen and do nothing? Just turn off your computer and stare at the blank screen. Because that's what MatchMaker does - it just forces you to wait. As for timing out - yes, I'm serious. And no, that wouldn't work.

Would that be so bad? You seem to think that forcing people to play crappy missions they don't want to play is a good thing. With the addition of the odious Juggernaut missions, we now have MORE missions I don't want to play. How about letting people change missions 5X instead of 1X Lots of good suggestions have been made - but the devs still give us crap. ?

I get so damned sick of MatchMaker TIMING OUT while waiting to enter games. I suppose it's because MM is too goddamned stupid to launch a game that isn't absolutely crammed full. So on nights like tonight (when there are only 2000 players TOTAL - yes, Tanki IS dying, and the #1 factor is MatchMaker), you can't even get INTO a game to finish your missions. I've timed out twice just trying to get into an "assault" battle. I could finish them up and get assigned new missions at system restart - but goddamn worthless MatchMaker makes me wait 3 minutes, then it gives me the timeout error message and won't let me into a game. Solutions: #1 Get rid of MatchMaker. It hasn't worked. It's killing the game #2: If you're not smart enough to get rid of MatchMaker, at least set the timeout to 60 seconds, and if you don't have "full" teams, launch the game anyway. # Award 100,000 Tankcoins to anyone who suffers a MatchMaker Timeout while waiting for a game to start.

That's not a bad idea... but MatchMaker is so screwed up, it still can't do the basics. I waited through two entire cycles for a Rugby game to come up (6 full minutes). On the third try, I got into this game. Anyone see a problem? Last I looked, Lt. Colonel and Field Marshal were SEVEN RANKS APART! So, as usual, MatchMaker is a piece of crap, doesn't work - and expecting it to do anything "smart" is a pipe dream. Yeah. MatchMaker has ALWAYS sucked. Sometimes it just sucks harder than others.

You start out clueless and you stay that way. I like Magnum because it shoots over obstacles and packs a whallop. That way when some slimy little railgun b1tch is playing "shoot and duck", I can go over the top and crush them. My "camping" time is probably a lot less than yours. I rarely fire two shots in a row from the same place. Bet you can't say that (without lying).

Well, your perspective matters. I can understand how someone with a <1 K/D doesn't much think about it because you're probably not even in the running for a top 3 of any kind. So frankly, your opinion on this doesn't matter. You're actually the sort of team member that's the PROBLEM. You go in, contribute less than you cost, and wind up costing your team the game. You don't care. Okay, fine. But if I get stuck on the same team with a player like you, I can have a K/D of 1.53, beat your score by 200 points, and still, because I have a loser on my team, I don't get to clear my mission. So that's how you're relevant to this entire discussion. You are part of the problem. In games where I'm trying to clear a top-3 mission, I would hope that players like you (<1 K/D) would leave the team immediately so maybe I can get some teammates who are good enough to help the team win - because in general, and admittedly by a small margin, your presence means the team we're on has a better chance of losing. And it's not just poor players. We have stupid missions like "use X overdrives" and "complete Y games" which encourage players to show up and push a button once every 2 minutes. They don't participate in the battle. I do that a lot myself in DM games. If the mission is "finish the mission" - fine. I'll finish it. If it's "poke the overdrive button 3 times", fine, I can do that too. But I don't like DM, so I try not to play it. Sometimes it's just wait through the game while you're doing something else (like watching a video, or reading something). I set up my monitors so I can flip back and forth between two computers. Tanki wants to be stupid and require stupid missions - fine. Game the missions. My K/D would be appreciably higher if I would actually PLAY DM instead of just being a target. But I don't. So it isn't. Not like I care about that. With a change to the rules, to eliminate the "winning team" requirement, I don't really care if you spend all your time looking through a Shaft gun sight and settling for a <1 K/D. It doesn't affect me completing my mission. And since there's such a small advantage to being on the winning team crystal-wise (used to be a BIG difference) I don't really care if you're not a very good player. This is true in all the team games, but especially in something like TDM where you are most likely to contribute slightly less than nothing, while I'm taking out better than 3 enemies for every 2 deaths. The problem with "top 3 on a winning team" isn't the "top 3" part. It's being lucky enough to have MatchMaker assign players like you to the OPPOSING team.

Top two spots for your team - yes. Overall? No. If you're on the losing team, it's harder to make top 3 overall than top 2 on your team. Just dropping "on the winning team" would suffice, I think. That way, if you have a top 3 mission, you're trying hard regardless of which team you're on. My major objection was based on games where I outplayed everyone on either team but because I was stuck with a bunch of losers on my team, I couldn't clear the mission. Another putrid side effect of the "winning team" clause is when two teams TIE! What the hell? No one gets any mission clearance? Is that stupid? Or is it REALLY stupid?

I believe I said, "Mental" 3 year old. And applying CongoSpider's phrase, I don't much care for mosh pits. (Did try it once. But most of the skinny boys didn't want to slam dance with an offensive guard.) Point is, if all I want to do is press the space bar for 6 minutes, I don't need Tanki to do that. I don't even have to power up the computer. And that's all DM is to me. Pushing the space bar.

"Mosh pit" :lol: Now I know where I've seen DM before - and why I detest it.

Not at all clear, since the discussion to that point had been only regarding removal of the "winning team" requirement - and "top 3" had been juxtaposed with "top 3 on the winning team" at least a half dozen times.

Easy to be top three on the winning team. Much harder to be top three when your team consists of players that have a l<1.0 K/D (like Frozen Railgun). Put two of the best three players on one team, and that team will likely win. There may be a big gap before you get down to FrozenRailgun levels - but he could still place third on the winning team (if everyone else was a low enough rank). But put him on the losing team? No way he'd be one of the top 3 scores. So it's not surprising that he is opposed to rewarding the top 3 players, since it would take away his chances of getting a 3d place finish.

Your vision is that of a 3-year-old. No point talking to you anymore. You don't think at all. That's what I've been saying for the past 8 pages!

What are you babbling about? Difficulty? The top players on the losing team have a handicap that the top players on the winning team do not: CRAPPY team members! So if you want to talk difficulty, maybe it should be the top three players on the LOSING team!?

I disagree. Since Tanki has added MatchMaker, there are no "TEAMS". There's just rush into a short battle with a bunch of strangers, fight for 5 minutes, wait for 4 minutes and get shuffled into the next battle. BEFORE MatchMaker, players might play several games on the same map - one after the other. That was where you could get a sense of who the other players were, what their styles were and develop teamwork. Not anymore. MatchMaker KILLED that. So what we should do is just reward INDIVIDUALS. That's pretty much what's happening now. There used to be a big difference between crystals awarded to the winning team and the losing team. That difference is pretty much gone - which is good, because it sucked to be the best player in the game - on a team of losers. So don't reward teams at all. Reward the individuals. And start with getting rid of the absurd notion that the "Top 3" mission has to be with the winning team because a great player on a crappy team shouldn't be penalized for something he has no control over.

That's where it sucks the worst. When you get a weekly that says "top 3 on the winning team", you hope that the other two missions aren't dogs because you know that one's gonna be a PITA. Top-3 should be just that: One of the top 3 players. Not "top 3 --- and lucky that MatchMaker didn't put you on a crap team".