Matchmaker for Tanki Online

[deadtoyou 2,502]

was saying that this system would work well as another way of entering a battle. You just click a button, and you load a random battle on a random map. But, players MUST have the decision to use that AS WELL AS the option to select a separate battle with their own preferences and playing style.

 

As for your idea: (assuming that this system would replace the current one, not work alongside it)

 

Problems arise with the system when......

1. Players find themselves in a map completely unfamiliar, they play for a bit, they are forced to learn a map that they didn't want to learn, they get disgusted, and leave to try again to find a map that is more preferable. For example, I dislike playing on Deathtrack until I know how to play in it effectively so I am not a burden to my team.  ^_^
2. Players who are used to changing their equipment before they browse the battle list are forced to change their equipment in battle, meaning that the players already there have the advantage of switching to a combo more effective against the new players, and those new players aren't able to switch again to be more effective against them.  :blink:
3. Friends are trying to play in the same battle, and they are not able to. I know you suggested the "Buddies" mode, but for them to play in a battle like that, they need more "buddies" and they might not have them. I really like playing with my friend against random players with random players on our team. This system means that we can't choose a map to our liking and play in that map together.  :(
4. Facebook events, which were run by posting a link to battles on the Facebook page, are now dependent on the system choosing just the right map. And if I know anything about random chance systems, it would be ages before that happens. Besides, how would anyone else join except by joining on pure luck? Or how would they keep random people from joining until they set it all up?  :huh: (you might say "create is private", but then how would players join after they are done?)

Players who use the current system already complain about having to "Server Jump" just to find the right battle. If this is set up, the problem becomes immensely worse. And to even select what map they want, they would need to use a PRO pass, and they already complain about having to spend 5,000 crystals to use it, how much bigger do you think the problem would be if they are forced to buy it just ot play in the map they want? I believe that it is the players' right to choose his playing ground.  :)

 

All in all, I think the idea is a good one, but only as an addition, not a replacement for the current system for battle lists.

[PuncherTank 37]

No. Considering the fact that I will not be able to earn crystals in large maps as I don't have any long-ranged weapon. This is why I like Med-Small maps. I would be earning less crystals if the matchmaker sent me to Lost Temple, or Kungur.

 

If you've played a Lost Temple (CTF) battle before you'd know that it's almost impossible to win WITHOUT short-range weapons on your team. It's the isida/freeze/fire players that usually snatch the enemy flag. Otherwise, it's just camping shafts, railguns and thunders sniping/shooting each other.

 

You may be forced to change your techniques and try new things instead of repeating the same routine over and over again. For example, play CP battles where short-range weapons would be more useful, even in large maps.

[ThouShallNot 963]

If you've played a Lost Temple (CTF) battle before you'd know that it's almost impossible to win WITHOUT short-range weapons on your team. It's the isida/freeze/fire players that usually snatch the enemy flag. Otherwise, it's just camping shafts, railguns and thunders sniping/shooting each other.

That is actually true.

[PuncherTank 37]

@deadtoyou

 

1. The whole point of the system is to make players play on maps they are not familiar with. Eventually, you'll learn how to develop and use your skills independently of the map. May not be easy at first, but in the end it'll pay off. Allowing players to have a small set of unfavored maps (like 5, or so) may also be considered. In this case the matchmaker will not place you on any of your unfavored maps.

 

2. You will be able to change your equipment before you enter a battle (before you enter the queue), and you'll also be able to change equipment once you're in the battle (given that the new equipment doesn't push your Class Rank outside the accepted range for the battle you're in). I cannot see where the problem is.

 

3. You will be able to play with your friends as a League, but only against other Leagues (friends) if you are up to it. Why would you want to play against other single players? So you and your friend(s) can dominate? This is one of the major causes of imbalance in battles where one side has many organized and well-communicated players vs. random single players on the other. The system is meant to combat that.

 

4. Developers can have special settings for special events/maps. For example, in New Year celebrations the developers can temporarily add an option to the matchmaker to "Place me on a New Year map".

As for having this system alongside the existing one, I don't think it'll work, but I could be wrong. Most players will simply choose to play a battle of their choice rather than enter the queue and go for the unknown. They'll just stick to the same old habits. The matchmaker will need a huge number of players in the queue for it to work efficiently, otherwise players may have to wait for a long period of time before they are matched.
 

[Opex-Rah 5,382]

No use in writing a lot of words, matchmaking in support to current battle list system was planned years ago as an easy way to find relevant battle.

[PuncherTank 37]

No use in writing a lot of words, matchmaking in support to current battle list system was planned years ago as an easy way to find relevant battle.

 

Will it deal with the lack of diversity and imbalance issues?

[magnaboy2 656]

It just seems like alot of players don't like diversity? 
What is wrong with this community D:
Like your idea tho :P

[MrsTankBuster2 141]

I 100% agree that there is a real problem with lack of variety of maps as one progresses up the ranks - especially for CP. Another big problem is filling those battles plus them being balanced enough to motivate people to stick it out to the end. I think instead of playing just for fun, many players become more focused on maps that are purely good for generating high battle funds. Perhaps the 'Daily Missions' will help to address the lack of variety?

 

As a single player, I really like the general idea of an automated battle generator as a non-Pro Pass additional option - I think it might be too much of a drastic change and take away too much freedom of choice for many players if not an option only. I would certainly use this match-maker system if it meant there would be more variety of CP maps with more players in them.

 

Apologies if this has been mentioned already (I've read a lot, but not everything!) but I do think another choice needs to be added to the 'Default' though, and that is whether the map is Small, Medium, Large or 'Any' -  certain combos don't do as well in all map sizes (depending on the skill of the individual of course). Being forced to use a Shaft/Wasp combo on Island might be pushing things a tad too far for example... :P

 

The other issue is that I have lots of free supplies, but I will not be using them until the day comes that it's impossible to play without them. In your system (if I understood it correctly), I will be forced to play with higher ranks because I have supplies in the garage -  forcing me to use them just to keep up - which will be no fun at all for me as I don't like drugging. That is a problem.

 

I think 'encouragement' rather than 'enforcement' might be prefered but overall, an interesting idea.

[PuncherTank 37]

It just seems like alot of players don't like diversity? 

What is wrong with this community D:

 

There's a structural problem in this game that encourages this lack of diversity.

 

It's not that players who join this game don't like diversity, actually there's a good deal of diversity in low rank battles, but still not perfect there either. The problem is that most players who like diversity get more and more frustrated as they progress in this game to the point of quitting, while those in favor of familiarity are mostly the ones who remain.

 

Buyers, who are generally druggers, are the biggest pro-familiarity and anti-diversity players out there. This is because such players usually seek dominance by exploiting repetitive playing patterns on specific maps. Small maps are generally perfect for these dominance/control freaks as they don't really need much of skill or strategy there. For example, a single Firebird M4 with double power can easily kill everyone in Polygon's middle square (and around it) in seconds. That's why Polygon CP is so popular, while no one plays Berlin CP.

 

Another sad fact is that those dominance maniacs are mainly the ones who pay the most to get the power, so the game economy is very dependent on their contribution.

 

Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy dominance (especially with my shaft...not that shaft :D), but what I'm saying is that let's make it a bit more exciting (by encouraging diversity) and fair (by balancing teams). I play alone and I don't wish to join a clan - I don't like the clan mindset. I often times end up in battles with other single players on my team against a group of friends on the other team with lots of drugs and/or maxed out equipment making it almost impossible to win such battle, and even in no-supplies battles it's almost impossible for single players to take out a well-communicated clan with maxed out equipment.

 

What I'm suggesting will provide a radical solution to both of these problems, but may result in many of those buyers becoming unhappy as it becomes harder for them to satisfy their dominance craving. So, the developers are forced to ensure those players stay happy even if it ruins the experience for most other players. See where the problem is?

 

Hazel-Rah has to (whether he likes it or not) think like a buyer and protect their interests even at high costs to the professionalism of the game. At the end of the day, he does this for a living (primarily) rather than fun (secondary). It's uncomfortable for him to hear complaints about it and wishes no one would bring it up, but I will.  :P  This is the ugly truth!

 

The game is just attracting the wrong type of buyers (in my opinion) and locking its fate to their desires. Making such drastic changes may require developers to think of new ways of monetization.

 

I do hope, however, that this fully-automated matchmaker system be at least considered for the Unity version of the game, so that the game doesn't fall into the same fatal loop again.

 

[knight237238 175]

The first comment was really boring to read because it was the same colour and it just seemed too long maybe you PuncherTank should highlight the key parts you want people to read by making them different colours and adding underling the sentence just an idea i guess....

[1stsuperwhitedragon 408]

how the hell do u keep writing this big paras !?!??

I was wondering the same thing

[deadtoyou 2,502]

@deadtoyou

 

1. The whole point of the system is to make players play on maps they are not familiar with. Eventually, you'll learn how to develop and use your skills independently of the map. May not be easy at first, but in the end it'll pay off. Allowing players to have a small set of unfavored maps (like 5, or so) may also be considered. In this case the matchmaker will not place you on any of your unfavored maps.

And you are automatically thinking that players only have 5 maps they dislike. Not true. The problem still remains that a lot of players will be frustrated trying to find their favorite map(s). And forcing players to do ANYTHING in a game that they don't want to do makes the game unpopular. I don't think the Developers want that.

 

2. You will be able to change your equipment before you enter a battle (before you enter the queue), and you'll also be able to change equipment once you're in the battle (given that the new equipment doesn't push your Class Rank outside the accepted range for the battle you're in). I cannot see where the problem is.

 When a player is forced to change equipment inside a battle, he has to wait 15 minutes before changing again. In that time, the enemy can switch his/her own combo to fight more effectively against the newcomer. And the newcomer can't switch again, because he has to wait 15 minutes. See where I'm coming from now?

And it doesn't matter if you "switch combos before you enter the queue" because most players switch combos depending on the map they are planning on playing in. So they select the combo they want, then end up in a map that is really bad for the combo.

(For example, I equip Isida M2 and Viking M2.....then I enter the queue, just to find myself on Monte Carlo. :wacko:)

 

And by the way, if you enter a battle, and you find yourself on the right map, (finally!!!) then you change equipment. You suddenly find yourself kicked out because your equipment isn't good enough. :blink: (#moreproblems)

What are you going to say to all the non-buyers with M2 at M3 ranks?? They are going to get frustrated and mad just because they can't enter a battle.

 

3. You will be able to play with your friends as a League, but only against other Leagues (friends) if you are up to it. Why would you want to play against other single players? So you and your friend(s) can dominate? This is one of the major causes of imbalance in battles where one side has many organized and well-communicated players vs. random single players on the other. The system is meant to combat that.

And why would Tanki discourage friends working together to win? And of course team work almost always wins against individual players on the enemy team. I know this from experience. But the amount of players doing this is low compared to the amount of individual players just joining team battles. Again, Tanki would not discourage teamwork, and definitely will not discourage friends from playing together.

(I know about the "buddies" mode, but again, 1 or 2 friends trying to play together won't be able to use this system.)

 

4. Developers can have special settings for special events/maps. For example, in New Year celebrations the developers can temporarily add an option to the matchmaker to "Place me on a New Year map".

And then your idea about "map diversity" goes down the toilet for the event. :P

A good idea, as long as this system is partnering with the current system.

 

All of the above responses are written with the mindset that you are still suggesting the system as a replacement.

 

As for having this system alongside the existing one, I don't think it'll work, but I could be wrong. Most players will simply choose to play a battle of their choice rather than enter the queue and go for the unknown. They'll just stick to the same old habits. The matchmaker will need a huge number of players in the queue for it to work efficiently, otherwise players may have to wait for a long period of time before they are matched.

Some players I know would love to have this because they're spending lots of time trying to find the right battle. Having this idea in the game as an addition, not a replacement, would benefit the game. (My opinion.)

[xXx.RazoR.xXx 543]

friends system is pointless then..I took time to read this,and I really don't like it :)

[Champion.Fighter92 0]

AHHHHH!!!! Enough with the 5000 word explanations!!! :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

[deadtoyou 2,502]

AHHHHH!!!! Enough with the 5000 word explanations!!! :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

Alright, let me say "bad idea" and never give an explanation why I don't like it, or why it needs improvement, or why I think it won't be added into the game.

 

Now, with this idea, I need to explain in more words than usual. Sorry if you think it's too long, but that's the way I do things in this section. ;)

[1stsuperwhitedragon 408]

Alright, let me say "bad idea" and never give an explanation why I don't like it, or why it needs improvement, or why I think it won't be added into the game.

 

Now, with this idea, I need to explain in more words than usual. Sorry if you think it's too long, but that's the way I do things in this section. ;)

it's like you need to write a 500 word essay...

[deadtoyou 2,502]

it's like you need to write a 500 word essay...

To fully respond to him, yes, I need to write as much needed. I don't think there is a rule against that..... :unsure:

[Dragon-Judgement 1,529]

To me, matchmaking has always been in Tanki, the games are divided by ranks aren't they?

[xXx.RazoR.xXx 543]

my 10 cents on this "idea"

1st,my 3 friends and me are on line,both in game,and via skype,we wish to play together,lets say,red alert,CTF,PRO battle,8vs8,but your idea is stopping us,there are 2 reasons,your matchmaker (in following text MM) doesn't allow us to play 8 vs 8 in time,since only 4 of us are on line,and I really don't wan't to play 4 vs 4 on red alert,and 2nd foro solo players,we may end up on 4 different maps,or playing against each other

2nd,who are you to judge players skill based on the maps they are playing?..if players like specific maps,why would the system force them to switch maps?

3rd most of this text is most proablly made (and this is my personal opinion) by frustrated player who got his butt kicked from few "clans" or "teams" connected in some form of communication means,now he thinks everybody need to be "single player",nobody can be in team anymore,well,a tip,find few friends and play with them,you'll se the difference very fast ;)

4th hopefully,this "idea" will be denied soon :)