Will the new matchmaking be the end of tanki?

[Nicola_M 1,563]

 

When players leave the game because it is so tedious just to find a game worth their time ... don't you perceive that as a problem worth addressing?

 

So, the easiest mission and you walked away because "some were full" and the vast majority "only had room on the losing team?"

I am really sorry for you there wasn't a game where there was room on a winning team and all the golds dropped near you, there were no Dictators in the battle, and everyone else respectfully hung back so you could take all the Gold Boxes, and didn't shoot back at you to preserve your fragile tank.

 

The easiest mission possible and you still bottled out and walked away.

There WERE battles available, only you declined to join them. Why should TO decide that's a problem worth addressing?

By the rank of General you're not a noob and a losing team should not stop you earning exp.

 

You also seem to have overlooked the fact that MM could still dump you on a losing team. 

Of course you won't know MM has put you on a losing team until you've spent a fair chunk of the fifteen minutes on it and then find your team is losing.

You also not only don't have a 50/50 chance of not being in one, you also have a 0/100 chance of avoiding it.

At least - currently - you can see losing teams before you join.  Under MM you won't know until you're in it.

 

Actually, the easiest missions are the "collect xx boxes" and currently selecting via the Battle List a battle with few players on it makes doing those missions very easy indeed.  MM will make that, plus many others impossible.

Careful what you wish for.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Nicola_M

[wolverine848 13,097]

There are more problems than MM is intended to solve but there are in fact problems MM does dress. I agree there are other issues in TO but MM deserves to be evaluated on what it is and why it is coming.  

 

Last night I counted how many games I did NOT play on until I found one worth joining. At the time there were about 30-35 team games being played. I skipped past 26 of them before I found one to attemtp my mission. What was that mission? Earn XXX experience in battle.  -- The EASIEST mission to find a battle.

 

But I still skipped past 2/3s of all the games in play because, some we full and the vast majority were blowouts with room only on the losing team. I chose to leave TO without completing any missions on 2 of my accounts.

 

When players leave the game because it is so tedious just to find a game worth their time ... don't you perceive that as a problem worth addressing?

 

Anyone running TO should be scared shinola-less. MM is needed. With MM I have at worst a 50/50 chance of joining the team that is not going to be spawn-camped that game.  

MM won't fix the issue you had last night.  You will be randomly dropped into a battle, possibly on a losing team, possibly on a map you don;t like, and possibly only 8 minutes left to go.  I don't see how that helps you finish your missions.

 

MM might fix some issues (mults?) but it won't help you finish missions. At least IMHO.

[r_trooll15 827]

Why is everyone so pessimistic about any updates? Matchmaking wont break the game, it might even improve it, so no reason to say things like 'the end of tanki' and such.

[LittleWillie 3,199]

So, the easiest mission and you walked away because "some were full" and the vast majority "only had room on the losing team?"

I am really sorry for you there wasn't a game where there was room on a winning team and all the golds dropped near you, there were no Dictators in the battle, and everyone else respectfully hung back so you could take all the Gold Boxes, and didn't shoot back at you to preserve your fragile tank.

You absolutely miss the point, either intentionally or not. I do not give a northbound rat's south end for your opinion as to what I find worth my time. If you find being spawn-camped fun, have at it. 

 

PS: The same rat can be used to express the priority I put on GBs.  You're funny but no Joe Pesci.

 

My point is, the current system does not offer many interesting games to the player searching for one.  You can pretzel logic that if you wish. To me that is an issue.

 

MM won't fix the issue you had last night.  You will be randomly dropped into a battle, possibly on a losing team, possibly on a map you don;t like, and possibly only 8 minutes left to go.  I don't see how that helps you finish your missions.

 

MM might fix some issues (mults?) but it won't help you finish missions. At least IMHO.

No it will not solve the problem. But as I said originally I feel it will be a net benefit.  

 

There are no basic maps I do not like for themselves. There are map I do not play because 95% of them are just shooting galleries for Shafts or magnums.  But in MM 5 magnums cannot seek out those maps, game after game after game. Those maps will become interesting again.

 

I just checked my accounts that did not do missions last night. The exact same three Hiways games I did not want to play 15 hours ago were still there. In MM these games will not persist for 24 hours.

 

Will I get dropped on a losing team?  Yes I will. But not every losing team is bad. Blowouts are bad. But losing a tough battle ... well you cannot say you want close battles yet be unwilling to lose them.. Will MM produce fewer blowouts than we see now? 

 

Well now we are back to my original comment.  Right now you have to skip past 10  blowouts to find a reasonable game. That's pretty low odds. In my reckoning MM can be both; flawed, and, a better situation that what we have now.

 

Especially if TO is serious about making good changes to scoring systems. Good changes would make it worthwhile to try to turn around losing games or at least make them close. That in turn makes a satisfactory MM easier.

Edited March 21, 2018 by LittleWillie

[Nicola_M 1,563]

You absolutely miss the point, either intentionally or not. I do not give a northbound rat's south end for your opinion as to what I find worth my time. If you find being spawn-camped fun, have at it. 

 

PS: The same rat can be used to express the priority I put on GBs.  You're funny but no Joe Pesci.

 

My point is, the current system does not offer many interesting games to the player searching for one.  You can pretzel logic that if you wish. To me that is an issue.

 

Kindly explain the point I missed, then.  edit: Actually, don't bother as I won't be reading it.  As I responded to each point you made.

You made it clear you could only find battles that were full or consisted of losing teams.

You declined to join any of the battles. 

 

There ARE interesting games, just you don't want to join them except on your own terms.

 

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=367917&page=24&do=findComment&comment=6462376

 

Oh btw MM won't stop spawn-camping.

How do I know?  Because I spent ten hours on Brest CP yesterday with Viking + Twins M3 with LR Alt and made about 20K exp by going to the other team's building, emptying the snipers off the top level and then spawn-mining any that came back. 

Didn't work in every battle, as they got wise to me but that's the point - you don't have to win every battle.

One Viking, that's all it took. Is MM going to filter out lone Vikings with LR that sneak up from behind?

 

MM isn't going to give you what you think it will, as has been pointed out.  Maybe you'll see that when you stop fighting back.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Nicola_M

[Nicola_M 1,563]

MM won't fix the issue you had last night.  You will be randomly dropped into a battle, possibly on a losing team, possibly on a map you don;t like, and possibly only 8 minutes left to go.  I don't see how that helps you finish your missions.

 

MM might fix some issues (mults?) but it won't help you finish missions. At least IMHO.

You're almost right.  What I read mentioned about gathering players and waiting until there are enough for two teams before the battle starts.

This says to me there won't be any joining in the middle.

 

The biggest issue he's missed is that with MM he won't know he's on a losing team until he's on it and they're..... losing.

If being on a losing team is the biggest issue then maybe an online game with MM is the wrong place to hang out.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Nicola_M

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Why is everyone so pessimistic about any updates? Matchmaking wont break the game, it might even improve it, so no reason to say things like 'the end of tanki' and such.

Removing the ability to create your own battles, which a feature for 8 years did not break the game, but it definitely didn't improve it by any stretch of the imagination.

[wolverine848 13,097]

You're almost right.  What I read mentioned about gathering players and waiting until there are enough for two teams before the battle starts.

This says to me there won't be any joining in the middle.

 

The biggest issue he's missed is that with MM he won't know he's on a losing team until he's on it and they're..... losing.

If being on a losing team is the biggest issue then maybe an online game with MM is the wrong place to hang out.

What about when players leave existing battles.  Those spots will be filled before a new game is started.

 

In the test MM last yr I ended up in a bunch of battles with 3 minutes left. THREE MINUTES.

 

Obviously they will tweak and it won't be that bad - but - I will not be surprised if I get placed into partially completed battles many times.

And guess which side is more likely to have open spots.  The "winning team"?  or the "Losing" team.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

There ARE interesting games, just you don't want to join them except on your own terms.

This is extremely subjective. MM will probably not make battles more interesting. However, it will at least make them fairer. How fair the promised fairness is is another story, but at least MM will offer two things:

• Matches will be full and have the same number of players on both sides
• You will be placed into freshly started matches and not ones which are already ongoing with one side losing and the other winning

You may argue that joining the losing team can yield and "interesting" battle. That is subjective. But lopsided battles are objectively unfair.

[Tani_S 736]

MM won't fix the issue you had last night.  You will be randomly dropped into a battle, possibly on a losing team, possibly on a map you don;t like, and possibly only 8 minutes left to go.  I don't see how that helps you finish your missions.

 

MM might fix some issues (mults?) but it won't help you finish missions. At least IMHO.

It can help with missions if it is able to provide a better balance. A better balance should be achieved by:

• leaving out mults
• making deliberate raids impossible
• the balance by numbers  (equal team size starts and other players from the queue can join in if people leave)
• the team balancer mechanism (balance by power if I understood correctly)

My hope is also that the balance will be further optimized by making gun and hull as well as map adjustments specifically for nonpro battles. If you have better balanced games, there should not be such a big demand for normal players to compensate for missing/multing team members or overly eager raider opponents, so achieving missions would be easier for average guys then. Also if battles are more balanced, people will play longer in these types of battles too.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Tani_S

[wolverine848 13,097]

This is extremely subjective. MM will probably not make battles more interesting. However, it will at least make them fairer. How fair the promised fairness is is another story, but at least MM will offer two things:

• You will be placed into freshly started matches and not ones which are already ongoing with one side losing and the other winning

You read this somewhere?  What happens if 1-2-3 people leave same team?  If queue does not fill them in then battle becomes... unfair.

 

Don't count on never getting placed in a battle that has already started.  They did this in their test.

 

It can help with missions if it is able to provide a better balance. A better balance should be achieved by:

• leaving out mults
• making deliberate raids impossible
• the balance by numbers  (equal team size starts and other players from the queue can join in if people leave)
• the team balancer mechanism (balance by power if I understood correctly)

My hope is also that the balance will be further optimized by making gun and hull as well as map adjustments specifically for nonpro battles. If you have better balanced games, there should not be such a big demand for normal players to compensate for missing/multing team members or overly eager raider opponents, so achieving missions would be easier for average guys then. Also if battles are more balanced, people will play longer in these types of battles too.

I hope it actually works out - as we are giving up a lot of choice when it gets implemented...

 

It may balance the numbers (at start) and maybe it will also trigger OD automatically when the noobs on my team refuse to use it.  That's a huge reason why I might exit a battle...

[Nicola_M 1,563]

 but at least MM will offer two things:

• Matches will be full and have the same number of players on both sides

Same number of weaker cannon Fodder on both sides.  Excellent.  I'm counting my kills already. :lol:

 

 

 

From v-log 165:

 

A special system will choose players for battle and divide them equally among the teams. This doesn't mean that all players in the battle will be of the same level. They'll be both strong and weak but they will be split between teams in a fair way.

 

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

You read this somewhere?  What happens if 1-2-3 people leave same team?  If queue does not fill them in then battle becomes... unfair.

 

Don't count on never getting placed in a battle that has already started.  They did this in their test.

I don't know for sure. But this is what I expect from a matchmaker. The test they did was really rough by their own admission. Either way I feel blowouts won't happen as often as they do currently.

[lukey0 27,543]

Personally this argument would make a lot more sense if we had tested the new MM first. A lot of points on both sides were problems from the first test like 6 months ago. I'm pretty sure they won't be there anymore. They have had a long time to improve the system, I'm sure it won't be anything like the first test.

[Tani_S 736]

• You will be placed into freshly started matches and not ones which are already ongoing with one side losing and the other winning

I doubt that tbh. Hazel said in a Vlog a while ago that players will be chosen from the queue if one team lacks some players. I think the best approach would be to reduce the occasions that this happen, but you can't avoid it and you need to cope with it.

[wolverine848 13,097]

I doubt that tbh. Hazel said in a Vlog a while ago that players will be chosen from the queue if one team lacks some players. I think the best approach would be to reduce the occasions that this happen, but you can't avoid it and you need to cope with it.

Depending on what I see when I do enter these partial battles, my way "to cope" could very well be the little red "x".

 

And for trying to complete missions here's where they become more difficult

- Capture Flags - in 10 vs 10 battle odds of capping go down a lot, especially if you are dropped in with only 7 min left

- Supply drops - some maps waaaay better than others - but - we can't choose maps

- top-3 on winning team ... base chance 50%, then competing against 9 team-mates gives ~ 15% chance of actually accomplishing

 

They might need to just make the mission earn xp or earn crys in "battles" or battle modes

Edited March 22, 2018 by wolverine848

[Tani_S 736]

Depending on what I see when I do enter these partial battles, my way "to cope" could very well be the little red "x".

 

And for trying to complete missions here's where they become more difficult

- Capture Flags - in 10 vs 10 battle odds of capping go down a lot, especially if you are dropped in with only 7 min left

- Supply drops - some maps waaaay better than others - but - we can't choose maps

- top-3 on winning team ... base chance 50%, then competing against 9 team-mates gives ~ 15% chance of actually accomplishing

 

They might need to just make the mission earn xp or earn crys in "battles" or battle modes

I understand you. It might be possible that devs adjust the missions after MM is out.

[Nicola_M 1,563]

Depending on what I see when I do enter these partial battles, my way "to cope" could very well be the little red "x".

 

And for trying to complete missions here's where they become more difficult

- Capture Flags - in 10 vs 10 battle odds of capping go down a lot, especially if you are dropped in with only 7 min left

Definitely.

Under the current system, you stand more chance joining a battle where there are only 2 or 3 players, and if they're not very good you can cap quickly and without a fight.

That's going to be lost when MM ensures you're always going to be up against 10 opponents and 9 potential idiots on your own team that get in the way.

This is why I always do my daily missions straight after the 2am UTC restart when there are fewer players to fight and fewer morons to trip over.  When you're trying to plant the flag your own team can be more of a hazard than the other team is. :unsure:

Edited March 22, 2018 by Nicola_M

[r_trooll15 827]

Removing the ability to create your own battles, which a feature for 8 years did not break the game, but it definitely didn't improve it by any stretch of the imagination.

So what. Who cares? Non-pro battles are already like that

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

So what. Who cares? Non-pro battles are already like that

Non-PRO? I'm going to assume you meant PRO. Things are not the same now, at all.

 

The contingent that plays "custom" (not PRO) battles has changed. It used to be practically everyone. Thus the maps you saw in the battle list were usually community favorites and you could expect certain maps to be "in the rotation" constantly. There was still plenty of variety though, because anyone could create a map easily. PRO battles were usually reserved for things like XP/BP, parkour, very long meatgrinder matches, duels, etc. 

 

Currently, PRO battles are used for pretty much the exact same things as before. Rarely do you find a "normal" battle. Why is that you ask? Because the majority of people who played non-PRO before play non-PRO now. Why exactly this is the case I do not know, but since I am one of those people I can offer my own opinion. I do not want to buy a PRO-pass, I do not care about parkour, XP/BP, 999 min matches, etc, and I want to be able to complete missions. The missions part is huge, by the way. The result is that a battle list with maps that the community liked to play on was replaced with a very limited battle list, while PRO battles remained the same. The attitude of players remained the same too. We have lost the freedom of choice, and PRO battles are still not particularly viable.

 

So what was the motive behind the change? The devs wanted to separate "casual" players from "pro" players. The devs seem to think that "casual" players don't care about any sense of freedom of choice. So they will continue to remove it for "casual" players, until there is nothing left - AKA matchmaking. Tanki is going to go through the same thing TF2 has with Meet your Match, except that in TF2 you can actually choose your map even when using the matchmaker.

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

Non-PRO? I'm going to assume you meant PRO. Things are not the same now, at all.

 

The contingent that plays "custom" (not PRO) battles has changed. It used to be practically everyone. Thus the maps you saw in the battle list were usually community favorites and you could expect certain maps to be "in the rotation" constantly. There was still plenty of variety though, because anyone could create a map easily. PRO battles were usually reserved for things like XP/BP, parkour, very long meatgrinder matches, duels, etc. 

 

Currently, PRO battles are used for pretty much the exact same things as before. Rarely do you find a "normal" battle. Why is that you ask? Because the majority of people who played non-PRO before play non-PRO now. Why exactly this is the case I do not know, but since I am one of those people I can offer my own opinion. I do not want to buy a PRO-pass, I do not care about parkour, XP/BP, 999 min matches, etc, and I want to be able to complete missions. The missions part is huge, by the way. The result is that a battle list with maps that the community liked to play on was replaced with a very limited battle list, while PRO battles remained the same. The attitude of players remained the same too. We have lost the freedom of choice, and PRO battles are still not particularly viable.

 

So what was the motive behind the change? The devs wanted to separate "casual" players from "pro" players. The devs seem to think that "casual" players don't care about any sense of freedom of choice. So they will continue to remove it for "casual" players, until there is nothing left - AKA matchmaking. Tanki is going to go through the same thing TF2 has with Meet your Match, except that in TF2 you can actually choose your map even when using the matchmaker.

 

 

Depending on how they implement Match-Making, it could slowly wean me off "normal" battles and just into Custom.

At least for this account.  Gaining crystals quickly not as important since I don't have to worry about crystal-to-exp ratio.

Just upgrades and more Magnum modules (if they ever release any).

[LittleWillie 3,199]

There was NO variety under the previous system There'd be 40 Poly CP battle 20 Noise 10 Monty Carlo. I'd have to server hop 10 times to find one battle worth trying to play that wasn't a mindless grinder. Please. The current system is tenfold better than the old one.

[Wes.Is.Just.A.Digger 1,712]

          Mmmm. No.

[LUCIFER1_the_dark 1,230]

Even if the MM comes who can gurantee that we will see balanced games?

 

Just because teams will have equal no.s of strong n weak players is no solution to the vast rank brackets that battles have.

I don't wish to play with m4s when I have m2s, so I am against it....

Instead the rank brackets should be equipment level wise not rankwise.....

I know many buyers who at major ranks have double the crystals that I accumulated so its unfair to play with them as they possess m2s 10/10.

And some non buyers who are at higher ranks than me have m2s 7/10 or 8/10.

So the game is heavily favouring buyers the current way it is...and I fear that MM will overlook this problem.

[RevengeAttacker 217]

Cmon bro

 

 

 

 

Guys let's wait and see how this MM turn out

Don jump in to conclusions

Ues agreed