category Ideas for Missions!

[Person_Random 4,991]

pls do.

[u812ic 1,629]

Not sure what you mean here. If there are 30 players in a queue, they would be put into 2 separate battles within a few seconds. If there are 1000 players, they would all be put into 63 separate battles within a few seconds.

One of the examples OP made was CTF and DM. Right now, they are randomized. I can go to 3 different accounts and have 3 different mission combos. If the missions were concentrated on one or two battle modes, changed daily, then I would go to this account and do CTF and DM. Then I go to another account and do the same missions...CTF and DM. If I have the time and energy to go to a third account, again I would be doing CTF and DM. All day, I would be in CTF and DM and so would all the other players who do missions on one account or multiple accounts. The queue would be endless. 

 

BTW, how do you know there are as many as 64 servers? In Q&A I asked how many servers there are. I was told that no one knows for sure except the Devs. Also, in Q&A, a player asked why it took so long to be put into a battle. He said that he waited 5 minutes and was never put into a battle. The answer given was that the MMS could have been searching empty servers for battles. He was advised not to wait any longer than 1 minute 30 seconds. To leave the queue, wait about 20 seconds and try again. Of all I've read about MMS, servers, wait time, and "The MMS would rather open a new battle than to fill an old one" (paraphrased), it's all too confusing with mixed messages. 

 

Back to topic: I'm sure there would be more than 1,000 players (plus players alt accounts) trying to get into battles. How much longer would the wait be? If everyone who does missions is doing them with their major account and alt accounts, then who would be playing the other game modes? I read that MM won't start a new battle until both teams are full. How long would that take?

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

BTW, how do you know there are as many as 64 servers? In Q&A I asked how many servers there are. I was told that no one knows for sure except the Devs. Also, in Q&A, a player asked why it took so long to be put into a battle. He said that he waited 5 minutes and was never put into a battle. The answer given was that the MMS could have been searching empty servers for battles. He was advised not to wait any longer than 1 minute 30 seconds. To leave the queue, wait about 20 seconds and try again. Of all I've read about MMS, servers, wait time, and "The MMS would rather open a new battle than to fill an old one" (paraphrased), it's all too confusing with mixed messages. 

64 battles ≠ 64 servers

There can be many battles on a single server.

When you enter the MM queue, MM searches for a suitable battle within a suitable server, and creates one if either there aren't any or if it deems it necessary, taking into account player load. The long wait times you mentioned happened when MM would look for battles on an empty server, but of course there weren't any there.

[u812ic 1,629]

64 battles ≠ 64 servers

There can be many battles on a single server.

When you enter the MM queue, MM searches for a suitable battle within a suitable server, and creates one if either there aren't any or if it deems it necessary, taking into account player load. The long wait times you mentioned happened when MM would look for battles on an empty server, but of course there weren't any there.

If there are empty servers, then why is the MMS putting us into losing battles with 1 to 2 minutes left, only 3 players left on the losing team and score gap so wide you could drive a battleship through it. Why doesn't it consider the battle a blow out and create a new one?

 

This is from the WIKI:

 

Advantages of Matchmaking System

• In the literal sense, the matchmaking system makes it impossible to send a mult into the enemy team. You will no longer need to worry about someone possibly playing for the other team (a.k.a sabotaging his/her own team) in any battle.
• In the matchmaking system, every battle will start from exactly eight minutes. Joining a battle in the middle is still possible, but the system favors creating new battles more than making people join battles that are already underway.
• The teams in Matchmaking battles will be almost always full right from when the battle begins - the system tries to fill up empty slots in battles as fast as possible.

Dot 2 and Dot 3 seems ambiguous. See the highlighted areas. Does the system favor creating new battles or filling up empty slots as fast as possible. From my experience, it favors filling up empty slots in blow out battles with only a minute left. 

[Maf 32,300]

BTW, how do you know there are as many as 64 servers? In Q&A I asked how many servers there are. I was told that no one knows for sure except the Devs. Also, in Q&A, a player asked why it took so long to be put into a battle. He said that he waited 5 minutes and was never put into a battle. The answer given was that the MMS could have been searching empty servers for battles. 

We don't need to debate the number of servers, because the total number of players will not change. For example, right now you might have 1000 people: 300 playing DM, 300 in CP and 400 in CTF. The wait times are short, and the MM system distributes those players evenly into battles, creating new battles as necessary. If you change it so that there's 50 in DM, 50 in CP and 900 in CTF (doing the CTF mission), then the only thing that changes is that the server will create a lot more CTF battles to fit all of the 900 players. But the server load itself isn't changing, since the number of players is the same, so there's no reason for wait times to increase.

 

In fact, the wait times will increase for the game modes with less players, because it will take longer to get enough players in the queue to start a new game.

[Hex 11,520]

If there are empty servers, then why is the MMS putting us into losing battles with 1 to 2 minutes left, only 3 players left on the losing team and score gap so wide you could drive a battleship through it. Why doesn't it consider the battle a blow out and create a new one?

 

This is from the WIKI:

 

Advantages of Matchmaking System

• In the literal sense, the matchmaking system makes it impossible to send a mult into the enemy team. You will no longer need to worry about someone possibly playing for the other team (a.k.a sabotaging his/her own team) in any battle.
• In the matchmaking system, every battle will start from exactly eight minutes. Joining a battle in the middle is still possible, but the system favors creating new battles more than making people join battles that are already underway.
• The teams in Matchmaking battles will be almost always full right from when the battle begins - the system tries to fill up empty slots in battles as fast as possible.

Dot 2 and Dot 3 seems ambiguous. See the highlighted areas. Does the system favor creating new battles or filling up empty slots as fast as possible. From my experience, it favors filling up empty slots in blow out battles with only a minute left. 

Point two and three are not directly linked to each other. Point two merely states that the system does not favor putting people into battles which have already been started (for example, three minutes have already passed), while point three suggests what happens after a battle has started, that all slots will be filled as soon as possible.

[IsrvGod2 12]

but for now missions don't change if you don't complete them.. 

 

so if i don't complete an earn "1500 score in CTF" in one day... the next day i can't complete it because i will have nobody to play with ??? 

How about "Finish in the top 3 positions 15 x's"? I got that mission in Nov. 2018. I have only done it 5 x's. :-(   At that rate? I'll complete that Mission in August or September if I'm really lucky, lol.

[Hate 5,582]

 

Topic merged.

[loginci 877]

Stars should be used to complete missions

 

Perhaps the title couldn't explain it much but I'll explain it here.

 

So guys, stars are being more relevant day by day and they are used in challenges now. So, why are not we using it in missions? For example, ''collect 5 repair kits'' mission type causes a lot of multing, some people take them although they don't need it, but what about ''collect 10 stars'' instead of this? So, people wouldn't join the battles just because they want to complete their missions, but they want to win. Personally, if I wasn't doing challenges, I would enter battles, kill people and wouldn't spend my supplies. But with this update, multing would decrease.

[Hate 5,582]

It is a good idea but on top of the challenges...we gotta play and earn more stars even though it is just optional thing.

[BRO0088 1,724]

Perhaps the title couldn't explain it much but I'll explain it here.

 

So guys, stars are being more relevant day by day and they are used in challenges now. So, why are not we using it in missions? For example, ''collect 5 repair kits'' mission type causes a lot of multing, some people take them although they don't need it, but what about ''collect 10 stars'' instead of this? So, people wouldn't join the battles just because they want to complete their missions, but they want to win. Personally, if I wasn't doing challenges, I would enter battles, kill people and wouldn't spend my supplies. But with this update, multing would decrease.

Dude the way MM sets  up battles I dont think people will even play it if they have to complete thier missions by earning stars and thus people without clan and pro pass wont play anymore and the average player of tanki which is approx 10k would drop to 5k 

[u812ic 1,629]

When your put into 5 battles back to back and everyone is on the losing team with less than 2 minutes to play and the point gap is big enough to drive a semi through with room left over, It's difficult to earn stars. If I had a mission to pick up x number of x supply, then in those 2 minute or less battles I might pick up one or two of that supply and get that mission started. If I had to depend on stars for missions, it would take a lot longer to complete them. 

 

It takes 2000 stars to complete all the challenges. I think players would rather spend those hard earned stars on completing challenges than to spend them on missions. The only players that would benefit from this idea are those who don't care about completing missions, but are getting stars by default, then they are the ones who might use the stars for completing missions. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

Perhaps the title couldn't explain it much but I'll explain it here.

 

So guys, stars are being more relevant day by day and they are used in challenges now. So, why are not we using it in missions? For example, ''collect 5 repair kits'' mission type causes a lot of multing, some people take them although they don't need it, but what about ''collect 10 stars'' instead of this? So, people wouldn't join the battles just because they want to complete their missions, but they want to win. Personally, if I wasn't doing challenges, I would enter battles, kill people and wouldn't spend my supplies. But with this update, multing would decrease.

So buyers (via premium) can complete their "missions" 2x as fast as non-buyers?   Even larger income gap?   No thanks.

[Truthteller 4,204]

So buyers (via premium) can complete their "missions" 2x as fast as non-buyers?   Even larger income gap?   No thanks.

Already premium helps with completing experience missions faster  :P

[wolverine848 13,097]

Already premium helps with completing experience missions faster  :P

True - those missions that require score (+50%)  or crystals (+100%).

 

But using stars to complete missions would make it so for ALL missions - double in all cases.

 

If I have a "score" mission at least I can partially complete that by finishing a battle.  But if you need a minimum score just to get 1 star, then you could have a number of completely wasted battles by getting 0 stars.  Even more players would exit bad battles and no one would ever stay in a battle that was half over.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

You're wrong, collecting five repairs no longer causes multing because now your own supplies count towards the mission progress.

 

If stars were added to missions then multing would increase by 100%.

[Truthteller 4,204]

 

yes the current system is better

[loginci 877]

You're wrong, collecting five repairs no longer causes multing because now your own supplies count towards the mission progress.

 

If stars were added to missions then multing would increase by 100%.

Oh really? I wasn't aware of this update, I already left T.O, but this has been good. 

[Hate 5,582]

 

Topic merged.

[DevilGirl 2]

Hii!!

 

My idea to improve missions is to add some juggernaut missions e.g. Be juggernaut 3 times in 1 game. This would be a fun challenge for everyone.

Hope you like it!

 

From DevilGirl.

#TankionlineIsTheBest  

[wolverine848 13,097]

Hii!!

 

My idea to improve missions is to add some juggernaut missions e.g. Be juggernaut 3 times in 1 game. This would be a fun challenge for everyone.

Hope you like it!

 

From DevilGirl.

#TankionlineIsTheBest  

So another mission that I will automatically press the "Change" button for?   No thanks.

 

JUG should be relegated to Pro-battles along with Assault and RGBY...

[Pythor 1,354]

I got a perfect idea for daily missions. Put them back how we all liked them and quit catering to buyers. 

Yug  :ph34r:

[miguelduarte13 8]

Hi mods today im sending you guys this topic for an idea for a little change on a mission that right now in kinda unfair comparing to any other mission and requires more work then just a normal regular mission . That mission is to be top3 on the winning team , I think that it needs to be changed because no other mission depends on your team all the missions depends on only you like having crystals , using one supply , earning points etc , making it one time is fine but let's say 15 for the weekly mission Is very hard to do it if your team wins your are not in top3 if you are top3 your team doesn't win or it can be a good comeback for the enemy team and just your time wasted for that mission is all gone .

 

The things that needs to be changed on that mission is just to remove the part that says " on the winning team " and you would only need to be top3 and that's it , and like that It will  change the mission and it will be just like any other mission and not depending on your team.

 

That was it mods thanks for wasting some of your own time reading this topic where you guys could be in a gold rain right now , but thanks for that but I had to right this about that mission , but hopefully you guys understand me and bye bye take care .

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

You are thinking the same thing as me. The mission that players must finish in the top 3 places is annoying because it says that you must win it on your winning team. I agree that there are no other missions that demand the complexity of winning them on your team, so winning this mission in the top 3 does not need to be on the winning team at all. The only importance is that you win in the top 3 places even if your team loses.

[DevilGirl 2]

Hey people wassup, my idea for a daily mission is that there should be missions on juggernaut mode.

 

Please like this comment if you want this to happen and tell me what you think about it!!

 

#Lovin'Tankionline :)

 

So another mission that I will automatically press the "Change" button for? No thanks.

 

JUG should be relegated to Pro-battles along with Assault and RGBY...

 

I'm only tryna give ideas stop hating!

 

#TankionlineHatersRightHere