Episode 188 of the V-LOG has rolled out!

[splitterpoint 10,986]

The chap did alright, this all reminded me of how I had to get used to not hearing Semyon's voice anymore in the V-LOG's, I don't think we ever had really bad voice overs in the V-LOG. I mean the articulation was good, the pauses were good and it wasn't monotonous. It's just that it doesn't sound like the familiar V-LOG but that'll go away after 4 - 5 videos or so.

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

who cares about the voice??

what bother's me is that he didn't tell us this information earlier and made us wait for the vlog..

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

Yup, plot twist! :lol:

Though it will be back to Alex Lynch in the next episode. I was just a temporary replacement.

 

 

Thanks! Most people I meet actually say I have an American accent, which is very strange considering that I've never even been to the US. I try to speak British English, but I don't really like those heavy British accents, so I won't try to talk like that. It's not everyone's... cup of tea :ph34r:

 

If you have any more comments about me, please use PM. This topic is about the actual content of the V-log ;)

  

 

I have to admit that I have been a too used to Alex being the narrator of the vlogs so I was confused at first when I hear a British accent and thought that he went full on British. (Bruh)

 

But now that you let us know what it really was, it cleared some questions.

 

Having someone with a British accent doing the narrator stuff isn't bad or worse than someone with an American accent. It's just different is all.

 

Yes, exactly that. As a big fan of Hammer it's pretty bad news, but at the same time I've always known that the two alterations are way too OP together and need a nerf. Pretty sure Hammer suffers the most from this, since no other combination of alterations is equally effective, AFAIK.

  

I honestly don't like the slugger alt, because not only does the rotation speed is ridiculously slow, but also I feel like you lose the vertical auto aim. But the HCD is handy because I always forget to waste that last shot to refill my clip.

 

 

who cares about the voice??

what bother's me is that he didn't tell us this information earlier and made us wait for the vlog..

Maybe he wanted to surprise us? :ph34r:

[Maf 32,300]

I honestly don't like the slugger alt, because not only does the rotation speed is ridiculously slow, but also I feel like you lose the vertical auto aim. But the HCD is handy because I always forget to waste that last shot to refill my clip.

I use Wasp Hammer, so while the slow turret rotation has definitely been the cause of losing some fights, the benefit from reduced bullet spread outweighs it greatly, since it makes the turret incredibly versatile.

[fordmustang12345 3,910]

I use Wasp Hammer, so while the slow turret rotation has definitely been the cause of losing some fights, the benefit from reduced bullet spread outweighs it greatly, since it makes the turret incredibly versatile.

agreed, Hammer right after that Alt was added was freaking OP, it doubled the range and the slow turning speed could easily be solved (temporarily and only if you had em) by Speed boost, I mean c'mon you could kill people with it from halfway across Polygon easily

[Bydo 20,121]

I made my decision that I liked the current voice-over better before I learned that it was Maf's voice.

Maf

well when I heard it the first time I did not like it . but today's v-log was way better on how clear the voice was . I take it they did some editing to clean up the voice to make it sound better.

 

over all good job Maf until today I had no clue who it was . sorry

[OKDad70 862]

Maf, congrats. Good job.

 

Regarding MM, sure, it works when it actually works, but that is a bogus argument. It basically is saying, "The Devs say it works, so shut up."

 

Argument from authority is invalid. We need real data, or they need to quit preening.

 

I'm still seeing over two-thirds of battles being slaughters by one side or the other. Teams are rarely balanced. Battle group on one side vs battle group on the other is good, but it doesn't at all address balance. One battle group might be friends who simply like to have the same side, and they don't have any other advantage. That is, they don't have voice communication in the battle, and they don't practice together to know how to complement one another. Another battle group might be clan members, or players who do work together to know how to coordinate and complement, and if they have voice communication in the battle, they have significant advantages.

 

I understand that is little can be done for that. Still, something needs to be tried. Perhaps joining battle groups can carry a set of flags that will increase the players effective rank in MM placing when that player is in a battle group with others he regularly joins with. There have to be ways to track effectiveness, and effective groups can be paired against other effective groups, and groups that seem to have little extra effectiveness can be paired with similar battle groups.

 

Some are complaining you are using GS with MM. I sure hope not. GS cannot be useful for comparison of effectiveness.

 

The effectiveness or efficiency rating seems somewhat useful, but too limited. There has to be a way to track and rank players overall effectiveness, but I know it can never be fully objective. Subjectivity matters, and I can't expect human judges be involved with day to day ranking.

 

A big problem is players who leave battles early. We need incentives to encourage players to stay in battles, and we need a disincentive, and I suggest a 9-minute delay for leaving a battle before being able to join a queue for a new battle. There I no way to force players to finish battles, but with some incentives and a 9-minute wait after leaving a battle early, players will be more willing to finish even a hopeless battle, because some crystals for 9-minutes playing is still more than none for 9-minutes of waiting.

[Total_SkiIl 1,983]

I really do not get why everyone's hating the voice-over.

 

It wasn't a pain to be honest.

 

 

Tho Alex's American accent is nice :3

 

 

---

 

Maf, get a British accent instead of trying to do American. :^)

Edited October 6, 2018 by Total_SkiIl

[fordmustang12345 3,910]

I really do not get why everyone's hating the voice-over.

 

It wasn't a pain to be honest.

 

 

Tho Alex's American accent is nice :3

 

 

---

 

Maf, get a British accent instead of trying to do American. :^)

but Americans have no accent (unless you count the sexy southern accent that some lucky people have)

[Total_SkiIl 1,983]

but Americans have no accent 

A Brit would say the same.

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

but Americans have no accent (unless you count the sexy southern accent that some lucky people have)

they have the worst accent ever; that's why I always pretend to not speak english whenever they try to speak to me

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

 

Maf, congrats. Good job.

 

Regarding MM, sure, it works when it actually works, but that is a bogus argument. It basically is saying, "The Devs say it works, so shut up."

 

Argument from authority is invalid. We need real data, or they need to quit preening.

 

I'm still seeing over two-thirds of battles being slaughters by one side or the other. Teams are rarely balanced. Battle group on one side vs battle group on the other is good, but it doesn't at all address balance. One battle group might be friends who simply like to have the same side, and they don't have any other advantage. That is, they don't have voice communication in the battle, and they don't practice together to know how to complement one another. Another battle group might be clan members, or players who do work together to know how to coordinate and complement, and if they have voice communication in the battle, they have significant advantages.

 

I understand that is little can be done for that. Still, something needs to be tried. Perhaps joining battle groups can carry a set of flags that will increase the players effective rank in MM placing when that player is in a battle group with others he regularly joins with. There have to be ways to track effectiveness, and effective groups can be paired against other effective groups, and groups that seem to have little extra effectiveness can be paired with similar battle groups.

 

Some are complaining you are using GS with MM. I sure hope not. GS cannot be useful for comparison of effectiveness.

 

The effectiveness or efficiency rating seems somewhat useful, but too limited. There has to be a way to track and rank players overall effectiveness, but I know it can never be fully objective. Subjectivity matters, and I can't expect human judges be involved with day to day ranking.

 

 

 

A big problem is players who leave battles early. We need incentives to encourage players to stay in battles, and we need a disincentive, and I suggest a 9-minute delay for leaving a battle before being able to join a queue for a new battle. There I no way to force players to finish battles, but with some incentives and a 9-minute wait after leaving a battle early, players will be more willing to finish even a hopeless battle, because some crystals for 9-minutes playing is still more than none for 9-minutes of waiting.

Was gonna hit "like" on your post until I read the above.

 

Punishing players who leave hopeless battles never works. Never. All it does is drive players away. How does reducing player base make MM more effective?

 

If I leave a battle because it is hopeless (for many reasons) then you remove me, and others like me from pool that will create battles.  Less players in the pool is good?  And believe me, there will be less players. I'd rather do something else for 9 minutes than play in a slaughter.

 

And would you punish players who get placed in a 4-0 battle with 3 min to go?  I leave those in a heartbeat, and nothing - no punishment you devise - will keep me in those battles.

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

21 978 players online on a saturday :lol: :lol:

 

With a penalty like this, it would drop at 15k.

 

The situation is catastrophic. Only 21K.

[OKDad70 862]

Was gonna hit "like" on your post until I read the above.

 

Punishing players who leave hopeless battles never works. Never. All it does is drive players away. How does reducing player base make MM more effective?

 

If I leave a battle because it is hopeless (for many reasons) then you remove me, and others like me from pool that will create battles.  Less players in the pool is good?  And believe me, there will be less players. I'd rather do something else for 9 minutes than play in a slaughter.

 

And would you punish players who get placed in a 4-0 battle with 3 min to go?  I leave those in a heartbeat, and nothing - no punishment you devise - will keep me in those battles.

Valid points, though I don't think many would quit playing Tanki over it.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Valid points, though I don't think many would quit playing Tanki over it.

Even if they don't quit the game, removing them from the pool for nine minutes pretty much does the same thing...

[OKDad70 862]

Was gonna hit "like" on your post until I read the above.

 

Punishing players who leave hopeless battles never works. Never. All it does is drive players away. How does reducing player base make MM more effective?

 

If I leave a battle because it is hopeless (for many reasons) then you remove me, and others like me from pool that will create battles.  Less players in the pool is good?  And believe me, there will be less players. I'd rather do something else for 9 minutes than play in a slaughter.

 

And would you punish players who get placed in a 4-0 battle with 3 min to go?  I leave those in a heartbeat, and nothing - no punishment you devise - will keep me in those battles.

Again, you raise valid points. What I know is that I have been in battles that appeared to be balanced in my team's favor according to ranks, but players leave, and new players are stuffed in, and quickly the advantage is lost, and then the slaughter of my team begins. 

 

Sometimes terrible imbalance seems set from the start, and players leave and make it worse. Most times, though, it seem the imbalance only starts after some players leave. Part of the problem is missions where a player has one box remaining to pick up. That player starts a new battle, rushes to the needed box, and exists the battle. It would seem that wouldn't matter much, but there was a hole created by that player, first because his only objective was the pickup, second, because there is a vacancy until another player gets in. Further, the new player is often of lower rank, since the MM system needs to look farther down the chain, given that making the battle already depleted the closest ranked players.

 

Tanki needs incentives to encourage players to play full battles. Some disincentive seems useful, but I'm sure taking anything from players will raise ire. Restricting players from rejoining battles for a short time seems fair to me and an adequate disincentive. Perhaps the inactivity could be 5 minutes. Perhaps it could be applied only if a player left before the 3-minute mark, or 4-minute mark in the battle, while there was still potential time for turning the battle around.

 

On the whole, though, my main point remains. Everyone complains about MM, not just the people who used to leverage rank advantage. MM doesn't generally result in evenly matched teams. Things like Overdrive exaggerate leads, making it easier for the stronger team to dominate even more.

 

The old system had its faults. MM isn't much worse, and it might be a little more fair, but very little. Regardless, it is not generally giving most players challenging battles. It usually gives the players on one team too-easy of a match, and the players on the other team nothing but frustration.

[OKDad70 862]

Even if they don't quit the game, removing them from the pool for nine minutes pretty much does the same thing...

I suppose one could look at it that way, but if the player who just existed chooses the same battle format (such as flags), the MM is likely to put the player in the same battle he just left. Entering the same battle makes it that much more likely the player will leave again, worsening the situation.

 

I hope to see incentives much more than I want a disincentive. My main reason for the suggestion was to offer a possible way to not take anything from the player's "property" in the game.

[wolverine848 13,097]

I suppose one could look at it that way, but if the player who just existed chooses the same battle format (such as flags), the MM is likely to put the player in the same battle he just left. Entering the same battle makes it that much more likely the player will leave again, worsening the situation.

 

I hope to see incentives much more than I want a disincentive. My main reason for the suggestion was to offer a possible way to not take anything from the player's "property" in the game.

"property" as in crystals?    Players would definitely quit the game.  That would be the beginning of the end of TO.

 

As I said - punishment is not the answer.

[R3L3NTL3SS 47]

One alteration you should introduce is removing the Red laser from shaft and return it to it's original form. It's supposed to be THE Sniper turret and in real life snipers do not give their position away by having a bright red laser. Before any of the haters whine about my comment , just remember that you have to pay 50000 crystals to remove the self inflicted splash damage from Twins, something that it never used to have. I would happily pay the same amount to remove the red laser feature even if the trade off was slightly less damage inflicted.

By the way Matchmaker still doesn't work despite the spin you put on it. I spend most battle fighting with and against legends most of whom seem to have a garage stocked with m4 turrets and unlimited supplies. Legends should only be in Legend battles.

[Ninja 10,468]

One alteration you should introduce is removing the Red laser from shaft and return it to it's original form. It's supposed to be THE Sniper turret and in real life snipers do not give their position away by having a bright red laser. Before any of the haters whine about my comment , just remember that you have to pay 50000 crystals to remove the self inflicted splash damage from Twins, something that it never used to have. I would happily pay the same amount to remove the red laser feature even if the trade off was slightly less damage inflicted.

By the way Matchmaker still doesn't work despite the spin you put on it. I spend most battle fighting with and against legends most of whom seem to have a garage stocked with m4 turrets and unlimited supplies. Legends should only be in Legend battles.

Personally I think this would be horribly annoying to play against and ruin basically all large maps, either way feel free to suggest here: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=333473 

[Guest]

Was happy that I got invite code for testing mobile version but just to realize my device is not compatible. I thought I could use any android device.

How to solve this issue? I used the same device with which i registered.

[wolverine848 13,097]

One alteration you should introduce is removing the Red laser from shaft and return it to it's original form. It's supposed to be THE Sniper turret and in real life snipers do not give their position away by having a bright red laser. Before any of the haters whine about my comment , just remember that you have to pay 50000 crystals to remove the self inflicted splash damage from Twins, something that it never used to have. I would happily pay the same amount to remove the red laser feature even if the trade off was slightly less damage inflicted.

By the way Matchmaker still doesn't work despite the spin you put on it. I spend most battle fighting with and against legends most of whom seem to have a garage stocked with m4 turrets and unlimited supplies. Legends should only be in Legend battles.

A cost of 50k (or  even 100k) means nothing - that's just buying more OP-ness.  Of course you happily pay to remove the laser. I think EVERY shaft player would.

 

Without a laser there would have to be more than "slightly less damage inflicted".  Not sure what your definition of "slight" is... mine would be a 25% reduction.  If you think this is too much go look at Vulcan alteration.

[OKDad70 862]

Was gonna hit "like" on your post until I read the above.

 

Punishing players who leave hopeless battles never works. Never. All it does is drive players away. How does reducing player base make MM more effective?

 

If I leave a battle because it is hopeless (for many reasons) then you remove me, and others like me from pool that will create battles.  Less players in the pool is good?  And believe me, there will be less players. I'd rather do something else for 9 minutes than play in a slaughter.

 

And would you punish players who get placed in a 4-0 battle with 3 min to go?  I leave those in a heartbeat, and nothing - no punishment you devise - will keep me in those battles.

Don't worry y'all. Maf finally got around to noticing my comment in the I&S that suggested the wait-time, which I wrote a day or two before this post. That suggestion is listed as declined. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by OKDad70

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

One alteration you should introduce is removing the Red laser from shaft and return it to it's original form. It's supposed to be THE Sniper turret and in real life snipers do not give their position away by having a bright red laser. Before any of the haters whine about my comment , just remember that you have to pay 50000 crystals to remove the self inflicted splash damage from Twins, something that it never used to have. I would happily pay the same amount to remove the red laser feature even if the trade off was slightly less damage inflicted.

How can you play this long with Shaft and still not know how to hide your laser?

[Hancho 3,902]

How can you play this long with Shaft and still not know how to hide your laser?

LOL