Matchmaking is coming May 29th

[LittleWillie 3,199]

I see LittleWillie is still running off at the mouth about the glories of matchmaking while insulting as many posters as he possibly can.  

Naw just people who earn it through non-stop mewling and whining about how daw game got so hawd fow me to pway.. Eventually your emo act wears thin.  Eventually = about 8 seconds.

 

So what are ya gonna do?  Learn to play under MM, become a buyer so you can play in the Pro section 100% of the time,, or quit TO?

 

Continued whining and sobbing is not a choice.  MM is fact. Deal with it or it is bye-bye time, EmoEmoEmo.

Edited July 3, 2018 by LittleWillie

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

No, you get emotional, fast = 1 millisecond.

 

We just think MM can get better but it needs a lot of work. And we point out what we think is not good.

 

Stop being a little brat, stop insulting other posters. This is just a game, grow up.

[Matt_Black 203]

MM is here to stay as long as TO mobile is here as one won't work without the other.

 

How the hell people can play with all the new shiny toys on a piddly little screen I don't know. Highways on a 5" screen, It's bad enough on a 30" apple cinema display!

 

I suspect that Mobile TO is going to have a huge effect on low ranks with lots of casual players that are going to be cannon fodder for alt accounts but few of them will go on to higher ranks.

 

What's got me fed up with the MM system is that above a certain rank it doesn't work. The differences in equipment levels is an issue and it doesn't foster any team spirit because you can't continue with the same team. For those of you that say "well just get better" you are the ones with fully upgraded equipment, drugs up the wazzoo and the knowledge that if you can monopolize the supply drops midfield you can dominate the game. While we're stuck at M2 getting creamed most games.

 

Why not have MM up to Captain rank? By then they should be a fairly rounded player with good knowledge of all the maps, and the beginnings of a mixed garage. The knock on effect would be a better gaming experience for all. Players won't have ranked up on the same combo, same map. We wouldn't see legends who can't turn their turret, and Shafts that continue to scan the far side of the map while the flag is stolen from next to

them.  

[LittleWillie 3,199]

You have it backwards Matt.  At Major/LtCol/Col the last items unlock m2.  Most gear unlocks before that. So at teh very laterst by the time you are Colonel you can buy everything you need at m2.

 

Once your personal gear unlocks at m2 you can MU it up to 5/10 almost immediately and for a low price. The remaining 5 steps will not take to long either.

 

Anyone with m2 stuff at MU 5+ can fight m3 gear.  That is the worst match you will have in the Captain-Colonel range. Get that mu to 10 and no one will have better stuff than you.

 

At the General Ranks and above the goal is to have m2_10/10 gear for turrets and hulls. With m2_10/10 gear you can find a way to contribute in those battles you get stuck against teh Marshals and above,  9Modules need MU too but hull and turret has priority to reach mu10.)

 

The difference between m3++ gear and straight m3 gear is on the order of 10% to 15%. That is significant, but it is not nearly as big as some of the quality mis-matches seen at lower ranks.  MM actually works better at higher ranks.  Any General account should have m3 gear and that's enough to fight Legends if and when you have to.

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

 

You have it backwards Matt.  At Major/LtCol/Col the last items unlock m2.  Most gear unlocks before that. So at teh very laterst by the time you are Colonel you can buy everything you need at m2.

 

Once your personal gear unlocks at m2 you can MU it up to 5/10 almost immediately and for a low price. The remaining 5 steps will not take to long either.

 

Anyone with m2 stuff at MU 5+ can fight m3 gear.  That is the worst match you will have in the Captain-Colonel range. Get that mu to 10 and no one will have better stuff than you.

 

At the General Ranks and above the goal is to have m2_10/10 gear for turrets and hulls. With m2_10/10 gear you can find a way to contribute in those battles you get stuck against teh Marshals and above,  9Modules need MU too but hull and turret has priority to reach mu10.)

 

The difference between m3++ gear and straight m3 gear is on the order of 10% to 15%. That is significant, but it is not nearly as big as some of the quality mis-matches seen at lower ranks.  MM actually works better at higher ranks.  Any General account should have m3 gear and that's enough to fight Legends if and when you have to.

 

 

The rank spread is a bit wider than you are suggesting here.

As a major (my alt) I'm seeing battles with Marshalls and I believe even some FM.

 

M3 kits unlock at Lt. General and all m3 at Marshall.  So many have had time to get M3+... not likely above 3.5 unless they are gung-ho.

Against my m2.5 equipment.  And no magnum protection since that split of protections locked me out of M2 until major.

 

Not impossible to battle, but the fact they have more protections at higher levels widens the gap in power.

 

This is just my opinion, but the rank-brackets needs to be tightened up some. Throwing lower levels into battle just to fill in the gaps for MM is << important than having players fighting their peers. (I don't consider rank spread of 8 = "peers")

[Tani_S 736]

 

 

The rank spread is a bit wider than you are suggesting here.

As a major (my alt) I'm seeing battles with Marshalls and I believe even some FM.

 

M3 kits unlock at Lt. General and all m3 at Marshall.  So many have had time to get M3+... not likely above 3.5 unless they are gung-ho.

Against my m2.5 equipment.  And no magnum protection since that split of protections locked me out of M2 until major.

 

Not impossible to battle, but the fact they have more protections at higher levels widens the gap in power.

 

This is just my opinion, but the rank-brackets needs to be tightened up some. Throwing lower levels into battle just to fill in the gaps for MM is

 

 

Equipment is one thing, supplies the other. I've seen people with about the same rank losing badly, because they don't use drugs. Supply usage really needs to be taken into account.

[LittleWillie 3,199]

As has been discussed many times, rank brackets are wider when fewer players are on line. IThat happened too before MM. If a player wantd to play he might well have to accept a higher rank game than he'd cherry-pick otherwise.

 

Do no see many red-star staff officer ranks against my Marahal account. I am sure it happens every so often but that is not the norm.It does not happen save for certain times of day.

 

But yes the balance between bracket and wait time can always be adjusted.

 

But since players cannot cherry-pick they should conclude these high rank opponenst will occur.  In order to be ready for them get m2 gear and mu it up.  You CAN fight against better gear if you have to.

 

Now thanks to TO's ... utterly bizarre interleaved m-level progression ladder some turrets and hulls are still m1 at Major though most are m2. 

 

That raises the question, "Is the old 1-hull/1-turret development strategy still optimum?"

 

We all know player income is much higher than it was 18 months ago. So maybe it is time for Conventional Wisdom to change?  Perhaps now the optimum path is to go something like Hunter / Titan.  You can start building toward Hunter m2_10 while your Titan m1_10 is still The Bomb at wo4.  When major rolls around m1_10 looks lame but you have an m2_10 all ready to go.

 

With 14 different modules and now with Drones TO offers the  junior ranks many more development paths to consider.  MM brings with the need to prepare for a wide range of challenges.  If you ask me this is a much more interesting setup. As with any learning curve the early part is the most annoying.

Edited July 3, 2018 by LittleWillie

[wolverine848 13,097]

As has been discussed many times, rank brackets are wider when fewer players are on line. IThat happened too before MM. If a player wantd to play he might well have to accept a higher rank game than he'd cherry-pick otherwise.

 

Do no see many red-star staff officer ranks against my Marahal account. I am sure it happens every so often but that is not the norm.It does not happen save for certain times of day.

 

But yes the balance between bracket and wait time can always be adjusted.

 

 

 

But since players cannot cherry-pick they should conclude these high rank opponenst will occur.  In order to be ready for them get m2 gear and mu it up.  You CAN fight against better gear if you have to.

 

Now thanks to TO's ... utterly bizarre interleaved m-level progression ladder some turrets and hulls are still m1 at Major though most are m2. 

 

That raises the question, "Is the old 1-hull/1-turret development strategy still optimum?"

 

We all know player income is much higher than it was 18 months ago. So maybe it is time for Conventional Wisdom to change?  Perhaps now the optimum path is to go something like Hunter / Titan.  You can start building toward Hunter m2_10 while your Titan m1_10 is still The Bomb at wo4.  When major rolls around m1_10 looks lame but you have an m2_10 all ready to go.

 

With 14 different modules and now with Drones TO offers the  junior ranks many more development paths to consider.  MM brings with the need to prepare for a wide range of challenges.  If you ask me this is a much more interesting setup. As with any learning curve the early part is the most annoying.

 

 

You can't argue "that happened before MM..." while also disregarding fact that players could view the battles and choose one aligned to their rank.

 

I see marshals more often than you suggest.

 

"But yes the balance between bracket and wait time can always be adjusted."

So... how much did that hurt to type out?

[Matt_Black 203]

You have it backwards Matt.  At Major/LtCol/Col the last items unlock m2.  Most gear unlocks before that. So at teh very laterst by the time you are Colonel you can buy everything you need at m2.

 

Once your personal gear unlocks at m2 you can MU it up to 5/10 almost immediately and for a low price. The remaining 5 steps will not take to long either.

 

Anyone with m2 stuff at MU 5+ can fight m3 gear.  That is the worst match you will have in the Captain-Colonel range. Get that mu to 10 and no one will have better stuff than you.

 

At the General Ranks and above the goal is to have m2_10/10 gear for turrets and hulls. With m2_10/10 gear you can find a way to contribute in those battles you get stuck against teh Marshals and above,  9Modules need MU too but hull and turret has priority to reach mu10.)

 

The difference between m3++ gear and straight m3 gear is on the order of 10% to 15%. That is significant, but it is not nearly as big as some of the quality mis-matches seen at lower ranks.  MM actually works better at higher ranks.  Any General account should have m3 gear and that's enough to fight Legends if and when you have to.

Any general rank should have m3 gear? If they buy kits then yes, otherwise you are stuck with M2+10 gear against M3+20 gear and yes it does make a difference. I'm trying to grind my way up to Marshall now and have half of my garage 10/10 and have been this way since the last rank. It would have all been 10/10 but all the modules I was waiting to MU 10/10 in the next sale got split and now it all costs 3 times as much!

 

I'm still really not a fan of MM. I miss playing on Massacre I think I've had 2 matches in the last month by MM. I've lost count of how many Bridges matches I've played! Pro battles seem to feature the same dozen or so maps over and over and is polygon the only map you're allowed to play control points in? 

[LittleWillie 3,199]

Any general rank should have m3 gear? If they buy kits then yes, otherwise you are stuck with M2+10 gear against M3+20 gear and yes it does make a difference. I'm trying to grind my way up to Marshall now and have half of my garage 10/10 and have been this way since the last rank. It would have all been 10/10 but all the modules I was waiting to MU 10/10 in the next sale got split and now it all costs 3 times as much!

 

I'm still really not a fan of MM. I miss playing on Massacre I think I've had 2 matches in the last month by MM. I've lost count of how many Bridges matches I've played! Pro battles seem to feature the same dozen or so maps over and over and is polygon the only map you're allowed to play control points in? 

By "have m3 gear" I mean m2_10/10.  It is tedious to keep writing it that way though.

 

We agree on much more than we disagree. Of course m3++ gear has an advantage over m3 gear. But like you I've been meeting m3+ gear for may ranks already.  They have an advantage, but it iis not so great they simply overwhelm you.

 

You are at the very worst rank in a sense as full General. You hav straight m3 gear but are high enough a rank to draw m3++ opponents. 

 

One more rank and you can mu all that stuff.  The early steps on the m3+ mu ladder are easy to afford.  I ranked up to Marshal just a little time before MM went live. I'll get my hulls and turret u to m3_8/20 this sale.  That closes the gap even more. The ceiling is the ceiling. No one has m4++ gear. Once you are close to the ceiling the percentage difference any possible opponent has is small.

 

I miss playing on old Massacre. New Massacre if a big barrel and most tanks are fish. In old Masacre you could find cover until quite a bit closer for that assault on the shafts.

 

I agree about the Pro section.  MM has only a couple dozen maps in play.  But when players get to choose for themselves they reduce that number from two dozen to a half-dozen.  This is why I welcome the MM system. 18 months ago EVERY game was Poly CP pro section and basic section. Zzzzzzz

Edited July 3, 2018 by LittleWillie

[LittleWillie 3,199]

You can't argue "that happened before MM..." while also disregarding fact that players could view the battles and choose one aligned to their rank.

 

I see marshals more often than you suggest.

 

"But yes the balance between bracket and wait time can always be adjusted."

So... how much did that hurt to type out?

I do not deny it. I have said many times that is the compromise we paid and it is well worth it.

 

The game has been changed in some fundamental ways.. That means two things will follow

 

Some layers will start to think how to lay the new game under the new rules

 

AND

 

Other players will request the game company to make TO just like the old game before the changes.  Since this will not happen those players will fall behind. They'll either suss it out a bit later or they will grow frustrated and quit.

 

Every player's dime, every player's choice.  Me? I am thinking about the new game we have before us. MM has done what I expected it to. I can find and play games much much much more reliably than before.  But yes I cannot ry to avoid Legends.So I don't. I play against them and kill htem. They kil me.  I know I am alredy a better plkayer than I was a month ago.

 

I am moving on. Your dime.

 

===

 

I have a Col account just trailing my other by a small amount.  But that was just enough to not have all the protection modules. My accounts just a little more experienced did have them all. So when teh conversion happened that account was 2.5 million Cry behind the others.

 

I used teh funds I had at teh time to buy 3 of the 6 modules I did not have.  But I did not buy freeze.  Then of course they buffed freeze up the wazoo.  That account will not be able to afford freeze protection until the next 50% off gear sale at teh soonest. SO I understand the issue youhav with Magnum.

 

But none of this is the fault of MM itself. That's the fault of TO ham-handed conversion scheme.

Edited July 3, 2018 by LittleWillie

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

You and some others have MUed equipment because you benefited from Mission chains when Mission chains was exclusive to daily players.

 

I played daily for the missions too. But I don't come here telling others MM is good just MU your equipment.

 

You want MM to stay the same because you only grind for missions.

Edited July 3, 2018 by r_Issimo2

[brainhoo 735]

 

I really just wanted to throw him off his assembly-line Contrived Outrage for a little while. Instead he's mad at me now.

It's  like really really retro doctoring. You take that patient's mind off his toothache by nailing his foot to the floor.

 

Psst! Also, Yin and Yang is really a grey circle. Think about it..

 

The more players are in the "waiting room" the smotther any MM will work - not just TO's version of MM.  If one "waiting room" is divided into over 20 tiny "waiting rooms" then the complains about MM would go up by a hundred-fold. That system would fail and fail hard.

 

The only relevant point to MM in these screenshots is that MM set up two teams both of extremely high rank against one another.

The fact a bunch of Freezes ran amok or some other aspect of TO game play caused blowout battles ... these issues have nothing to do with MM.  MM set up even teams from the available players. (I assume some players left before the SSs.) The rest of it is up to the rest of the game system.

 

I think X-O is making these same points but some readers are citing the wrong Take Home message from them. This is what I mean when I say people accuse MM of flaws MM is not responsible to fix. 

 

You'd run into that ting in the old system too. The problem is the long-term issue of TO's (adjectives fail me) m-levels system. Different weapons and hulls unlock spaced apart by over 10 ranks at that part of the experience ladder.  That is a hard-wired weirdness no way of assembling battles in TO can avoid.

 

The nly answer is to build your gear as best you can and rank out of the "sour spot". At a different rank it will be your "sweet spot".

 

There are ways to allow map choice without having to wait for so long. One way is to have the option to select preferred map choices. The MMS would try to look for a map or if many players picked that map(s), it would create such a map for players. If not, then it would place you on a second preferred map. Then put in place a threshold of 1minute to look for preferred maps. If none, then put the player in a random battle map. Another way is to give the player the option to wait for a longer period for a map choice they want say up to 3 minutes. Giving players the option for map choice in no way affects the MMS system. They are 2 different kettles of fish.

[Psychotic 166]

Essay after essay on why TO should remove matchmaking and they completely ignore the posts... and then say 'we listen to your complaints'

XD what a joke

[brainhoo 735]

So of course if Viking is going to give me the reply that TO developers want to take tanki online in a certain direction again; then that will simply end a discussion. I think its quite clear to everyone that the latest change has taken a toll on player ratings on Tanki significantly. And i have to say that it isn't helping that Nives is never here to answer or the key word "ENGAGE". I mean, lets be honest. Cooper once said that he was too busy to answer with all the queries and backlash but i find that very hard to believe since he is very active on other forums answering trivial questions on cars and things he likes. Then i also tried to reach out to him over the friday community events, but it was quite clear that his ears were shut to any changes to the current MMS. This kind of dynamic isn't helpful. I speak not just for myself but i believe i represent hundreds who are just venting in many other channels - still until today more than 30 days later. I have never threatened to leave and have never been rude to anyone. One thing ought to be clear - that the current MMS really needs a review and a second look. All those other "New" features like drones and Juggernaut will prop up the ratings for short spurts but they don't take away the pain of MMS. Furthermore, it doesn't help with all the unresolved bugs of MMS but i won't press on with that because other players have already highlighted those.

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

Looks like the Matchmaking is just a variable rank bracket, groups and deny the team that has a lead any more players.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Looks like the Matchmaking is just a variable rank bracket, groups and deny the team that has a lead any more players.

What does this mean? 

 

How often does (team in lead) need more players?  Rarely I'd say.  Players don't jump from the ship winning the race...

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

What does this mean? 

 

How often does (team in lead) need more players?  Rarely I'd say.  Players don't jump from the ship winning the race...

I had 3 battles today and happened 2 times, in 1 we played with 7 players for the last 4 minutes and the other team managed to win at the end, in the other battle we played for I think 3 or 4 minutes with 7, but this time the system added another player.

 

But the best example is this one from yesterday:

 

 

 

 

With 6 players for several minutes until the end.

Edited July 4, 2018 by r_Issimo2

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

I love this system but the problem is that it always goofs up during some holiday.

normally i get sent to battles in a short time and the battles are balanced but whenever there is an even it i have to try 20 times to get into a battle and when i get in, it is not balanced at all.

so keep the system as it is, just make sure it can handle the stress

[CooperO 7,956]

One thing ought to be clear - that the current MMS really needs a review and a second look. All those other "New" features like drones and Juggernaut will prop up the ratings for short spurts but they don't take away the pain of MMS. Furthermore, it doesn't help with all the unresolved bugs of MMS but i won't press on with that because other players have already highlighted those.

Especially this week, they're focussing on fixing the bugs in MM and they will continue to work on improving the system. They do know the current MM system is far from perfect, but they do not want to just cancel it because of that. They prefer continuing with the system and improving it along the way. For that, they certainly value player feedback, the more detailed, the better.

[wolverine848 13,097]

I had 3 battles today and happened 2 times, in 1 we played with 7 players for the last 4 minutes and the other team managed to win at the end, in the other battle we played for I think 3 or 4 minutes with 7, but this time the system added another player.

 

But the best example is this one from yesterday:

 

 

 

 

With 6 players for several minutes until the end.

I don't believe the score has any effect on players being added - it is based on # of players.

 

You have examples where "losing" team had more players than your team, and still gained a new player?

[Matt_Black 203]

By "have m3 gear" I mean m2_10/10.  It is tedious to keep writing it that way though.

 

We agree on much more than we disagree. Of course m3++ gear has an advantage over m3 gear. But like you I've been meeting m3+ gear for may ranks already.  They have an advantage, but it iis not so great they simply overwhelm you.

 

You are at the very worst rank in a sense as full General. You hav straight m3 gear but are high enough a rank to draw m3++ opponents. 

 

One more rank and you can mu all that stuff.  The early steps on the m3+ mu ladder are easy to afford.  I ranked up to Marshal just a little time before MM went live. I'll get my hulls and turret u to m3_8/20 this sale.  That closes the gap even more. The ceiling is the ceiling. No one has m4++ gear. Once you are close to the ceiling the percentage difference any possible opponent has is small.

 

I miss playing on old Massacre. New Massacre if a big barrel and most tanks are fish. In old Masacre you could find cover until quite a bit closer for that assault on the shafts.

 

I agree about the Pro section.  MM has only a couple dozen maps in play.  But when players get to choose for themselves they reduce that number from two dozen to a half-dozen.  This is why I welcome the MM system. 18 months ago EVERY game was Poly CP pro section and basic section. Zzzzzzz

The new Massacre needs teamwork to play well on, that's why I like it. A really switched on team of strangers can have the game sewn up in 5 minutes. 

 

Surely a random map selection should mean that all of the maps come up regularly. I played 4 assault games in a row on forest and was in the blue team each time, how is this random? 

 

I really hope that TO mobile draws the players in otherwise it's a hell of a lot of work and effort for something the vast majority of players didn't want and don't like.

[Viking4s 10,791]

I don't believe the score has any effect on players being added - it is based on # of players.

 

You have examples where "losing" team had more players than your team, and still gained a new player?

I think that some evidences and common sense point in that direction. 

Adding player in the losing team reduce blowout battles (I have a feeling that it sends mostly stronger player than the current one in the losing team). However I have also seen battles where the losing team was not filled with new player when, it's seemed, the best player from the losing team had score higher than the one in the winning team, which is no use because in CP battle you need numbers to hold the point nad if your team is low in number you will turn control point but not for long hence you loose in the end.

 

Not adding player in the winning team also avoid blowout battles. In a couple of battles I all saw no player being added to the winning team, but not all the time.

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

Mismatch...

 

 

I got low K/D because I was using a Wasp, trying to assist and defend... and Golds. Could have done better with Titan from the beginning, but it is what it is.

 

The point of this is that there's little balance even though there's 28k players right now.

 

I don't believe the score has any effect on players being added - it is based on # of players.

 

You have examples where "losing" team had more players than your team, and still gained a new player?

I started to notice that in the last 4 days, could be a glitch or an attempt to balance battles, who knows.

 

I don't have suck examples.

[wolverine848 13,097]

I think that some evidences and common sense point in that direction. 

Adding player in the losing team reduce blowout battles (I have a feeling that it sends mostly stronger player than the current one in the losing team). However I have also seen battles where the losing team was not filled with new player when, it's seemed, the best player from the losing team had score higher than the one in the winning team, which is no use because in CP battle you need numbers to hold the point nad if your team is low in number you will turn control point but not for long hence you loose in the end.

 

Not adding player in the winning team also avoid blowout battles. In a couple of battles I all saw no player being added to the winning team, but not all the time.

I'm surprised to hear that.  A team can lose the lead in last minute or two just because of numbers.  That seems unfair.

 

But then again, as battles supposed to start 8 vs 8, I'd also be surprised to see many occurrences where 8th player on winning team voluntarily exits late in the battle.