category Ideas for Missions!

[n99b 4]

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. 

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.

[n99b 4]

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. 

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

[n99b 4]

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.

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.

[n99b 4]

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. 

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?

[n99b 4]

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.

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.

Edited July 26, 2019 by n99b

[XxStriker 519]

From a magnum player I'm expecting you do nothing but sit and rack kills, so a 1.53 total KD is even low for that. And I'll have you know that killing the weakest enemies in the match does not contribute to game objectives unless you're playing tdm. Maybe someone else is the problem, because that mission isn't a problem for me, and I never play dm.

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

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.

What do you mean "overall"? I'm saying that if you are a pro player that knows how to assess battle situations and tactics for your benefit, you have a much higher chance of coming in the top 2 positions of your team (that is losing) compared to someone who doesn't move their turret and has little to no situational awareness and/or tactic planning. 

 

To keep the difficulty, I reduced it to the top 2 positions on both teams. You're catering for more people completing the mission, so the difficulty must be kept high (since it is an objectively hard mission) and a potential revenue earner. Remember, you dropped the "winning team" criterion. So that means that ties also allow for the mission to be completed by the top 2 players on each team. So that's even more points towards the mission awarded. 

 

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.

Outscoring everyone doesn't always mean that you are the best skill-wise or tactic-wise. It means that you are the best statistic-wise at least. 

 

You need teamwork in order to win. If you don't win, you don't get the point for 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 doubt that Tanki will change this mission but I do believe that a tie should warrant the top 2 players on either side a point for the mission. It only seems fair since a tie requires effort from both sides to capture each others flag to level the score, or requires a lot of efficient defense to keep the battle 0-0. I assume that it's to emphasise that it must be on the winning team. 

 

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.

Oh hold up. So I, a Support Nanobots Isida, who cannot defend myself against an enemy, much less multiple enemies; who obtains 0 kills and around 8 deaths per battle on average; who is targetted by enemies primarily because I heal the players they are facing off against, am the reason that my team loses? I am the person that keeps my teammates alive to attack the enemy. I am a dedicated healer. I am the backbone of my team's survivability alongside their own repair kits and double armours. And if my team loses, it is my, the healer's, fault?

 

If I were not there, and was replaced by a non-Isida player, that team was going to lose. 

 

If having a healer on your team makes the team have a higher chance of losing, that what is the point of having a healer in the first place? Surely another Hammer player instead of a Support Nanobots Isida on a team that is being blown out would make such a significant difference for their team's survivability. 

 

 

There are many factors as to why some people do worse than others. Different maps with different terrains that favour different turrets, Different turret-and-hull combinations are better in different maps. Availability of enemies to kill. The enemy team's combinations might be direct counters to that person's combination. Stop saying that players with a lower K/D than others are less helpful to the team. Because I can heal the flag bearer for all 5 captures and only get 100 points while the flag bearer gets 600 from capturing and killing the defenders. Does that mean my contribution was near meaningless to the outcome of the battle compared to the flag bearer? No, it doesn't. In fact, without me, he wouldn't have been able to capture those flags with ease. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

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.

 

 

What is your most used turret?  The camping turret Magnum.  Can't tell how many flags you cap while camping but I suspect the number is low.

Now look at my most used turret - Isida.  The opposite of a camping turret.  Aside from maybe the flag carrier - Isida is the number one target in battles. So they get killed a LOT while supporting other players.  With all my hours on Isida, I still have a kd close to 1.  Swap my Isida hrs with a camper turret an my KD would easily be better than yours.

 

All that wall of text of yours about how KD is relevant to how good someone is TO just proves one thing - you are an idi0t. You certainly picked an appropriate username.

 

What is amusing is you assuming I'm not contributing to my team.  I place in top-3 at least my shares worth, and often make the difference in the team winning or losing.  The ONLY part you got correct in your post is that we can't control which team we end on.  There's your 50%.  That instantly removes your "easy" claim.

 

Go camp and raise your kd.  let the rest of us who actually know how to play the battle mode play.  

Edited July 26, 2019 by wolverine848

[loginci 877]

If you chose that combo to start the mission with, then that'll be your fault. ;)

Oh, I didn't read carefully. 

 

Well, so not a bad idea.

[lssimo 1,559]

There're some problems with the idea.

 

If the system gives missions based on the equipment we have, then it would be giving the same missions to players that only have one combo. If it doesn't then we would get missions for our unused M0 equipment. There are some other problems, but I think these are enough for now and the next decade. ;)

Edited July 28, 2019 by lssimo

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

There're some problems with the idea.

If the system gives missions based on the equipment we have, then it would be giving the same missions to players that only have one combo. If it doesn't then we would get missions for our unused M0 equipment. There are some other problems, but I think these are enough for now and the next decade. ;)

  

 

My response to this pitiful criticism:

 

If you chose that combo to start the mission with, then that'll be your fault. ;)

 

Same applies to those that used M0s to start the mission with when they have m1s, m2s, m3s, or m4s.

[Modesty 577]

Well, I miss the old days when the missions could be completed in pro battles too. I am just a fan of XP/BP format and never play matchmaking, so unfortunately I am unable to complete missions, and unable to get the containers, and ultimately the goodies in it, for example the rail shots colours etc. I would love if there is a possibility that missions could be completed in pro-battles too  :ph34r:

[lssimo 1,559]

My response to this pitiful criticism:

 

Same applies to those that used M0s to start the mission with when they have m1s, m2s, m3s, or m4s.

I see, so it's not "Use any combo for x amount of time or x amount of battles." like you said, where the system specifies which combo.

 

It's more like "Fight and finish x number of battles with the same combo that you started playing MM battles today or a previous day after you saw this mission." That's if I'm accurate with the description.

 

One issue with this idea could be that some turrets and some hulls would become more common and others less common, and that would be bad for Tanki because they'd sell less modules.

 

If I saw a mission like that I'd change it immediately, and Tanki would give me something better like "Earn x battle points with the same combo that you started playing MM battles today or a previous day after you saw this mission" instead.

Edited July 29, 2019 by lssimo

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

I see, so it's not "Use any combo for x amount of time or x amount of battles." like you said, where the system specifies which combo.

It's more like "Fight and finish x number of battles with the same combo that you started playing MM battles today or a previous day after you saw this mission." That's if I'm accurate with the description.

One issue with this idea could be that some turrets and some hulls would become more common and others less common, and that would be bad for Tanki because they'd sell less modules.

If I saw a mission like that I'd change it immediately, and Tanki would give me something better like "Earn x battle points with the same combo that you started playing MM battles today or a previous day after you saw this mission" instead.

Tanki could make some balance changes.

 

Now that I think about it, this mission wouldn't make you earn battle points with the combo you chose. You just play with it till you're done.

 

The only downsides this mission would have is for those on a time crunch.

[lssimo 1,559]

Tanki could make some balance changes.

 

Now that I think about it, this mission wouldn't make you earn battle points with the combo you chose. You just play with it till you're done.

 

The only downsides this mission would have is for those on a time crunch.

Maybe mid and long range turrets could be weaker, although devs seem to be going the other way. Another way they could make it work for close and short range turrets is to put more barriers and obstructions in all maps, something many don't like.

[n99b 4]

What is your most used turret?  The camping turret Magnum.  

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).

Edited August 4, 2019 by n99b

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

Alright, enough mud-slinging!

 

@n99b, your problem is being unwilling to see DM and JGR as solutions to the "Top 3 in the winning team x 15" mission. I understand that you're upset about coming first but being placed on the team that lose the battle. I find that requirement is too restrictive as well. But I acknowledge that DM and JGR are legitimate ways to complete the mission. The mission is completable in all 7 game modes and you choose to be restrictive in your choice of mode to the 5 team modes. That is one you and you only. 

 

If they aren't going to change it, then acknowledge that it is able to be completed in DM and JGR as well. That is all! That. Is. All! 

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

Alright, enough mud-slinging!

 

@n99b, your problem is being unwilling to see DM and JGR as solutions to the "Top 3 in the winning team x 15" mission. I understand that you're upset about coming first but being placed on the team that lose the battle. I find that requirement is too restrictive as well. But I acknowledge that DM and JGR are legitimate ways to complete the mission. The mission is completable in all 7 game modes and you choose to be restrictive in your choice of mode to the 5 team modes. That is one you and you only. 

 

If they aren't going to change it, then acknowledge that it is able to be completed in DM and JGR as well. That is all! That. Is. All!

 

I honestly think top 3 missions is bull crap. They just encourage selfish behavior, just like the BRS and wars. It should just be removed, just like score goals or capture flags.

 

They're replacements should encourage teamwork like share over drives with teammates x amount of times, give flag or ball to a teammate x amount of times, help a teammate get back on their tracks x amount of times, etc.

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

They're replacements should encourage teamwork like share over drives with teammates x amount of times

Hornet does this automatically. And that mission could potentially only be done using 3 hulls. What if you don't have those 3 hulls? 

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

Hornet does this automatically. And that mission could potentially only be done using 3 hulls. What if you don't have those 3 hulls?

 

It could also just be successfully defend the base against enemies x amount of times, or block an enemy x amount of times.

[test_krishna2 2]

WHAT IF CONTAINERS COME IN DAILY MISSIONS !

 

                               

                                             OR

 

 

WHAT IF PROTECTION MODULES COME IN DAILY MISSIONS !

 

THIS WILL MAKE THE GAME AMUSING

[The-Operator219 1,929]

Add a "backlog" to daily missions

 

Some of us have other things in our lives, and sadly can't play every day. I propose a simple addition wherein up to three daily missions can be saved in a backlog to complete after the new missions. This shouldn't be possible with weekly missions. After you complete the missions that replaced the backlogged missions they become available to complete, then you clear them all. Perhaps this could be a once a week thing.

[Maf 32,300]

It's a good idea and I've played other games where this is a thing, but keep in mind that, like with all things that benefit the player economically, implementing this would cause some other kind of reward to be reduced.

[This1SimpleMind 63]

Hey here's an idea for daily missions............... Quit giving me Deathmatch missions, because your rubbish servers time out instead of actually letting me get my mission.   Great way to treat the guys that are paying your wages and keeping your lights on over there.

 

BTW, good job doing all the other stuff besides resolving some really basic issues.

Edited August 24, 2019 by This1SimpleMind

[Hate 5,582]

 

Topic merged.