Episode 165 of the V-LOG is now live!

[austen_pierce 1,948]

My matchmaking concerns, first in brief.

 

-Will it be harder to complete daily missions?

 

-Will turret and hull variety become extinct?

 

-Will TO be more fun to play?

 

Ok now the wall of text. Read further only if the above didn’t make sense to you.

 

Daily missions - I and most tankers chose maps which allow quick completion of daily missions. For those earn crystals or experience missions, active battles are good, so I don’t see much impact from matchmaking. On the other hand, collect supply boxes, capture flags, score goals, and control points missions are much more easily accomplished in battles with fewer players. I am concerned that these latter mission types will be much harder after matchmaking arrives.

 

RIP turret and hull variety - the only way to adapt to unpredictability is to use the most useful equipment all the time. No, this isn’t going to solve our Magnum problem, but it will make it a lot better. Why? Simple, Magnum is only effective in certain maps. Take map choice away and fewer players will want to take Magnum into an unpredictable landscape. The same applies for most of the other turrets and hulls. Why equip long range camper equipment only to land in a small to medium map? Even the medium turrets have issues. Ricochet is next to useless on Massacre so why risk landing there? Pretty soon players will learn which equipment is versatile enough for matchmaking and the game will have nothing left but Viking Twins and Firebird. I’m exaggerating I know, but this will kill already rare turrets like Vulcan and Striker. The other reason is the 10 minute change. Why bother swapping out equipment for so little game time?

 

The Fun Factor - yep, I gotta hand it over here. When matchmaking was tested before, it was more fun to play. I didn’t know where I would land, but hey, no one else did either.

[wolverine848 13,097]

My matchmaking concerns, first in brief.

 

-Will it be harder to complete daily missions?

 

-Will turret and hull variety become extinct?

 

-Will TO be more fun to play?

 

Ok now the wall of text. Read further only if the above didn’t make sense to you.

 

 

 

Daily missions - I and most tankers chose maps which allow quick completion of daily missions. For those earn crystals or experience missions, active battles are good, so I don’t see much impact from matchmaking. On the other hand, collect supply boxes, capture flags, score goals, and control points missions are much more easily accomplished in battles with fewer players. I am concerned that these latter mission types will be much harder after matchmaking arrives.

 

RIP turret and hull variety - the only way to adapt to unpredictability is to use the most useful equipment all the time. No, this isn’t going to solve our Magnum problem, but it will make it a lot better. Why? Simple, Magnum is only effective in certain maps. Take map choice away and fewer players will want to take Magnum into an unpredictable landscape. The same applies for most of the other turrets and hulls. Why equip long range camper equipment only to land in a small to medium map? Even the medium turrets have issues. Ricochet is next to useless on Massacre so why risk landing there? Pretty soon players will learn which equipment is versatile enough for matchmaking and the game will have nothing left but Viking Twins and Firebird. I’m exaggerating I know, but this will kill already rare turrets like Vulcan and Striker. The other reason is the 10 minute change. Why bother swapping out equipment for so little game time?

 

 

The Fun Factor - yep, I gotta hand it over here. When matchmaking was tested before, it was more fun to play. I didn’t know where I would land, but hey, no one else did either.

MM-test might have been fun cuz ya got to stomp sergeants.  ;)

[austen_pierce 1,948]

MM-test might have been fun cuz ya got to stomp sergeants. ;)

Sure, there was some of that. But I also kinda liked the thrill of not knowing where I would land and having to think fast in order to adapt once the battle started.

 

This goes back to my second point though. Even during the test, I got to the point where I started every battle with Viking-Twins with Rico-Twins-Fire protection. Twins freed me from the nuisance of reload, and Viking let me get around while maintaining armor. I rarely needed to change.

[TakeAShower 300]

 

 

 

 

 

 

you guys are missing the whole video

 

see with match making DM battles will be gone for good , also battles less time . then no longer allowed to choose the battles or maps you like. this all will be random selected from the computer. crystals given from battles will be less..

see players who play in Tanki X understands and know what its like . way more changes will be happen .

 

for gold dropping will now increase which is good news but then still a fail on getting to the location , but if they eliminated large maps and only use medium size then getting golds will be easy .

so not sure who will end up staying in tanki once they see how the new system works .

 

thanks forgot about pro passes and premium pass will now be a thing of the pass , seeing we will no longer be able to make battles

 

 

video of the week was great .. good job

 

Pro battles are not being removed. So many people have misunderstood. Private battles are going to have lowered funds, Pro battles will be free to play and create and you can name them. Still sound bad?

[TakeAShower 300]

BTW for some reason I cannot watch this V-log, can somebody explain what they said will be happening? Something about matchmaking, increased funds and gold drops... what exactly does it say?

[maryam98 1,171]

BTW for some reason I cannot watch this V-log, can somebody explain what they said will be happening? Something about matchmaking, increased funds and gold drops... what exactly does it say?

They described more about matchmaking, they said they would be decreasing the time between gold box siren and drop, they described the tank controls in mobile version. That's what I remember, not sure about the rest.

[TakeAShower 300]

I understand the benefits of matchmaking and I know I can still pick pro-battles. but at the very least such a change will eliminate me from being able to compete in a war or any other special activity that involves non-pro battles. even completing daily challenges is no longer an option. I would ask the developers to please consider making an alternative way for those of us who rely on being able to pick our maps. Maybe allow us to pick maps but not the battle or the side? add the selection option to those who have a pro-pass?

I have suggested in the Ideas and Suggestions section that the players in a room waiting for a battle get to vote for their favourite map from a list of 4-6 maps.

[maryam98 1,171]

I have suggested in the Ideas and Suggestions section that the players in a room waiting for a battle get to vote for their favourite map from a list of 4-6 maps.

That sounds like the system in Asphalt 8:Airborne.

[sezze100 416]

MM-test might have been fun cuz ya got to stomp sergeants.  ;)

True , but is that fun ... put me inside a battle with m2's and allthough i would make a bloodred carpet its not the livingroom i want to play in . I like battles , challenges , something to make me think on how i can reach a point/flag/kill . Not on how good i can get my KD factor and how fast i can kill somebody without a challenge . Allthough it would come in handy like in WAR game ...

[TakeAShower 300]

It is because the mobile version cannot handle the drive control, the control is going to be changed completely in order to solve the problem. That means if we don't know how to answer a question in an exam, the solution is to cheat. Brilliant ! 

Exams don't prepare you for real life because sometimes the way to do something is to "cheat". The official name for cheating in real life is "thinking outside of the box".

[maryam98 1,171]

Exams don't prepare you for real life because sometimes the way to do something is to "cheat". The official name for cheating in real life is "thinking outside of the box".

Yes, shortcuts are part and parcel of real work, coding especially.

[wolverine848 13,097]

True , but is that fun ... put me inside a battle with m2's and allthough i would make a bloodred carpet its not the livingroom i want to play in . I like battles , challenges , something to make me think on how i can reach a point/flag/kill . Not on how good i can get my KD factor and how fast i can kill somebody without a challenge . Allthough it would come in handy like in WAR game ...

Oh - I was just pulling Austen's chain.

 

I don't like fighting much weaker enemies and I don't like them holding back my team either.

 

I've stated numerous times the rank brackets are too wide - they need to be tightened up. Especially with MM where you can't pick.

 

I'd rather have fewer good battles than many bad battles.

[maryam98 1,171]

Oh - I was just pulling Austen's chain.

 

I don't like fighting much weaker enemies and I don't like them holding back my team either.

 

I've stated numerous times the rank brackets are too wide - they need to be tightened up. Especially with MM where you can't pick.

 

I'd rather have fewer good battles than many bad battles.

I think rank brackets should be wider in PRO and tighter in Non-PRO, because sometimes people want a large rank get-together.

[wolverine848 13,097]

I think rank brackets should be wider in PRO and tighter in Non-PRO, because sometimes people want a large rank get-together.

Pro has a slider so you can widen or narrow beyond the default.  That range is pretty flexible as is. 

If the Pro-slider allowed even wider range than current I think it would be tedious to find appropriate battles.

 

Definitely non-Pro should be a bit narrower.  Players that still have yet to get M2s are fighting M3s... no balance there.

[LittleWillie 3,199]

Pro has a slider so you can widen or narrow beyond the default.  That range is pretty flexible as is. 

If the Pro-slider allowed even wider range than current I think it would be tedious to find appropriate battles.

 

Definitely non-Pro should be a bit narrower.  Players that still have yet to get M2s are fighting M3s... no balance there.

That's mostly the fault of the players. If a players has m1s and are fighting m3s that is on that player. The rules needn't mollycoddle poor strategies.

[wolverine848 13,097]

That's mostly the fault of the players. If a players has m1s and are fighting m3s that is on that player. The rules needn't mollycoddle poor strategies.

I agree there are instances where players just don't manage their resources well and are the authors of their own doom.

 

However...

 

The rank spreads can allow 6-8 ranks difference when joining a battle.

 

There are thresholds where a player, no matter how well he/she saves and MUs - will be facing someone with much better equipment because the next MU level has been available to the enemy for long enough to make it way more powerful.  This is not the players fault - but they will suffer.

 

This is even more evident depending on equipment choices - as not all unlock at same rank.  Sure this issue would be moot if everyone bought exact same equipment - but that would be boring.  Like saying - you have issue with Magnum  - just buy magnum too.  We both know that is a terrible solution.

[Tani_S 736]

Oh - I was just pulling Austen's chain.

 

I don't like fighting much weaker enemies and I don't like them holding back my team either.

 

I've stated numerous times the rank brackets are too wide - they need to be tightened up. Especially with MM where you can't pick.

 

I'd rather have fewer good battles than many bad battles.

I agree, the rank brackets should be narrower. I fear that the matchmaker has no rank/rating brackets, when it can't find enough players in a given time frame, which will lead to bigger and bigger brackets. Instead they should just start with 6v6 or 8v8 players imho.

 

That's mostly the fault of the players. If a players has m1s and are fighting m3s that is on that player. The rules needn't mollycoddle poor strategies.

You can argue with fault of the players in pro battles, but I don't think it fits to standardized battles, as these should provide a safe and continuous way to play without big imbalances. The system carries the responsibilities for standard battles.

[Stratosphere 2,234]

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

[LUCIFER1_the_dark 1,230]

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

The two things mentioned in the video will be more insight to the coming update.

But crazy weekend oh dude, I wish I did not have my exams.

The timming is so bad.

[austen_pierce 1,948]

Oh - I was just pulling Austen's chain.

 

I don't like fighting much weaker enemies and I don't like them holding back my team either.

 

I've stated numerous times the rank brackets are too wide - they need to be tightened up. Especially with MM where you can't pick.

 

I'd rather have fewer good battles than many bad battles.

:D

 

I figured as much.

 

I don’t often think about rank brackets since as a Legend I almost always play other Legends. Sure, there’s an occasional Gissmo, Commander, or Marshal-ish in battles, and yes, I try to avoid joining their teams, but it’s not something that really affects me.

 

BUT playing on my M2 alts in the Lieutenant ranks??? WHOLE different story. Easily half the battles are with Majors, Colonels, up to Generals, and my fledgling M2s have a hard time standing up to their 10/10 MUs. The other half are Warrant Officer battles, where my M2s are called out for hacking because their M1 equipment can’t withstand my M2s. That’s fun until you win a battle, take the top spot, but only get like 150 crystals because the ranks in the battle we’re so low. You’re not even getting the cost of your supplies back, but then again most of us aren’t buying supplies anyway.

 

My long-winded (as usual) point is that rank brackets are pretty wide in the middle ranks, but I’m afraid of how few battles will be around if those brackets narrow.

 

Which brings me to another comcern. When Matchmaking arrives we will lose a lot of transparency into how many battles there are in each mode. I’m already extremely skeptical about what we are and are not told, and this change IMO closes another door to the truth.

[Tani_S 736]

Which brings me to another comcern. When Matchmaking arrives we will lose a lot of transparency into how many battles there are in each mode. I’m already extremely skeptical about what we are and are not told, and this change IMO closes another door to the truth.

You can tell that there is less activity in a mode when there are less people in the queue, so that's at least a hint. What I don't like is that the maps diversity does not seem to be distributed equally among the quick battle maps list.

[wolverine848 13,097]

:D

 

I figured as much.

 

I don’t often think about rank brackets since as a Legend I almost always play other Legends. Sure, there’s an occasional Gissmo, Commander, or Marshal-ish in battles, and yes, I try to avoid joining their teams, but it’s not something that really affects me.

 

BUT playing on my M2 alts in the Lieutenant ranks??? WHOLE different story. Easily half the battles are with Majors, Colonels, up to Generals, and my fledgling M2s have a hard time standing up to their 10/10 MUs. The other half are Warrant Officer battles, where my M2s are called out for hacking because their M1 equipment can’t withstand my M2s. That’s fun until you win a battle, take the top spot, but only get like 150 crystals because the ranks in the battle we’re so low. You’re not even getting the cost of your supplies back, but then again most of us aren’t buying supplies anyway.

 

My long-winded (as usual) point is that rank brackets are pretty wide in the middle ranks, but I’m afraid of how few battles will be around if those brackets narrow.

 

Which brings me to another comcern. When Matchmaking arrives we will lose a lot of transparency into how many battles there are in each mode. I’m already extremely skeptical about what we are and are not told, and this change IMO closes another door to the truth.

Yup.  My 2nd Lieut account is waiting for next sale to buy Vulcan M2.

So currently I have Thunder 1.5/Hunter 1.9  along with Freeze 1.7/Hornet1.5

This transition is difficult - many enemies with upgraded M2s versus my "M2-lights".

[LUCIFER1_the_dark 1,230]

:D

 

I figured as much.

 

I don’t often think about rank brackets since as a Legend I almost always play other Legends. Sure, there’s an occasional Gissmo, Commander, or Marshal-ish in battles, and yes, I try to avoid joining their teams, but it’s not something that really affects me.

 

BUT playing on my M2 alts in the Lieutenant ranks??? WHOLE different story. Easily half the battles are with Majors, Colonels, up to Generals, and my fledgling M2s have a hard time standing up to their 10/10 MUs. The other half are Warrant Officer battles, where my M2s are called out for hacking because their M1 equipment can’t withstand my M2s. That’s fun until you win a battle, take the top spot, but only get like 150 crystals because the ranks in the battle we’re so low. You’re not even getting the cost of your supplies back, but then again most of us aren’t buying supplies anyway.

 

My long-winded (as usual) point is that rank brackets are pretty wide in the middle ranks, but I’m afraid of how few battles will be around if those brackets narrow.

 

Which brings me to another comcern. When Matchmaking arrives we will lose a lot of transparency into how many battles there are in each mode. I’m already extremely skeptical about what we are and are not told, and this change IMO closes another door to the truth.

You exactly told what I wanted to.

Thats why I want MM based on equipment levels and not rank levels.

[Mr.Eswar 188]

Tanki devs are working on match making for 1 year but the fact is most of the current player don't like non pro battle. We are forced to play in non pro battle for mission or holiday celebration.

 

Multing is not a big issue in 15 min non pro battle but Mults make a huge differnce in pro battle specially long battle. What is tanki doing about that? BM are not online 24X7 and reporting mults in forum will only give them 1 day chat ban and not to forget everyone don't get ban as they get few exp in a period of time.

 

What is the compensation for honest players who lose because of mults?

++++

 

It takes much more of drugs to go to enemy base n take the flag, a lot of skill is needed than to sit back and heal or defend flag so I like this.

Plus returning a flag will also get more battle points.

Also I think CTF is vey passive game if many defenders sit in base with ishidas,

If you see a battle in low ranks a lot of players are defending or midfielding and only 1-3 players actually go for flag,so maybe TO want it to be dynamic, like RGB.

skill? a w04 with m2 (fully upgraded ) and heap of drugs can defeat 2 pro players of my rank  if its face to face

[Mr.Eswar 188]

lol match making took me to play with m4 ..this is totally silly ..good thing is i was able to be alive for 0.10 sec