category Ideas for Missions!

[rubrocks 0]

Daily missions should give some stars so that battle pass challenges can be completed with less effort....without premium account its almost impossible to complete the battle pass...even after having a premium its difficult to  get stars....and people put thier money on battle pass not every person can play everyday grinding for stars...so the money should be worth it....my idea is that for the battle pass challenges to gain stars either there should be a special mission for battle pass and free pass which will give sufficient amount of stars so that its will reduce the effort for gaining stars or the amount of star we get form each battle should be increased... for example (1st place gets 6 stars instead of 3 stars,2nd place gets 5 or 4 stars) 'this is without the premium account'....this is my idea because its literally almost impossible to gain stars without premium account even after coming first or second in almost every match its hectic to gain stars......so this is my opinion please think this matter because i can't grind everyday it just go one teir up....thanks

 

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

It would be nice if I could get another one instead.

If you would get another one-you would try for more daily missions-right?-instead you have nothing to lose.

 

I believe it was done like this intentionally, to encourage more players to play the game on a daily basis. 

So-why does Maf feel it would get players to play more-if they have no weekly mission-why would they want to do the missions of the next week?

[Maf 32,300]

So-why does Maf feel it would get players to play more-if they have no weekly mission-why would they want to do the missions of the next week?

But when you do have a mission, you'll be encouraged to complete it within the week, rather than leaving it for an extra day or two.

[r_Given6 859]

Daily missions should give some stars so that battle pass challenges can be completed with less effort....without premium account its almost impossible to complete the battle pass...even after having a premium its difficult to get stars....and people put thier money on battle pass not every person can play everyday grinding for stars...so the money should be worth it....my idea is that for the battle pass challenges to gain stars either there should be a special mission for battle pass and free pass which will give sufficient amount of stars so that its will reduce the effort for gaining stars or the amount of star we get form each battle should be increased... for example (1st place gets 6 stars instead of 3 stars,2nd place gets 5 or 4 stars) 'this is without the premium account'....this is my idea because its literally almost impossible to gain stars without premium account even after coming first or second in almost every match its hectic to gain stars......so this is my opinion please think this matter because i can't grind everyday it just go one teir up....thanks

Hmm... not a bad idea.

Weekly Mission- Use 50 Overdrives in battle

Reward- 1 Container, 1 Weekly Container, and 10 Stars.

The two Weekly Missions about competition of Daily Missions can award 20 stars each.

So even if you do 10 Daily Missions + the Specific Weekly Mission in a week, you get 160 Stars in the Challenge.

Just an example, values are subject to change.

[MMSUX 0]

Listen, that's the only options, nothing else dude.

 

Blinders? I am not blind from those blinders!

 

Put the battle at the beginning? Um no. This means more waiting. MM put tankers to battles where there are vacant spots. Ok?

 

Until 16 players to start the game.... Maybe but practically longer waiting.

 

"Before matchmaker, you had a choice." And that choice was abused by who only wanted to be in the winning team. I literally said this will caused those disadvantaged tankers even more frustrated! Only 100% winning team also caused biases, less fairness. Whether in Pro Battle Polygon CP, I always jump into losing team to help 'em out (even though that did ended up defeat).

 

"MatchMakers also took away choice of map." Again, choosing to play on your favorite map all the time also creates biases. Maps make a difference between victory and defeat. 

 

DM/Juggernaut no strategy? Dude, you are on your own, not teammates. And enemy tanks are everywhere, it need skills to to master DM/Juggernaut.

Well, you've just given us about 7 examples of how wrong someone can be.

 

1) Of course there are options.  The only question is whether Tanki devs will fix a mistake.  They probably won't.  They have a terrible record on that.  But the whole point of this board is to point out those mistakes and offer possible solutions.  It's really, really dumb to penalize a player because MatchMaker stuck them on a team full of losers.  I'm sure the Tanki devs will recognize that if they ever think about it - which is why I mentioned it here.

 

2) Blinders?  Yes, blinders.  You practically define the "look straight ahead and don't consider fixing the problem" mindset. When someone says something like, "that's the only options, nothing else dude",  that's blinders.  It's like they use with draft horses to prevent them from seeing sideways, because new ideas  unexpected sights might startle them and make them panic.

 

3) Again, your blinders are showing.  In FACT the current MatchMaker method adds extra wait time because it delays until both sides fill up.  That's a stupid decision.  If MatchMaker were to add pairs of players (one to each side) as they select the game, wait time would go WAY down, and there'd be no additional delay.  Once a game is 60 seconds old, they could start a new game for new players.  Tanki isn't concerned with making people wait - otherwise we would not have MatchMaker.  See, every time you join a battle in MatchMaker, the system downloads a whole new map.  Under the old system, if you decided to play the same map again, that wait time didn't exist.  Worse, they're downloading the same map to 15 other players.  Some get it faster than others - so they get a head start - but it's all needless wait time caused purely by the grotesque failure that is MatchMaker.

 

As it is now, you wait a minute, two, three... sometimes "forever" to get into a game because the algorithm is waiting for the 16th person.  Is it the end of the world if a game goes off with only 3 people on a side?  Someone with blinders on might say "yes", but a thinking person would say "no".  As the game progresses, new players could be added to the losing side giving them a numerical advantage (+1 person) with the next person making teams even again.  An extra person on a team equates to a bigger difference between teams than if one side had all M2 equipment and the other side had all M3 (a little over 12%).

 

4) Again, without MatchMaker, you only need to make a small change.  If one team is ahead by a flag and the teams are "even", then the new guy has to join the losing team - or not join.  It's better than MatchMaker where you are

 

FORCED into a battle where your team is down by 4 flags,

FORCED into a battle where there is only 1 minute left,

FORCED onto a map you don't want to play

 

and your only options are to waste the time or quit the game.

 

5) You jump onto losing teams.  Good for you.  You like to lose.  No problem with that.  You should LIKE the idea of "being abused". But I prefer to win (which is the object of the game).  I'm not saying the outcome should always be a win for me - but I AM saying that I should always have a fair chance.   Most of the time you don't get that with MatchMaker, and in every case you wait too long to play at all.  In fact, I just finished a game where there were players EIGHT RANK LEVELS higher than me in the game.  EVERYONE outranked me. Tell me all about "fair" and "abuse".  How'd you like to be a WO-2 and fight majors?  But that's what happens with MatchMaker.  Tanki has driven enough people away that to make the 16-player limit, they have to spread the rank distribution to EIGHT RANK LEVELS.  If they didn't wait for 16 players, they could 

 

START games more quickly, cutting down on wait time,

DYNAMICALLY balance the game by always adding the new player on even teams to the losing team

NARROW the rank range - making sure all players have a competitive chance

STOP driving people away from the game who are sick of the stupid changes

 

6) If there's a problem with someone choosing to play a particular map, maybe the REAL problem is they're playing a particular game - namely Tanki.  In other words, if you play Tanki a lot, maybe you should not be allowed to do that because it "creates biases".  More playing time could "make a difference between victory and defeat".  (So could 8 rank levels!)  Here's an idea: For you only... if you play more than 60 games in a month, you don't get to play at all the next month.  Sound good?  Well, it makes as much sense as your "map" point.  If someone plays Tanki a lot, they get better.  If someone plays a given map a lot, they get better.  You  should have no problem with that because you like to lose and those better players can help you do that.

 

7) DM and Juggernaut are NO STRATEGY.  Now I realize you're probably only 12 years old and maybe your English isn't good enough to know the difference between "strategy" and "tactics", but it's a big difference.  The fact that you don't know the difference means you're not competent to have an opinion on the matter - you cannot even understand the terms.  But you can fix your ignorance.  Go look up the words and think about it.  Then come back here and tell me I'm right.

Edited June 14, 2019 by MMSUX

[The_Pakistani 16,768]

Add lose 100 times daily mission. Thanks in advance.

[XxStriker 519]

5) You jump onto losing teams.  Good for you.  You like to lose.  No problem with that.  You should LIKE the idea of "being abused". But I prefer to win (which is the object of the game).  I'm not saying the outcome should always be a win for me - but I AM saying that I should always have a fair chance.   Most of the time you don't get that with MatchMaker, and in every case you wait too long to play at all.  In fact, I just finished a game where there were players EIGHT RANK LEVELS higher than me in the game.  EVERYONE outranked me. Tell me all about "fair" and "abuse".  How'd you like to be a WO-2 and fight majors?  But that's what happens with MatchMaker.  Tanki has driven enough people away that to make the 16-player limit, they have to spread the rank distribution to EIGHT RANK LEVELS.  If they didn't wait for 16 players, they could

I've hit top of the leaderboard in battles against 3 star rank people, I can't be the only one?

[wolverine848 13,097]

I've hit top of the leaderboard in battles against 3 star rank people, I can't be the only one?

Just because you've managed this every now and then does not mean it is a good system.  This would be the exception, not the rule.

 

No one expects to win all the time - that would be silly.

But players should expect to have close to an even chance when they start a battle.  

Having a rank spread of 6, or 7, or even 8 is not an "even chance".

 

Would you start a checkers game down 3 pieces by default?   Why should players put up with that equivalent in MM?  Makes no sense.

[MMSUX 0]

I've hit top of the leaderboard in battles against 3 star rank people, I can't be the only one?

I'd be willing to bet about any amount of money that you did not use that account AND play against Lt. Generals AND get added in the last two minutes of a battle and wind up #1 on your team.

 

One of the many nasty aspects of MatchMaker is that it puts you in battles against people ranked as much as EIGHT levels higher on a team that's down by as much as 4 out of 5 scores (4-0 in CTF for example) AND two minutes to go.  That's just another waste of time.  MatchMaker starts out by wasting your time trying to get 16 people who want to play.  Then it wastes more time loading the game map.  Then you wind up on a crummy team in a lost battle on a map you didn't want to play in the first place.  And all the attempts to force people to stay in the battles ("finish the battle" and "use overdrive" missions) just create more mults.  People do nothing for a couple minutes - then punch overdrive and do nothing more.  Or just move or shoot once every minute or two.  When Tanki tries to tighten that up, it winds up kicking snipers and others for legitimate game play - all of which ignores the root problem: MatchMaker.

 

But my ORIGINAL complaint was that you can outscore EVERYONE on BOTH teams by 100 points or more and because MatchMaker dumped you on a team of losers, you don't get your "top 3" mission ticket punched.  To do that you have to be on the "winning" team.  If you're already the top player on either team - score more than any TWO players combined - why are you penalized because MatchMaker dumped you in with a bunch of losers?

[MMSUX 0]

How about missions that offer UPGRADES!?

 

Something like "Capture 100 points - get an upgrade on any hull/protection/turret/alteration of your choice"

 

It just becomes an option like another type of container - an "upgrade" container.

 

For special events, maybe some gold boxes would contain them.

 

You could even have an "ignore rank" container for people who have maxxed out upgrades to a turret/hull/protection for their rank.  So if you're a WO-3 with a maxxed out Hammer, you don't have to wait until Captain to get the M3.  Or maybe you decide to save it until you have an M-2 hull you want to upgrade to M-3 ahead of schedule?

 

Frankly with the addition of all the shot colorings and paints to containers, they've become pretty boring.  I don't really care much about either, and another 125 speed boost isn't lighting my fire.  The overall value of containers has dropped substantially - and so has interest because it's all the same.  125 mines.  125 speed boost.  Maybe 3500 crystals.  Now my odds of a big crystal payout are diluted by "blue effect for Shaft" or "green effect for Shaft".  I don't USE shaft, so what do I care about color effects for shart?  (That's if I care at all about color effects?)  Might as well be a gift certificate for a dog turd.  Even the speed boost would be better.  I've got half a dozen paints.  I use 1.  Maybe 2 (the original green).  I don't care about the paints I've gotten in containers: Iceland?  Storm?  Someone may care - but I don't.

Edited June 16, 2019 by MMSUX

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

I'd be willing to bet about any amount of money that you did not use that account AND play against Lt. Generals

I can believe that since I was a WO5 and got placed with a Major-General in a DM battle. And that's only a 9-rank bracket. I've seen up to 12-rank brackets. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you play good enough and are lucky, you can top the leaderboard. 

Edited June 16, 2019 by TheCongoSpider

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

1) Of course there are options.  The only question is whether Tanki devs will fix a mistake.  They probably won't.  They have a terrible record on that.  But the whole point of this board is to point out those mistakes and offer possible solutions.  It's really, really dumb to penalize a player because MatchMaker stuck them on a team full of losers.  I'm sure the Tanki devs will recognize that if they ever think about it - which is why I mentioned it here.

 

2) Blinders?  Yes, blinders.  You practically define the "look straight ahead and don't consider fixing the problem" mindset. When someone says something like, "that's the only options, nothing else dude",  that's blinders.  It's like they use with draft horses to prevent them from seeing sideways, because new ideas  unexpected sights might startle them and make them panic.

 

3) Again, your blinders are showing.  In FACT the current MatchMaker method adds extra wait time because it delays until both sides fill up.  That's a stupid decision.  If MatchMaker were to add pairs of players (one to each side) as they select the game, wait time would go WAY down, and there'd be no additional delay.  Once a game is 60 seconds old, they could start a new game for new players.  Tanki isn't concerned with making people wait - otherwise we would not have MatchMaker.  See, every time you join a battle in MatchMaker, the system downloads a whole new map.  Under the old system, if you decided to play the same map again, that wait time didn't exist.  Worse, they're downloading the same map to 15 other players.  Some get it faster than others - so they get a head start - but it's all needless wait time caused purely by the grotesque failure that is MatchMaker.

 

As it is now, you wait a minute, two, three... sometimes "forever" to get into a game because the algorithm is waiting for the 16th person.  Is it the end of the world if a game goes off with only 3 people on a side?  Someone with blinders on might say "yes", but a thinking person would say "no".  As the game progresses, new players could be added to the losing side giving them a numerical advantage (+1 person) with the next person making teams even again.  An extra person on a team equates to a bigger difference between teams than if one side had all M2 equipment and the other side had all M3 (a little over 12%).

 

4) Again, without MatchMaker, you only need to make a small change.  If one team is ahead by a flag and the teams are "even", then the new guy has to join the losing team - or not join.  It's better than MatchMaker where you are

 

FORCED into a battle where your team is down by 4 flags,

FORCED into a battle where there is only 1 minute left,

FORCED onto a map you don't want to play

 

and your only options are to waste the time or quit the game.

 

5) You jump onto losing teams.  Good for you.  You like to lose.  No problem with that.  You should LIKE the idea of "being abused". But I prefer to win (which is the object of the game).  I'm not saying the outcome should always be a win for me - but I AM saying that I should always have a fair chance.   Most of the time you don't get that with MatchMaker, and in every case you wait too long to play at all.  In fact, I just finished a game where there were players EIGHT RANK LEVELS higher than me in the game.  EVERYONE outranked me. Tell me all about "fair" and "abuse".  How'd you like to be a WO-2 and fight majors?  But that's what happens with MatchMaker.  Tanki has driven enough people away that to make the 16-player limit, they have to spread the rank distribution to EIGHT RANK LEVELS.  If they didn't wait for 16 players, they could 

 

START games more quickly, cutting down on wait time,

DYNAMICALLY balance the game by always adding the new player on even teams to the losing team

NARROW the rank range - making sure all players have a competitive chance

STOP driving people away from the game who are sick of the stupid changes

 

6) If there's a problem with someone choosing to play a particular map, maybe the REAL problem is they're playing a particular game - namely Tanki.  In other words, if you play Tanki a lot, maybe you should not be allowed to do that because it "creates biases".  More playing time could "make a difference between victory and defeat".  (So could 8 rank levels!)  Here's an idea: For you only... if you play more than 60 games in a month, you don't get to play at all the next month.  Sound good?  Well, it makes as much sense as your "map" point.  If someone plays Tanki a lot, they get better.  If someone plays a given map a lot, they get better.  You  should have no problem with that because you like to lose and those better players can help you do that.

 

7) DM and Juggernaut are NO STRATEGY.  Now I realize you're probably only 12 years old and maybe your English isn't good enough to know the difference between "strategy" and "tactics", but it's a big difference.  The fact that you don't know the difference means you're not competent to have an opinion on the matter - you cannot even understand the terms.  But you can fix your ignorance.  Go look up the words and think about it.  Then come back here and tell 

Edited October 9, 2019 by FrozenRailgun

[blutakix 81]

Top 3 for the game - good idea.

Edited June 16, 2019 by blutakix

[N88B 9]

Changing the top-3 on the winning team to top 3 in the game makes sense to me.  

 

Here red team lost.  (Maybe the fact that we had one less player was a factor?)  I don't think you can argue I didn't play the best game on either side.  So why was I penalized for having a bunch of poor players on my team (all of whom substantially outranked me!!)?

 

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

Changing the top-3 on the winning team to top 3 in the game makes sense to me.  

 

Here red team lost.  (Maybe the fact that we had one less player was a factor?)  I don't think you can argue I didn't play the best game on either side.  So why was I penalized for having a bunch of poor players on my team (all of whom substantially outranked me!!)?

 

Then do DM/Juggernaut...

[MMSUX 0]

Alright, I am going to reply to your comment in professional manner:

 

 

1: You are claiming  "There are options", what are the options you are suggesting? Remove matchmaking? I share the same pain as you have when completing Top 3 Winning Team mission. And your word "penalizing players", how can mission/game system penalize a tanker who was in losing team? Yes, I am aware of "Not able to progress the mission", but what else other than that?

 

2: I do admit that I fell to those blinders. You commented " 'looking straight ahead and don't consider fixing the problem' ". I absolutely agree that looking straight ahead is not a valid solution.

 

3: I do agree that the game will not start until there are sufficient number of tankers in the waiting lobby.

• "Under old system, if you decided to play the same map again, that waiting time didn't exist." Let me clarify that statement: Playing in the same map will not enhance your diverse gaming. Focusing only one map may be good for some, however without put into random map, you are not learning new things and rendered your statement "DM and Juggernaut are NO STRATEGY" obsolete.
• I for one, you might consider "Oh he only wanted to play on Highways, spawnkill anyone with his Shaft and get high K/D without skills." If I only choose to play Highways repetitively, I am not learning new skills on how to master a map.
• On the other hand, I do playing on the same map did not create the waiting time issue. In the Test Server for example, the system pick a random map and if you are the only tanker right now waiting for a battle, you will be inside that battle in an instant. This is one part of solution you are looking for to be re/implemented in the main server.

4: "FORCED into a battle where your team is 4 flags behind/1 minute left/a map you don't want to play." Those 3 statements, I'm going to break it down further:

• Your word choice "FORCED" is rather false, illegible way to claim that statement. Nobody, not even the game system is forcing you to do anything you do not like. 
• "...losing by 4 flags" In the old system, an indication that one team is losing by 4 flags before entering the battle would discourage those tankers who would possibly turn the tide and help the losing team claim victory.
• "A map you don't want to play" I am wondering why some player like one particular map while dislike others? 
• "1 minute left" I... do not know what to say about this statement

5: "You jump onto losing teams.  Good for you.  You like to lose.  No problem with that.  You should LIKE the idea of "being abused". But I prefer to win (which is the object of the game).  I'm not saying the outcome should always be a win for me - but I AM saying that I should always have a fair chance.   Most of the time you don't get that with MatchMaker, and in every case you wait too long to play at all.  In fact, I just finished a game where there were players EIGHT RANK LEVELS higher than me in the game.  EVERYONE outranked me. Tell me all about "fair" and "abuse". How'd you like to be a WO-2 and fight majors?  But that's what happens with MatchMaker.  Tanki has driven enough people away that to make the 16-player limit, they have to spread the rank distribution to EIGHT RANK LEVELS."

 

Again, I am breaking this statement down further:

• "You jump onto losing teams. Good for you. You like to lose." Me like to jump onto losing team does not always mean I like to lose. Those who are in the losing team who choose to stay in the battle, are in distress and need help. 
• "But I prefer to win" All tankers are thirsty for this outcome, including myself. Do your even consider how does it feel when you and your team dominated the enemy team? For me, I feel bad for them. Those who are in the losing team took the heavy blow of defeat. Not a fair defeat but rather, a painful one.
• "I'm not saying the outcome should always be a win for me - but I AM saying that I should always have a fair chance." Having a fair chance of winning/defeat may heavily based on the outcome of 1st battle. This mean, if you won the previous battle, you may lose the next one or win again. However the chance of back-to-back victory decreases and losing a battle increases. 
• "In fact, I just finished a game where there were players EIGHT RANK LEVELS higher than me in the game. EVERYONE outranked me." You versus tankers who are 8 ranks higher does not always mean you will lose. Take a look of this picture for example, the highest rank in that Juggernaut battle was Commander yet he did not get take the 1st place.
  ​

• "Tell me all about 'fair' and 'abuse'". Before matchmaking, tankers typically prey on low rank battles to dominate, and yes, my apology from using the word "abused". The word choice "Fair" from me, did not connect to what you are lamenting on and my apology once again from that word choice.
• "How would you like to be a WO-2 and fight Majors?" In this case, I will not feel anything but rather more determined to fight them off. Even when it could be defeat.

That's all I have to say for now.

 

 

 

1.  Apparently you didn't read very carefully.  I started out with recommending we change the "Top 3 on the winning team" to "Top 3"  regardless of team.  Yes, Matchmaker sucks.  Yes, Tanki was better without it.  Yes it should be removed.  But to fix the issue I was talking about would just require removing a single incredibly stupid anomaly regarding the "top 3" mission.

 

2. √  I'm trying to consider what would make Tanki a better game.  MatchMaker does not do it.  It might have been a good idea (maybe), but in implementation, it's been a horrific disaster.  It's sort of like socialism.  Sounds good in principle.  That's why everyone in Venezuela voted for it.  But look what it's done to that country.  MatchMaker is the same sort of failure for Tanki.  It didn't even fix the problem it was supposed to address (mults). and it added long wait times, loss of choice of battle/map, software bugs... It is sort of like "fixing" a paper cut on your finger by amputating your arm.  Sure, the paper cut is no longer a problem, but...

 

3. Okay... what's "sufficient"?  Does "sufficient" mean "Jammed so full there's no room for another player"?  Or does it mean "enough to have a good game"?  I miss games where it was 4 on 4, or even 3 on 3.  With 8 v 8, you ALWAYS have someone shooting you.  There's a lot less strategy and no time for team work.

 

But I should clarify - I'm not saying, "Playing on the same map" because I only want to play that one particular map.  I'm saying that BEFORE MatchMaker, if you played a game on a particular map and it was a REALLY GOOD GAME.  A close game.  Long enough (15 minutes) that you could get to know your teammates and begin to understand the enemy - you could play AGAIN!  I've played games on the same map, back-to-back with basically the same teams for 4, 5 6 times in a row.  Sometimes we'd win.  Sometimes we'd lose.  But the more we played as groups that didn't change much, the more we developed actual STRATEGIES for winning.  With MatchMaker, none of that exists.  The games are too short to even begin to understand how the teams work.  With 8 on a side every time, it's just "shoot and run". If you get into a really GOOD game, you can't repeat with the same teams.  And to add insult to injury, in the next game, you have to wait for a new map to download.

 

You might also want to choose a map based on what equipment you have.  Snipers in "Island"?  If you have a Firebird, "Highways" might not be your first choice.  Another way MatchMaker makes Tanki worse is by throwing people onto random maps, your equipment might not be suitable for the battle.  Of course, you could go change equipment in the garage, but with a 6 minute game and the garage taking at least a minute, you just wasted a big chunk of your playing time.  Remember, you probably waited two minutes for the queues to fill up, then you waited 30 seconds for the map to download.  Then you lost the first 20 seconds of the game while your tank was initialized and now you're going to lose another minute in the garage and then you have to wait for your tank to blow up and reform.  So for the six minute game you've wasted nearly 4 minutes... most of which is thanks to MatchMaker.

 

I don't play to  "enhance diverse gaming".  I play to have fun.  With MatchMaker, you get short games, with no strategy, no real teams, long pointless wait, jam-packed battlefields and a lot less fun.

 

I don't know what you mean by "I do playing on the same map did not create the waiting time issue. ", but I'm guessing you don't think map downloads add to wait times.  If that's the case, you're simply wrong.  When you select a game type, you're put in a waiting queue until enough players show up to jam-pack the map.  But then the screen changes and you see "progress bars".  That's when the map is being downloaded.  So if the clock on screen says you've been waiting "1:34" to get into a game, the map DOWNLOAD doesn't start until the clock goes away.  And that's an ADDITIONAL delay that you do NOT get if the map is already downloaded.  Under the old system, if you played a battle and wanted to repeat on the same map, you waited 10 seconds.  Not more.  Not less.  The system just gave players 10 second to "get ready".  New players were added as the game progressed.  It was a much, much, much better system.  With MatchMaker, TYPICAL wait times (on the clock) are 10x longer.  When you add in map download times, it can be 12x-13x longer.  And when you consider the frequency with which game entry fails entirely (leaving you waiting "forever"), average wait time can be up to 2000% longer.  Put it another way:  Under MatchMaker, you waste the equivalent of a full game for every three games you actually play.

 

4. In terms of "force" - you're really just trying to make a semantical argument.  (One without merit, actually.) I agree there's no one here with a gun to my head making me play Tanki.  Given that you're playing - you are FORCED to play the games dictated by MatchMaker.  You... have... no... choice.  Of course, that presumes you're playing (which is why yours is a semantical argument).  Lots of players have stopped playing.  Maybe I will too, but I haven't yet reached that point.  Yet.  Hopefully there will be changes that make playing worthwhile.  The point is, if you play Tanki, MatchMaker will dictate the map you play on.  You used to have a choice of map.  Now you have none. 

 

Being down by 4 flags in the pre-MatchMaker Tanki might indeed have allowed people to join and turn the tide.  Back then, the game was long enough (10 flags - 15 minutes) that such a reversal was possible.  But with MatchMaker, it's far, far, far less likely for several reasons.

 

1. The maps are crammed full.  
2. There's not enough time.
3. One more flag is the end of the game. (Pre-MatchMaker, it was 6 more flags!)
4. People recognize all this and bail out of the losing team.
5. MatchMaker crams more players onto the losing team who instantly recognize there's no point in playing and quit - ensuring the losing team doesn't get any "reinforcements"

Tell me about every game you've ever played since MatchMaker where the team was one goal away from losing with a minute to go in the game and you were added to the game by MatchMaker and your team won.  (We both know that has never, EVER happened.)  So what's the point of wasting your waiting time, your map download time and wasting more time on a game you cannot possibly win?  Why not put you into battles where you have 20 minutes, the score is zero-zero and you're the only one on your side while there are 20 players on the other side - all with better equipment?  Why not?  Because you cannot win.  MatchMaker jams people into games where they cannot win.

 

Me like to jump onto losing team does not always mean I like to lose. Those who are in the losing team who choose to stay in the battle, are in distress and need help. 

Down 4-0 with 1 minute left to play - you're not going to help your team win.  You're probably not even going to help it lose less badly.

 

 

"How would you like to be a WO-2 and fight Majors?" In this case, I will not feel anything but rather more determined to fight them off. Even when it could be defeat.

• So how many games of you against 20 Generalissimos would you play before (having lost every single game) you would feel "less determined"? 10?  100?  100,000?

You don't gamble, do you?  Because if you do, I really want to gamble against you.  I'll just deal myself a royal straight flush in spades every hand and take your money and you can be "more determined".  Or we can compete in racing events.  We'll just put 40-kilo weights on each of your legs and I'll get to use a motorcycle.

You sort of remind me of the old chief in "The Outlaw Josey Wales" who "endeavored to persevere".https://youtu.be/atzmdijMfRY?t=185

"Endeavor to Persevere!"

Edited June 16, 2019 by MMSUX

[N88B 9]

This is ridiculous.

 

I outscore the best player on the winning team by 146 points (156% of his score) and I don't get to clear my "top 3" mission because MatchMaker put me on a crummy team?  Note that with only one exception, every player on the other team is also a higher rank!

 

 

 

[N88B 9]

I can believe that since I was a WO5 and got placed with a Major-General in a DM battle. And that's only a 9-rank bracket. I've seen up to 12-rank brackets. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you play good enough and are lucky, you can top the leaderboard. 

So did you complete "top 3" in these games?

 

No.

 

No you did not.

 

You also didn't have a 50% higher score than anyone else in the game.

 

In fact, the top player bested YOU by more than 50%.

 

 

But what if you had?  What if you beat the snot out of every other player in the game?  What if Tanki then said, "Sorry, you don't complete the mission because your user name ends in a numeral!"?  Would that make any sense to you?

 

 

Note that in DM the TOP THREE get the mission ticket punched.  But in other games, Tanki has the foolish requirement that you also have to be on the winning team - something that is completely beyond your control because ultimately, MatchMaker is sticking you with bad players, and even if you're better than any TWO other players, you still don't complete the mission.

 

Dumb.  Really, really, REALLY dumb.

Edited June 17, 2019 by N88B

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

Note that in DM the TOP THREE get the mission ticket punched.  But in other games, Tanki has the foolish requirement that you also have to be on the winning team - something that is completely beyond your control because ultimately, MatchMaker is sticking you with bad players, and even if you're better than any TWO other players, you still don't complete the mission.

 

Dumb.  Really, really, REALLY dumb.

Alternativa trying to get us motivated and challenged by giving us the winning team top 3 mission.

 

But that did not work out. In fact some tankers quit the game forever.

 

Doing the mission only on CTF won't get you anywhere near complete.

[N88B 9]

Alternativa trying to get us motivated and challenged by giving us the winning team top 3 mission.

 

But that did not work out. In fact some tankers quit the game forever.

 

Doing the mission only on CTF won't get you anywhere near complete.

Good point.

 

It's sort of stupid for Tanki to think that someone will be motivated MORE by having to be on the winning team.  They're already fighting to clear the "top-3" mission.  So aren't they already doing what they can to help the team?

 

Instead, tankers get discouraged because they put forth their best effort, play better than anyone else in the game, and get penalized because MatchMaker stuck them on a team with a bunch of losers.

 

When you score 500 points in a game, and the top three players on the other team have a combined total less than that - but their team wins, so Tanki penalizes YOU because MatchMaker put you on a team with a bunch of losers - that's far from fair... and it sucks.

 

Actually, Tanki really started to fall apart when they widened all the paths and started cramming 16 players on every map.  Remember when Brest had narrow paths at the bottom that were a challenge to navigate?  Tanki wanted to take all the challenge out of the game and just make it about shooting fast with big explosions.  No strategy.  Just blast away.  Purple projectile tracks and green smoke, weird paints and alterations that make one turret act like another are just distractions from the loss of meaningful features.

 

With MatchMakers, you can't repeat a game - that is, if you had a GREAT battle and everyone wanted to play again with the same teams - MatchMaker made that impossible.

 

Tanki has continued to screw up maps.  I don't know why.  You would think they'd keep the old maps and let players actually choose which version they wanted to play.  But no - Tanki doesn't care what players want.  They follow the Soviet model.  They will tell YOU what you are going to want - and if you don't want it - what?  Shoot you?

 

Successful companies - like Amazon - use A-B testing to see what works best.  If Tanki were competent and interested in getting more players, they'd do the same.  When they change a map (like taking all the craters out of Massacre) they ought to let people set a selector to "old map" or "new map" then let people play for a while.  At the end of six months, if there's a clear preference, maybe you sideline a map - or maybe you just keep both of them.  In the case of Massacre, taking the craters out made it just like every other map.  The craters were the defining aspect of the map - the thing that made it different from every other map in Tanki.  Now it's just like every other map.  Might as well call it "Baby Berlin", "Mini Molotov" or "Dinky Dusseldorf".

 

Guess Tanki is going back to its roots - all the turrets converging - all the maps becoming the same.

 

Boring.

Edited June 19, 2019 by N88B

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

Good point.

 

It's sort of stupid for Tanki to think that someone will be motivated MORE by having to be on the winning team.  They're already fighting to clear the "top-3" mission.  So aren't they already doing what they can to help the team?

 

Instead, tankers get discouraged because they put forth their best effort, play better than anyone else in the game, and get penalized because MatchMaker stuck them on a team with a bunch of losers.

 

When you score 500 points in a game, and the top three players on the other team have a combined total less than that - but their team wins, so Tanki penalizes YOU because MatchMaker put you on a team with a bunch of losers - that's far from fair... and it sucks.

 

With MatchMakers, you can't repeat a game - that is, if you had a GREAT battle and everyone wanted to play again with the same teams - MatchMaker made that impossible.

 

Tanki has continued to screw up maps.  I don't know why.  You would think they'd keep the old maps and let players actually choose which version they wanted to play.  But no - Tanki doesn't care what players want.  They follow the Soviet model.  They will tell YOU what you are going to want - and if you don't want it - what?  Shoot you?

 

Successful companies - like Amazon - use A-B testing to see what works best.  If Tanki were competent and interested in getting more players, they'd do the same.  When they change a map (like taking all the craters out of Massacre) they ought to let people set a selector to "old map" or "new map" then let people play for a while.  At the end of six months, if there's a clear preference, maybe you sideline a map - or maybe you just keep both of them.  In the case of Massacre, taking the craters out made it just like every other map.  The craters were the defining aspect of the map - the thing that made it different from every other map in Tanki.  Now it's just like every other map.  Might as well call it "Baby Berlin", "Mini Molotov" or "Dinky Dusseldorf".

I am aware top 3 mission did discourage tankers and makes them less motivated. 

 

What do you mean by penalized? You cannot guarantee matchmaking will put you into winning team though. 

 

Your word choice "penalize" does not make sense. If the game really have penalty on losing, that would be decreasing mission progress. 

 

"They follow Soviet model. They will tell YOU what you are going to want..."  I do not understand this statement

 

"With MM..... that's impossible." That created biases. Keep going to have winning team will put those who are losing team more disadvantaged. 

 

For me, without matchmaking, there would still be armies of Shafts in Highways. Now whenever I am in Highways, usually I am the only Shaft. I am grateful MM existed because... less Shaft means less Eagle modules to deal with.

 

Again, only playing CTF will take 1 month or even longer time to get the mission done. I know you only like CTF, but getting the mission done is much more crucial.

 

But getting Alternativa listening to us is difficult. I supported MM because for me, it is more fair. At the same time what MMSUX said.... makes me want to combine the current characteristic of the game with the old Tanki. 

[5Gum 11]

Missions

 

i do not want to talk about this topic but im really thinking if removing super missions was a good idea but i have designed it in other way now for example your mission is to complete 50 daily missions you will get a super mission and after completing it you will get for example an animated paint a skin or other stuff missions are boring to do and worth no time trust me it will gain the fun of matchmaking

[N88B 9]

I am aware top 3 mission did discourage tankers and makes them less motivated. 

 

What do you mean by penalized? You cannot guarantee matchmaking will put you into winning team though. 

 

A Penalty is something you give up or lose.  Like being the #1 player in a game - but losing completion of your "Top-3" mission because the rest of the players on your team suck.  The better a player is, the more likely they'll be stuck on a team with players who suck.  But a great player with two crummy players isn't the same as three average players.

 

Your word choice "penalize" does not make sense. If the game really have penalty on losing, that would be decreasing mission progress. 

 

Mission progress IS decreased.  Despite being nearly twice as good as the best player on the other team, your top-rank finish doesn't outweigh the fact that MatchMaker stuck you on a crappy team.

 

"They follow Soviet model. They will tell YOU what you are going to want..."  I do not understand this statement

 

It's simple.  You have no choice - and that's your choice.

 

"With MM..... that's impossible." That created biases. Keep going to have winning team will put those who are losing team more disadvantaged. 

 

What the hell is with you and "biases"?  I'm talking about people having so much fun in a battle that they want to play the game again with the same team!  And then THAT game was so great, they wanted to play AGAIN!  AND AGAIN!  AND AGAIN!  It was

 

 

 

THE VERY BEST OF TANKI

 

 

 

- now made impossible by MatchMaker.

 

For me, without matchmaking, there would still be armies of Shafts in Highways. Now whenever I am in Highways, usually I am the only Shaft. I am grateful MM existed because... less Shaft means less Eagle modules to deal with.

 

So what?  If you don't like Highways, don't play Highways.  Except with MatchMaker, you have to wait... and wait... and wait... to find out MatchMaker has stuffed you in Highways (which you don't want to play) so you quit.  Taking away the choice of map was Tanki being stupid and indifferent to players.

 

What you REALLY like about Highways is it gives you a bias over everyone else... which is what you've been complaining about.  In other words, as long as it's good for you - it's good.  But if it's bad for you, then you don't really care if it's good for  everyone else. What you like about Highways is that with a shaft, everyone else is just a target for you.  You like it because it's uneven.  Because you have the best tool for the job - and with MatchMaker, by your own words, others do not.  So why not just have a map where only YOU have ammuniition and no one else can shoot back.  It's pretty much the same thing.  What you really do NOT want is the challenge of someone else with the same equipment YOU have shooting BACK at you!  You want MAXIMUM BIAS in your favor!

 

Again, only playing CTF will take 1 month or even longer time to get the mission done. I know you only like CTF, but getting the mission done is much more crucial.

 

I don't appreciate you lying like that.  I never said I only like CTF.  I just don't like games where the most important factors are armor, rate of fire, impact, damage, protection - and skill, planning, strategy don't  matter at all.  Unfortunately, you get a LOT of that when you pile 16 players on a map.  You get even more of it when they're all shooting each other - as in Deathmatch or Juggernaut.  And doing things like making navigation easier by widening the paths as in Brest and removing the craters on Massacre just took out the characteristics that made those maps interesting.  I used to really like Massacre.  Now?  It sucks.

 

But getting Alternativa listening to us is difficult. I supported MM because for me, it is more fair. At the same time what MMSUX said.... makes me want to combine the current characteristic of the game with the old Tanki. 

 

You don't support MatchMaker because it's more fair.

You support MatchMaker because you're not a very good player and it's more biased for your style of play.

Edited June 22, 2019 by N88B

[Hate 5,582]

Doubt they would bring those super missions back. I mean they were good but doesn't the current monthly challenge offer the same if not similar rewards? If not more.

[Pyre 3,485]

Doubt they would bring those super missions back. I mean they were good but doesn't the current monthly challenge offer the same if not similar rewards? If not more.

Thats true, but if I remember correctly you had unlimited time to finish the super missions, which means that you can get XTs without buying and playing for several hour a day. I do think its a good idea to bring these back even in a slightly different form, but I doubt it will happen. Maybe it could be combined with an idea I saw a while ago: it suggested that completing achievements on the profile page (in particular earn EXP with turrets/hulls) would unlock XT skins. In this case, it would unlock a super mission to get those skins.