category Ideas for Missions!

[n99b 4]

Yes, you're right. We need a top gun mission, but losing teams must be rewarded as well.

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.

[RIDDLER_8 5,553]

The top 3 missions in weekly battles requires 15 wins. That is very tough since you need to take the top 3 places on the winning team, which is so annoying. This mission must have its top 3 place wins in any team, winning or losing team, does not matter, as long as you finish in the top 3 places.

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

I hate DM.

 

Tanki has made ALL of the battles much more about just shooting fast and running away.  No strategy at all.  Just getting shot at from every direction all the time.

DM is the WORST of that crap.  I've always disliked DM.  But since MatchMaker, I  rarely play it at all.  Even the "finish X DM games" is just me marking time - it's not worth actually playing.

 

If Tanki is for adults, then DM is for mental 3-year-olds.

 

I don't give a fig about the "challenges".

Too bad. YOU will keep complaining that the mission is really annoying. Guess what? CTF is no strategy for you too.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Too bad. YOU will keep complaining that the mission is really annoying. Guess what? CTF is no strategy for you too.

DM  does suck.  It is boring... and boring and... ... boring.

[RIDDLER_8 5,553]

I am not really complaining. I am actually suggesting a change to this mission where you must finish in the top 3 places. It's supposed to work by finishing in the top 3 places, whether or not your team is winning or losing.

 

I play CTF, and its a missions strategy for me. I am not frightened at all to play CTF.

[RIDDLER_8 5,553]

To be honest with you folks, I play all game modes. I like all the game modes that developers created for Tanki Online. They are all good and all different. I think that we also need a football mode and a football pitch map for such a mode.

[TheCongoSpider 8,952]

If the criterion "must be on the winning team" is removed, then it needs to be set to the Top 2 places, to keep the difficulty. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by TheCongoSpider

[RIDDLER_8 5,553]

The criteria must be on the winning team. It must remain as the top 3 places, though.

[wolverine848 13,097]

If the criterion "must be on the winning team" is removed, then it needs to be set to the Top 2 places, to keep the difficulty. 

You don't think top-3 out of 16 players is still difficult?  Especially for a daily mission?

 

If you drop it to top-2, might as well keep it at top-3 cuz 1) you've reduced the # players completing their missions and 2) 80% of the time the top-2 players ARE on the winning team.

[TheCongoSpider 8,952]

You don't think top-3 out of 16 players is still difficult?  Especially for a daily mission?

 

If you drop it to top-2, might as well keep it at top-3 cuz 1) you've reduced the # players completing their missions and 2) 80% of the time the top-2 players ARE on the winning team.

What?

 

This applies to both teams, regardless of the outcome. The top 2 players on each team would receive a point towards the mission. Keeping it at 3 is lenient since being on the winning is a major gamble. If you remove that gamble and reward more players (in this case, the losing team as well), the number of players on each team that would get the point would need to be decreased. 

 

1) you've reduced the # players completing their missions and 2)

If anything, I increased it.

 

Currently, only 3 players (assuming that they all have different scores at the end) can put a point towards completing the mission. With setting it to the Top 2 on both teams, that number increases to 4. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

What?

 

This applies to both teams, regardless of the outcome. The top 2 players on each team would receive a point towards the mission. Keeping it at 3 is lenient since being on the winning is a major gamble. If you remove that gamble and reward more players (in this case, the losing team as well), the number of players on each team that would get the point would need to be decreased. 

 

If anything, I increased it.

 

Currently, only 3 players (assuming that they all have different scores at the end) can put a point towards completing the mission. With setting it to the Top 2 on both teams, that number increases to 4. 

OHHHHH.... thought you meant top-2 players... Total - from either side, as opposed to original top-3 from winner.

 

"...it needs to be set to the Top 2 places,..."

       reworded as

"top-2 places each team"...       see how I read it differently?

 

 

I like it.

[TheCongoSpider 8,952]

OHHHHH.... thought you meant top-2 players... Total - from either side, as opposed to original top-3 from winner.

 

"...it needs to be set to the Top 2 places,..."

       reworded as

"top-2 places each team"...       see how I read it differently?

 

 

I like it.

Ah, I see.

 

I thought I was clear enough when I said "if the criterion 'must be on the winning team' was removed". I think Riddler read it without the quotation marks. 

[CAPiano 40]

Also to not is that your GS is close to 4,000. That corresponds to your turret and hull being upgraded, maybe not fully, but it's close. So you're playing with M2 equipment (I'm assuming, because I don't have the exact information about your turrets and hulls and can only make an estimation looking at your paint, number of supplies, and protection modules on your account). 

 

I tested different combos on my account and if I followed your account and equipped two M1 modules and an M0 module and then equipped an M2 (M1 10/10) turret or hull onto a turret that is almost stock or has 2/10 upgrades, my GS turns into around 3,581 after deducting 40 score because I had more than 300 repair kits. So I can conclude that you either have M2 equipment (turret and hull) or close to that. That is a factor.

 

See, GS is good for something, especially after the update. The problem with that "good for something" is that it only clearly shows extreme cases (showing that the player either has stock equipment or fully upgraded equipment). 

 

And then you have Hornet's Overdrive which is really great for Railgun, especially if it has "Death Herald" Compulsator, Round Destabilisation, or large Calibre Rounds. You only have access to one of those, which is Round Destabilisation. We do not know if you have it or have it equipped or not because you didn't have the feature that showed others' statistics enabled during the screenshot. If you did have that on, then that itself is a nother factor to your success. 

 

 

Now all of this is against you, so I will write something for you. The change in statistics between M1 and M2 Hornet and Railgun isn't really that large. And you got around the same number of kills as a lot of your allies and enemies. And Railgun isn't a crippled turret

Mostly correct. I didn't have any alterations. Hornet 10/10 and rail 7/10. now rail is M2 though bcz i bought voltage when it last came around in the garage. I think the best alteration for Railgun though is the one you left out. "Scout" is really good with the overdrive on my other acc. ( CJGuitar)

Edited July 24, 2019 by CAPiano

[The-Operator219 1,929]

DM  does suck.  It is boring... and boring and... ... boring.

DM is played by the kind of people who use the Black Box/Concheror in TF2; the sort that have a son they pushed into sports to fulfill their lifelong dream of "going pro".

[TheCongoSpider 8,952]

DM is played by the kind of people who use the Black Box/Concheror in TF2; the sort that have a son they pushed into sports to fulfill their lifelong dream of "going pro".

It's where they break free of their chains called teams that are holding them back from destroying every player in sight (because you can't damage teammates in MM). It is where they feel truly powerful. Where the number of enemies to drill into the ground almost doubles. Where the moshpit that is Sandal, Sandbox and Highland is their home. 

[The-Operator219 1,929]

It's where they break free of their chains called teams that are holding them back from destroying every player in sight (because you can't damage teammates in MM). It is where they feel truly powerful. Where the number of enemies to drill into the ground almost doubles. Where the moshpit that is Sandal, Sandbox and Highland is their home. 

Not for me. If I have that kind of feeling I can always play Quake or Unreal Tournament. 

[Cruelty 476]

To be honest with you folks, I play all game modes. I like all the game modes that developers created for Tanki Online. They are all good and all different. I think that we also need a football mode and a football pitch map for such a mode.

Rugby and JGR are useless, people only play them because of missions.

[RIDDLER_8 5,553]

No. Rugby and juggernaut battles are fun to play. Juggernaut battles would be more fun if juggernaut had more armor.

[TheCongoSpider 8,952]

Rugby and JGR are useless, people only play them because of missions.

I like to play Rugby. I have the most fun there as it is competitive and requires teammwork and/or quick thinking. 

[n99b 4]

If the criterion "must be on the winning team" is removed, then it needs to be set to the Top 2 places, to keep the difficulty. 

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!?

[n99b 4]

Too bad. YOU will keep complaining that the mission is really annoying. Guess what? CTF is no strategy for you too.

Your vision is that of a 3-year-old.  No point talking to you anymore.  You don't think at all.

I am not really complaining. I am actually suggesting a change to this mission where you must finish in the top 3 places. It's supposed to work by finishing in the top 3 places, whether or not your team is winning or losing.

 

I play CTF, and its a missions strategy for me. I am not frightened at all to play CTF.

That's what I've been saying for the past 8 pages!

[n99b 4]

You don't think top-3 out of 16 players is still difficult?  Especially for a daily mission?

 

If you drop it to top-2, might as well keep it at top-3 cuz 1) you've reduced the # players completing their missions and 2) 80% of the time the top-2 players ARE on the winning team.

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.

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

Your vision is that of a 3-year-old.  No point talking to you anymore.  You don't think at all.

LOL. I am no 3 year old. You are hurting yourself by only playing team mode battles. You are prolonging that suffering.  

 

I face the same problem as you: the difficult Top 3 15x mission. But regardless of what, I get the job done. Effectively and efficiently. 

 

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=171431&p=6711528

 

You however, valuing strategy over efficiency regardless what mission. In this case CTF/ASL over DM/JGR. This means it will take many weeks or even months for you to get it done as opposed to someone like me, just need a day to a week.

 

I am not asking to stay away from team modes and focusing solo modes only. But I am urging you to play solo battles for that mission and then get back to team fight. 

 

Anyways, me saying CTF is no strategy is just a joke, I play all modes. Me getting bored of Juggernaut after few hours, jumps to team battles.

Edited July 25, 2019 by FrozenRailgun

[TheCongoSpider 8,952]

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!?

If you don't have good teammates, then that means there is a higher chance of you coming in the top 2 spots of your team (that is losing), since (I assume that) you are a pro player. 

 

Encouraging defeat is not something someone would want. You'd want to win, not lose. So encouraging winning (being on the winning team) is the way to go. Sure, it spices up the difficulty because you can't control your teamamtes' actions, but encouraging losing could potentially encourage trolls/players that sabotage their team in order to complete a mission. Putting that mission would be encouraging players to break the rules of the game. 

 

To keep the difficulty of the mission high (because that is undoubtedly the most difficult mission), reduce the places you need in the team to the Top 2. And if you think it over, it's for the best, as now, 2 players from each team are benefitting while currently, only 3 players from one team is benefitting. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

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.

I don't like the top-3 finish missions.  You gonna bring up my K/D as well?

 

It is not "easy" to finish top-3 winning team.  At BEST you have a 50% chance since only 1/2 two teams can win.

And assuming most (or at least half) of your team is putting in effort - now your % drops below 50 because you are competing against your own team-mates.