Mission Chains Update [April 27th]

[Viking4s 10,791]

You will accomplish less in 2x15 min battles than you will in 3x10 minute battles. Starting a new battle always results in loss of efficiency. Unless somehow you are starting each battle in enemy territory?

 

I usually finish an individual mission within the 15-min battle - unless it was for a larger than usual reward. So yes, 33% less reward in a battle will influence the completion of a mission based on rewards that were established on the 15-min baseline.

You earn 33% less because one battle is 33% shorter. Enhance you play 3 of them and you get your 100%. It's mathematics.

In 30 minutes you can kills x tanks and cap y flags they all give the same amount of crystals. Then you can split it in 10 minutes battle or 15 minutes - it's all the same.

Even if you loss "efficiency" on restarting the battle your are far from 33% loss that you stated - the 10 seconds loss is close to zero inconvenience - it's basically the same as  self-destructing or visiting the garage = irrelevant.

 

With to railgun you don;t need to be in the enemy base to kill.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Viking4s

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

10 minutes battles I think are needed for Tanki's overall plan. We should one way or another get used to it.

 

If you're struggling with Missions there are a lot of things you can do. For starters, you can claim one mission per step while you progress the other missions for following steps. If you play with multiple accounts you can play with less accounts now and not worry about losing progress.

 

The systems can be improved too, like changing the way battle rewards are given, changing some missions, or removing Overdrive.

[wolverine848 13,097]

You earn 33% less because one battle is 33% shorter. Enhance you play 3 of them and you get your 100%. It's mathematics.

In 30 minutes you can kills x tanks and cap y flags they all give the same amount of crystals. Then you can split it in 10 minutes battle or 15 minutes - it's all the same.

Even if you loss "efficiency" on restarting the battle your are far from 33% loss that you stated - the 10 seconds loss is close to zero inconvenience - it's basically the same as  self-destructing or visiting the garage = irrelevant.

 

With to railgun you don;t need to be in the enemy base to kill.

The 33% loss means I likely won't get the mission done in one battle - unless I'm basically first on wining team.  1/20 chance.

 

Also not mentioned... a 2 minute mult on your team has a more drastic effect over 10 minute battle than 15 minute battle. Same with supply-collector mults.  By the time they are gone the battle has been decided.

 

10 minutes battles I think are needed for Tanki's overall plan. We should one way or another get used to it.

 

If you're struggling with Missions there are a lot of things you can do. For starters, you can claim one mission per step while you progress the other missions for following steps. If you play with multiple accounts you can play with less accounts now and not worry about losing progress.

 

The systems can be improved too, like changing the way battle rewards are given, changing some missions, or removing Overdrive.

We know it's in their plans.

 

But why are 10-minute battles needed?

 

As I have said a few times now - the missions are secondary.  They will get completed, one way or the other.

10-minute battles are less enjoyable to play.

[Sherman10 17]

Maybe we are all missing the big picture here.  TO is making these changes to make a smooth transition into MM play.  Missions have been changed to keep players interest in the game because not all of us have been sold on the MM system.  Now the pressure is off for having to complete missions every day without going back a week if we miss one.  Yes much better for the casual player, but I have been a daily player like Issimo and others on many accts  ;) and feel a little slighted by this update.  Also,  I don't like the 10 min battles for the reasons stated by others.

 

 But what is going to happen after the battle is over?  Are we going to be able to stay in the battle?   Are we going to be able to play with friends?  Is the map pool going to be increase/decreased?  And don't get me started on picking my own map.  I have reservations about the MM system, but we all should at least give it a chance and give the Devs our feedback.  I for one love this game and hope the Devs are listening.

[Sniper1954_the_dark 52]

Not I like the not losing your progress in missions if you miss a day or two. Not so much stretching out the rewards from week 4 to 10. 10 minutes is too short as it gives the team that is ahead early a big advantage and with the matchmaking system, you could very well end up back into a battle on the wrong side.

[Condensation 478]

Week 10...... :ph34r:  :ph34r:  :ph34r:  :ph34r:

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

We know it's in their plans.

 

But why are 10-minute battles needed?

 

As I have said a few times now - the missions are secondary.  They will get completed, one way or the other.

10-minute battles are less enjoyable to play.

The plan with Matchmaking and Mobile version, because I think 10 minutes will suit better with mobile players.

 

10 minutes are not enjoyable because the game has serious flaws, like Overdrive and Finish Top 3 in winning team. I remember playing 10 minutes before, when we could create battles and it was enjoyable.

Edited April 28, 2018 by r_Issimo2

[ByeByeBye 1,747]

The more you play battles the more boring it gets. 10 minutes has a really big impact in battles, it changed the whole game, no more team-work, everybody camps at the bases now, the crystal fund only gets up to 1500. It's funny because I don't understand why they had to touch the time. 

 

Another thing, more players keep leaving the battles after 2-3 minutes and the battle becomes inactive. What a joke. 

My guess is they need shortened battle time for the dread MatchMaking.  They need to have a bigger turnover of players to keep queue time lower.  The shorter each battle is, the sooner MM can scoot players back into the queue.

[ByeByeBye 1,747]

The mission completion "issues" are << on my concern-list than game-play is.

 

Played 10 battles last night and 9/10 first team that scored won.  It's much more tempting to defend a lead when there's little time left.

Much harder to defend for 12 minutes than it is to defend for 5 or 6 minutes.  So teams are more likely to enact this strategy. Already saw a lot of that last night.  Much more so than the 15-min battles.

 

Is it the end of the world?  no.  Does it decrease my enjoyment of the game? Definitely.

 

 

Perfectly said.

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

As I predicted, many players are focused on picking up boxes, they are also helping, the ones I saw, but are not much help, luckily in those battles I guess enemies where doing the same. Won all my battles.

 

The problem with 10 minute battles is probably not that they are 10 minute battles, but that you find them with 6, 5, 2 or other few minutes left. But if there was some balance in battles, ranks, rewards and missions, I think it wouldn't matter much.

Edited April 28, 2018 by r_Issimo2

[ByeByeBye 1,747]

You earn 33% less because one battle is 33% shorter. Enhance you play 3 of them and you get your 100%. It's mathematics.

In 30 minutes you can kills x tanks and cap y flags they all give the same amount of crystals. Then you can split it in 10 minutes battle or 15 minutes - it's all the same.

Even if you loss "efficiency" on restarting the battle your are far from 33% loss that you stated - the 10 seconds loss is close to zero inconvenience - it's basically the same as  self-destructing or visiting the garage = irrelevant.

 

With to railgun you don;t need to be in the enemy base to kill.

I think the problem is that 3-10s are being played much differently than 2-15s.  The 10 minute battle changes the way people play the game  And restarting a game three times means three different groups on each team.  All in all, 3-10s is harder to see crystal rewards or even kill count than 2-15s.  At the very least it is more frustrating and has less "flow".

[ByeByeBye 1,747]

Consider:  All these changes to the game over the past 1.5 years, including this new 10 minute battle, have been done to implement an inferior system...MatchMaking.  LUDICROUS!

 

Can the developers think that MatchMaking will cure all the evils it has brought so far?  Do they actually think MatchMaking will make the game more fun?????????   How can they be sooooooooooo blind?

 

If a game isn't fun it won't get FUNded. 

 

I just don't get it.  They had a great game...why turn it upside down and inside out to implement an MM system that 90% (just a guess) of the current player base doesn't want?  Is it to draw a huge new player base from mobile devices? ...That seems unlikely and misguided to me.

 

Do they actually think they are improving the game?  (astonished disbelief emoticon)

[DaringDeer 656]

I do not think it is difficult to complete missions but since the update the games have been much, much less fun.  

 

I mainly play CTF games, and over the last 2 days, I have had exactly 2 competitive games out of approximately 50.  My team lost both those competitive games but they were the most fun I've had because they were challenging.  Every other game is a blowout and ends in a couple minutes either because no one is left on the losing team or because 5 flags have been captured.  People on the losing team leave once the first flag is capped and no one comes to fill up the games.  There is just not enough time to mount a comeback and the reward for being on the losing team is almost nil.

 

This is not isolated to CTF.  Have seen exactly the same thing in CP, Assault, Rugby.  Same in Legend and General and Lt. Colonel ranks on alts.  It is a broken environment.  Strategy is limited.  There is insufficient time to adjust and organize so people don't try.  I have been playing this game for about 2.5 years and this change has been the biggest kick to the nuts of this game I have experienced.

 

I don't foresee MM helping the situation.  People will be put in a losing battle with 6 minutes left, realize in 1 minute that the effort to win is nonexistent, and leave.  Then another person is dropped in their spot with 5 minutes left and is in the same position.

 

I think giving the losing team a more reasonable piece of the fund may help to give more incentive to continue but that will only help a little.  

[DRAKO523 795]

Consider:  All these changes to the game over the past 1.5 years, including this new 10 minute battle, have been done to implement an inferior system...MatchMaking.  LUDICROUS!Can the developers think that MatchMaking will cure all the evils it has brought so far?  Do they actually think MatchMaking will make the game more fun?????????   How can they be sooooooooooo blind? If a game isn't fun it won't get FUNded. I just don't get it.  They had a great game...why turn it upside down and inside out to implement an MM system that 90% (just a guess) of the current player base doesn't want?  Is it to draw a huge new player base from mobile devices? ...That seems unlikely and misguided to me.Do they actually think they are improving the game?  (astonished disbelief emoticon)
 

​

All the updates have been to balance the game between free players and buyers. "2015 - early 2016 the game basically passed a point which could be referred to as "the end of Tanki 1.0" Then Tanki X was suppose to be "The better version of Tanki" they even thought of transferring TO accounts to TX. "Tanki X became a standalone game that could not in anyway replace Tanki" _​

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=360955

 ​but this is besides the point, that just explains your question about "I just don't get it.  They had a great game...why turn it upside down​" A lot of games are very successful due to MMS, of course Tanki would go for it and I suspect Matchmaking to balance the game-play between  free-players and buyers​. But we'll just have to wait and see what they have planned for us. And if I re-call "the devs do not claim the current system to be balanced​ so it is alarming when they say MM, which will be the same as it is now, will be balanced. In addition, you can at least somewhat choose what ranks you play against currently." - @CooperO _{​if I remember correctly.} ​Or @ThirdOnion. ​I'm looking forward to MMS because a lot of games have been very successful due to Matchmaking system. And I can't wait for it to come out as soon as they're done completing it.
 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by DRAKO523

[Terminator2255 0]

Change in Mission Chains and decrease in time of regular/non pro battle is not good !dea. 15 mnts time is best for battles.

[CooperO 7,956]

- @CooperO _{​if I remember correctly.} ​

 

I'm fairly sure those weren't my words..;p

[DRAKO523 795]

I'm fairly sure those weren't my words..;p

Strange, must've made a mistake. it was on an old V-log topic;p it might have been one of @ThirdOnion's posts.

Edited April 28, 2018 by DRAKO523

[Viking4s 10,791]

The 33% loss means I likely won't get the mission done in one battle - unless I'm basically first on wining team.  1/20 chance.

Also not mentioned... a 2 minute mult on your team has a more drastic effect over 10 minute battle than 15 minute battle. Same with supply-collector mults.  By the time they are gone the battle has been decided.

We know it's in their plans.

But why are 10-minute battles needed?

As I have said a few times now - the missions are secondary.  They will get completed, one way or the other.

10-minute battles are less enjoyable to play.

Missions are not meant to be done in one battle especially the one that requires 1000 xp or 500 crystals or collect 10 boxes.

If you already worry (for nothing) now about mission, wait for the MM, because when battles are balanced it would be even harder as the fund, xp will be more likely to be balanced between the 2 teams, unlike when it is not balanced.

 

The mult issue was, is and will always be there. But is is also a cry wolf by unhappy players, it is more talked about than actually experienced in battle. Anybody is a mult (noob player) or a hacker (pro player) nowadays.

 

10 minutes are 33% less enjoyable yes (only when it is a good game) but it is better when it comes to be on the losing side. Many peoples join battle late, so many time you actually not play 15 minutes; and probably less than 10. With MM everybody will join at the same time and hopefully leave at the same time, so all players will actually stay together and play the full 10 minutes - which is to me better, you don't have to reassess the strength of your team, and found out that a good player is gone and a less good just joined.

 

I think the problem is that 3-10s are being played much differently than 2-15s.  The 10 minute battle changes the way people play the game  And restarting a game three times means three different groups on each team.  All in all, 3-10s is harder to see crystal rewards or even kill count than 2-15s.  At the very least it is more frustrating and has less "flow".

Your subjectivity tells you it is harder, but the maths tells you it is the same.

I would wait for MM to take place to see the fit with 10 minutes battles as the 10 minutes was proposed with MM in mind (and all the other overdrive). 

What I hate most is people leaving mid game, player from the losing side or even the wining side, so the shorter the battle the less it will happen.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Viking4s

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

Some people like to talk big, and try to talk down to others, but when you check their profiles they have close to 1.0 K/D, and that after using a lot of drugs.

 

There are problems with the game and I think that's why the number of players are low, if not declining.

 

Personally I did good yesterday and today, I'm not an unhappy player. Today I won all my battles and did the missions I needed to do, all playing honestly. I can adapt to this new Tanki.

 

If I point out weaknesses and flaws in the game is as a feedback, hoping that things get more balanced and the game more enjoyable, not because I lost a game or anything. It's others that I see many times upset and complaining, even threatening to "leave", but they are still here.

[nhatdeptrai 0]

Mission is very ok, but the length of game is stupid,  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

If you're losing, you can't defeat to win, because the length is very short, the winner team will protect the result easily.

Many player agree with me

[cjlkajdsaldjaskjdasd 71]

Some people like to talk big, and try to talk down to others, but when you check their profiles they have close to 1.0 K/D, and that after using a lot of drugs.

 

 

Been playing so long and still don't know about parkour?

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

Been playing so long and still don't know about parkour?

Is that what you think? I don't think so.

 

I know about Parkour and I know about Spider protection, the one Parkourists usually have. Just to be clear.

[T_a_c_i_r 0]

Its too short game. Before was better. You havent time make change protections, when you need. Max1-2 times and is end of game.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

If I point out weaknesses and flaws in the game is as a feedback, hoping that things get more balanced and the game more enjoyable, not because I lost a game or anything. It's others that I see many times upset and complaining, even threatening to "leave", but they are still here.

It's others what? You didn't finish your sentence.

 

How many of those that threaten to leave actually leave and actually never come back? Do you have figures for those? How many that players don't threaten to leave but leave anyway. Clearly numbers are declining and that's a fact and it's a sad because without players this game is useless. We need to retain as many as we can. When players are threatening to leave, that is a warning sign that should not be ignored and definitely not mocked. I'm guessing they don't want to leave but they're voicing their displeasure at decisions made.

 

Sabotage was one reason for these changes. It wasn't the only reason but it definitely contributed. There are so many ways to deter this. One example would be to reset a player's mission chains if they're disciplined in the violators section. It's a deterrent that would work with many, especially if they're on week 4 or week 10 as it is now. And before you find work arounds, I said one example.

 

10 minute battles are so easy to influence now. I could enter a battle and stay in the corner of a map for 4½ minutes then leave. Or I could just run around a battle collecting repair kits for 10 minutes, destroying the occassion tank as I go. It's crazy one player is still allowed to ruin a battle for 9 other players.

 

Punishments for violators need to be much harsher. These are killing the game, these are ultimately why players are leaving, even if they don't realise it. Violators will be the death of this game and while many have warned against this, decision makers within tanki are too stubborn to acknowledge it and it won't get fixed with matchmaking either because they're just creating new reasons for people to leave.

 

If only...

[BlueDragon_tamki 3,204]

Mission chains update - good

Battle length update - bad