Testing of Matchmaking System on EU servers

[ImAtWork 141]

 

 

#1 - me, me ,me - pick me, just say my name.
#2 - that's what people with common sense want, unfortunately some are just here for other purposes. If discussion are actually feed back and kept on a polite level then it is all fine.

#1 needy much? :P

 

#2 the tanki staff should act mature when players act childish. I've seen a lot of you do that. But the ones that act just as bad as the players that use bad language serve a big disservice to the game.

 

 

 

You know what, I can't take you guys anymore. I'm out.

you forgot to leave your apology before you go. you over and over insulted the intelligence of players you disagree with. still smh

 

 

 

[ snip -- pieces quoted below ]

 

 

 

First of all, you mentioned the choice of map twice.

the 2nd mention was more about game mode. when i want to play a game mode i usually only want to play it on a small set of maps favorable for it.

 

 

 

Now, I agree with you that it's annoying that we aren't able to choose maps with this system, but you have to understand that if players could choose the game mode AND the map that they want to play on, it would take ages to get 20 people who want to play the same map and game mode. So you would simply wait longer for a battle. For map choice you have to go to the custom battle list.

what are you talking about man? that's exactly how the game works now and i don't see this problem.

 

 

 

Although that might make the system more complicated so I'm not sure if they'll ever go for it.

Poor widdle devs, I thought they were smart, "trained programmers", who, by virtue of their programming prowess, know so much about the game -- despite not being players -- that they know better what players want then players themselves. Seriously though, I'm sure they're collectively clever enough.

 

 

 

 

 

Invite friends and join friends in battles - impossible, as that would open up opportunity for multing and sabotage, which is the very thing this feature is meant to eradicate. If you want to play with friends - make a group (or go to custom battles).

I'm beginning to wonder if you're a player yourself ... we already have this feature and I don't have the data that the devs have, but from my experience this is completely a non-issue. If it was as bad as you describe there'd already have been an update removing the ability to invite friends. Staffing (i.e. $$ redirected) the in-game "/vote" feature so that "voting" a player actually elicits a response would also solve mult/sabotage. But that's too easy, right? Instead we should dramatically alter the game with some very unpopular, sudden changes <_<

 

 

 

 

 

Instantly joining - not a problem, because before this update you'd join a half-full map and end up waiting for 3-4 minutes before it fills up. With this system, instead of playing in a half-full map (and potentially getting dominated by the opposite team while they have more players), you simply wait for a couple minutes in the lobby and instantly start a proper battle with full teams.

With the MM system, yes, it most certainly was a problem. Joining instantly is much more favorable than completely losing all the things I listed in the post you replied to. "half-full" maps are rarely a problem for me. You noticed I'm a legend, right? I've played enough to know how to join games with the highest likelihood of being fun to me, you know -- even the half-full ones.

 

 

 

 

 

Choose which server you play on - why the heck does that bother you? "Some people like that for various reasons". Care to state at least one logical reason?

Server load. Meeting friends for games and chat in lobby. Likelihood of the skill levels (note I didn't say rank) of players there -- if this one confuses you I bet some clever dev could pull some data for you, but this is even more true for the middle-ranks. Also the most prevalent ranks on the server; again, more meaningful for middle-to-upper ranks, since legends can only play against m3 ranks anyway. A middle-rank account is smart to go down a few servers where the most prevalent ranks on the server are those at the bottom of their rank's bracket.

 

 

 

Q.E.D

[Later 76]

You know what, I can't take you guys anymore. I'm out.

Thank you.

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

Same thing you could say in India.

Don't hit me. :ph34r:

Just a joke. :ph34r:

Maybe :ph34r:

 

And what is the point beetwen India and Tanki? Tanki is a Russian game and I just made a joke about the freedom in Russia.

 

A quel point tu peux être ignorant ? Ta bêtise me dépasse. Toute la haine que tu éprouves pour moi, c'est beau à voir :wub:

Edited August 12, 2017 by a7x_Pedro48

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

I have played Tanki Online on the two days where the matchmaking system test was run. I know that the matchmaking system is still in progress of development. The developers announced the news in V-Log 143.

 

When shall the matchmaking system be implemented as a permanent feature in Tanki Online?

 

I hope that the matchmaking system will allow players to select and filter which turrets and hulls to allow in battles, like format battles and parkour battles. There should be more ways to customize equipment to suit players needs on how they wish to play.

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

When the maps are reconstructed in the matchmaking system shall the old map versions be available on the standard battle list?

 

For example, will there be two versions of Polygon?

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

You can't wait for the MM System to come back in the game?
 
For me, I think the devs should take their time and make it better. If it comes back in 2018 only, no problem, as long as the system works.
 
As for your last part, I don't think it's a good addition. It will only encourage players doing more and more wasp-fire, or excluding some weapons like Magnum because "hunh hunh this weapon is unfair hunh hunh.
 

When the maps are reconstructed in the matchmaking system shall the old map versions be available on the standard battle list?

For example, will there be two versions of Polygon?

If I remember well about a previous V-Log, I think they will keep both maps yes, like a Polygon and Polygon II. But I'm afraid that after a few months, they will remove all the old version and keep the new ones only.

Btw, if they can keep 2 versions for all the maps they changed, why not add back some cool old maps like Gallery and Crash?

Edited August 12, 2017 by a7x_Pedro48

[OKDad70 862]

I give up. It is just too frustrating.

 

Nothing matters but luck.

 

Fortuna rules the matches, and maybe she puts the right turrets on your team. Maybe she gives you the right protections. Mostly, she punishes the cautious.

 

Luck, not skill, is all that matters. Sure, in DM, skill is probably biggest factor, barely, but missions favor team battles. Team matches are rarely competitive past three minutes. By ten minutes into the game, players start abandoning the losing team.

 

Nothing like we are hearing is going to fix that.

 

Rating system is sad. It will not fix MM.

 

I was approximately 20,000th rated tanker as Gismo, and was 987th after I ranked to Legend. I played every day, and I've dropped rating every day since. I stick out losses. I suspect that is why the rating system punishes me. I nearly always finish in top three for my team or for DM. I have no trouble filling 1st-place missions. Yet, I drop in efficiency rank every day. 1,151 today if I recall.

 

So, for all the doubters, I've finally had enough. 542 hours in game since they started keeping tally. Oh well. I suppose I have better ways to spend my time.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Rating system is sad. It will not fix MM.

 

I was approximately 20,000th rated tanker as Gismo, and was 987th after I ranked to Legend. I played every day, and I've dropped rating every day since. I stick out losses. I suspect that is why the rating system punishes me. I nearly always finish in top three for my team or for DM. I have no trouble filling 1st-place missions. Yet, I drop in efficiency rank every day. 1,151 today if I recall.

Probably because many players are also playing constantly too. But otherwise I agree. In my opinion, matchmaker should put players together based on equipment ONLY. I don't care about skill, I don't care about rank, I just do not want to face players with 2 levels of equipment higher than me (M4). 

[LittleWillie 3,199]

I have not rally paid any attention to the Rating but from what I did see the main driver seems to be amount of play time. Day t day I mean, not the big jump from ranking up.

 

MM based on equipment would not work. Evil players such as myself would equip an m0 turret and hull , then go to the garage for the m3 stuff.   To come back to find most other players did the same thing probably heh

[C.O.N.Q.U.E.R.O.R 3,845]

Btw, if they can keep 2 versions for all the maps they changed, why not add back some cool old maps like Gallery and Crash?

Owners wanted those maps removed, so they kinda had to.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

I have not rally paid any attention to the Rating but from what I did see the main driver seems to be amount of play time. Day t day I mean, not the big jump from ranking up.

 

MM based on equipment would not work. Evil players such as myself would equip an m0 turret and hull , then go to the garage for the m3 stuff.   To come back to find most other players did the same thing probably heh

I mean MM would take only the best equipment a player has into account. No one wants to use M1 if they have M2. 

Edited August 12, 2017 by ThirdOnion

[sherman11 0]

I loved matchmaking! I have not played so many noobs in years! I played marshalls, generals of all ranks. One game I even played 3rd lieutenants!

What a blast! I would love to play some corporals and gerfrieters too! Bring on these high ranking suckers! They are nice food for m4's.

Exactly

[Maf 32,300]

Yes you stupid moderator. If you cared about the players on this game, you would realize that some people's computers can't handle certain servers so they lag out when they play on it.

No need to start insulting. As far as I know, the server number shouldn't affect the amount of lag in Matchmaking battles. But if lag continues to be serious problem after MM is released, you can report it in the announcement topic.

[CooperO 7,956]

Owners wanted those maps removed, so they kinda had to.

Tanki Online made those maps themselves, they were the first two maps with the new props and they were designed solely to test those new props.

 

Btw, if they can keep 2 versions for all the maps they changed, why not add back some cool old maps like Gallery and Crash?

Because those maps were made just for testing the new props back then. They were not designed for proper game play. They'd have to be completely reworked and optimized to be suitable as normal playing maps. They were great parkour maps though. 

[T.O.R_Klau 67]

I just want to say that I love the matchmaking system.
I won all the battles except for one.

Now that the MM is over, if I want to win any team match I have to search for the perfect battle and wait at the entrance and continuously mouse click (or use an Auto Mouse Clicker program)  to make sure I join the stronger team.
If I randomly join a battle without checking which team has higher ranks or higher score I will definitely lose no matter how hard I try.
One mult is enough to make your whole team lose.

Can't wait for them to implement the MM again :)

[caproz 61]

MM should be voluntary, forcing people to use it for complete missions sounds inappropriate

[Maf 32,300]

 Matchmaking did no match making.  All it did was keep tossing players into random battles when there was a vacancy.  I really should be renamed to RandomMatch.

No one is even going to argue with that because that's exactly what happened. This was only a mass-testing event that was meant to see how effective the system is at putting players into battles without causing the servers to lag out or crash. And it worked!

 

This was by no means the final version of Matchmaking, so there's still a lot of improvements to be done, including a proper matchmaking part which actually balances players by rank, equipment and effectiveness/efficiency rating.

[Maf 32,300]

My suggestion is instead of basing the matchmaking battles on Ranks they get based on weapons. For example, if I was using M1 Smoky and Viking I would be paired with another ranked player that also has an M1. It doesn't have to be Smoky or Viking as long as the turrets and hulls are M1. When changing equipment you can only change to M1s if in an M1 battle or M2s if M2. And protection will immediately by default change to ''zero'' module if it breaks any of the rules, for example an M1 battle containing M2 protection. Upgrades and supplies will not be effected. It would mean more balanced battles, and not fighting M3s when having M1s or even M0s. 

Topic merged

 

Devs already plan to improve the balancing system by taking into account the efficiency rating and maybe the garages of players. So it may not be exactly how you suggest, but it will be better.

[Captin_XLAB 276]

I have some more ideas.

 

Enable "Battle Suggestions" in the battle list. For example, a battle is about to start and the MM system is waiting or searching for players, in the "Battle List", it can have a "Suggested battles" and "Starting Battles" tab where it needs players to join and the player's profile matches requirements for the battle.

 

This way, players can pick battles quicker and those players who're waiting can enter the battles faster.

 

Also, when the battle ends, give players the option to "Continue" and make the battle available in the list once again as a "Starting battle" in the battle list. This is a way by which the entire system will get much much faster.

 

Also, the player's equipment and equipment upgrades should also be taken into matchmaking parameters, as well as the effectiveness rating.

 

 

And THIS SYSTEM NEEDS MANY MANY MORE MAPS!!

 

Skyscrapers, Fort Knox, Courage, Cologne, Year 2042, Stadium, Rift, Parma, Serpuhov, Osa, Silence, Noise, Sandbox, Kolhoz, Iran, Industrial Zone, Future, Esplanade... These maps were my favorite of all time...!!  We need all these maps on the system ASAP !!

 

 

Another improvement to "Suggested battles", for example the player has most experience using Mammoth and Shaft. The player should be suggested to join a mid or long range map. If the player has most experience on Firebird and Hornet, the map should be small, like sandbox.

 

Many such small improvements will make it no different than picking your own battle, and will improve the battles overall by a LOT.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Captin_XLAB

[Captin_XLAB 276]

This was only a mass-testing event that was meant to see how effective the system is at putting players into battles without causing the servers to lag out or crash. And it worked!

This definitely was NOT a server load test as you said there. And this was no matchmaking either.

 

If what @Maf said up in the quote is true, a note to developers: Don't release such unfinished and barely functional systems onto real servers, as this was horrible, even for just 2 days. I spent 3x longer to keep my mission chain alive and I'm sure everyone couldn't do that.

[Maf 32,300]

This definitely was NOT a server load test as you said there. And this was no matchmaking either.

 

If what @Maf said up in the quote is true, a note to developers: Don't release such unfinished and barely functional systems onto real servers, as this was horrible, even for just 2 days. I spent 3x longer to keep my mission chain alive and I'm sure everyone couldn't do that.

Did you watch any of the videos on their YouTube channel? They explained exactly what kind of test this was and why it had to be done on the main servers.

[OKDad70 862]

Did you watch any of the videos on their YouTube channel? They explained exactly what kind of test this was and why it had to be done on the main servers.

Maf, I have respect for you, but sometimes you don't pay attention. The vlog clearly admitted the test was only of how bad the matchmaking system was. It had nothing to do with the servers. It needed the real, regular players. The MM algorithm needed exposure to the millions of variables that real, regular players bring.

 

As I pointed out up stream, the need was for data of how the algorithm matched players. That is why battles were shortened, so as to ensure more matchings. That is why there was no option to continue. Everyone had to go through the MM for every battle entered. (It is sad the group-function was abused. But, what did the devs expect when abusing the players? They fight back.)

 

The servers were never taxed in any way. The server play and load was well balanced and totally irrelevant to the MM test. There were map issues, but they claim they fixed. There should have been no map issues because they should not have tried to optimize maps while trying to figure the MM algorithm.

 

As indicated in the vlog, they changed the maps because they are trying to make them all equally profitable. That is, they want all matches to have high crystal totals like Polygon-CP battles. I accept that goal as legitimate. It was dumb to try to do both tests at once. Counterproductive and against all sound experimenting procedures. (I don't see how making doorways wider might help crystal totals. I also do not support the notion of making ever map a variant of Polygon, which is what they looked like to me.)

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

Because those maps were made just for testing the new props back then. They were not designed for proper game play. They'd have to be completely reworked and optimized to be suitable as normal playing maps. They were great parkour maps though. 

Yes I know they were meant to test the new props. But I think it would not take much time to rework them a little. Lot of old players loved these 2 maps. And you are right, they were good for Parkour and that would be nice to see "new" maps for Parkour.

 

When devs brought back Deck-9 or Canyon, lot of players were happy. If devs want to please players, they know what to do ^^

[epanastasi1821 80]

Hating on updates without knowing what they are or seeing/reading official announcement topics is nothing but ignorance.

 

---

 

Everyone practically "hates" the Matchmaking System because they keep thinking that these rank brackets are final; that all ranks can play with each other. They keep thinking that there will be lag after this update, there will be annoying errors and timing delays in Matchmaking System. No one cared to notice when Semyon said - I'm literally saying this for the 10th time now - this implementation was only a TEST to see how the real servers would handle the load of the MM under real player load. All timings, rank brackets and other values are still to be decided.

And the result of the test in the opinion of the vast majority of players is that they are saying stick it where the sun doesn't shine......And you are still being condescending and talking down to people......and completely unable to accept opinions that differ from your own. An admirable quality for a member of the NKVD, but not for someone involved in tanki who wants to see it survive.

[Miahak 1,596]

Yes I know they were meant to test the new props. But I think it would not take much time to rework them a little. Lot of old players loved these 2 maps. And you are right, they were good for Parkour and that would be nice to see "new" maps for Parkour.

 

When devs brought back Deck-9 or Canyon, lot of players were happy. If devs want to please players, they know what to do ^^

Yes, it might not take that long to rework on those test maps, but I'm sure they have to do lot other things behind before bringing a map into the main server, and they need to work on other important things as well,so, at the moment the developers are not planning for new map or reworking on previous test maps, but you never know they are probably going to bring those maps back randomly. :)