New Missions, Drones Update

[wolverine848 13,097]

Now that you mention it. The sudden proliferation of mines through both the two drones and the Magnum alterations (others!) are probably the result of weak sales of the Spider Module.

 

Designers tend to buff underselling equipment and create demand for underselling modules.

coughfiremodulecough

[OKDad70 862]

My latest set of daily missions included 2X finish in one format, modest crystals in second format, and 1500 points in Assault (third format). The first two missions were three battles. No worries, but 1500 points in Assault will take at least 8 battles, probably 10, especially if more than half are Blue. Points come hard on Blue team in Assualt mode, especially if the battle is lopsided (which 80% are).

 

To be specific, I've completed five battles, over one hour play time, with the third mission still an hour or more away. So, forget it for today, and forget the 20-Weekly this week. (Not that I ever count on it in seven days.)

Edited November 27, 2018 by OKDad70

[OKDad70 862]

Mods, Devs, serious question:

 

For most things, ties count. For missions requiring top three on winning team, No? Do ties not count for Top-3?

 

I have 15X Top-3-on-winning-team. I completed a Rugby that ended tied. I was a solid third on our team, ahead of third on the other team. It didn't give me another tally.

 

And here I thought five battles was a reasonable average for Top-3 requirements. I guess the intent of a 15X Top-3 weekly-mission is to require three or even four weeks.

 

More frustrations.

Edited November 27, 2018 by OKDad70

[Viking4s 10,791]

Mods, Devs, serious question:

For most things, ties count. For missions requiring top three on winning team, No? Do ties not count for Top-3?

I have 15X Top-3-on-winning-team. I completed a Rugby that ended tied. I was a solid third on our team, ahead of third on the other team. It didn't give me another tally.

And here I thought five battles was a reasonable average for Top-3 requirements. I guess the intent of a 15X Top-3 weekly-mission is to require three or even four weeks.

More frustrations.

Yes the tie stuff is not helping because it kind of happens often in certain mode (Rugby and CTF). 

15xT3 is the most challenging mission for sure, missions, the easiest being to get 50 ODs. 1000 score is medium.

 

I hope they could add more option. Maybe add "finish x25 battles in [battle mode]". Any other idea from you?

[kilimgo 50]

I will not make a mission from today

[wolverine848 13,097]

Yes the tie stuff is not helping because it kind of happens often in certain mode (Rugby and CTF). 

15xT3 is the most challenging mission for sure, missions, the easiest being to get 50 ODs. 1000 score is medium.

 

I hope they could add more option. Maybe add "finish x25 battles in [battle mode]". Any other idea from you?

someone already mentioned... include "finish top-2 on losing team" as part of the condition - just like earning stars.

 

That way players might be more inclined to stay on a team that is losing - they at least have something to accomplish.

 

Else players with finish top-3 winning will just bail on every battle where their team starts losing.

[austen_pierce 1,948]

I’ll double down on the ask that tie battles count towards Finish In The Top 3 missions.

 

Personal note - I got a Score 1500 in DM. Took at least six battles, maybe seven, and I have very good equipment.

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

Weekly Challenges and Super Missions

 

My idea about weekly missions is to rename it as Weekly Challenges, do some tweaks to it, and daily missions need to be easier.

These Challenges would be all about daily missions:

10 daily missions would give us 2 containers
15 daily missions would give us 1 extra container
20 daily missions would give us another extra (1) container.
And devs could decide on giving Weekly Containers or the old Weekly Rewards.

The look would be different, instead of looking like missions maybe there should be a progress bar and a week counter.

To get the rewards you'd have to do the missions during a week. That means all progress would reset every week if not completed.

Now you're thinking why it only gives 4 containers for 20 hard missions compared to today's total of 5?

That's because I would like to see Super Missions:

3 Super Missions like "Finish Top 3 in 10 Battles", "Destroy 250 Tanks", "Earn 10000 Exp", and so on.

Each of the Super Missions would give us 1 container. You can finish these Super Missions in a day, a week, a month or whatever time it takes you to complete them, because these don't reset. After completing a Super Mission in less than a week you get a new one at the start of the next week, but if let's say you complete one in 10 days, you get a new Super Mission the next day.

In total, Hardcore players would be able to get 7 containers a week. Lightcore players and casuals ought to do 10 missions to get 2 containers and eventually get containers from eventually completing Super Missions.

Edited November 27, 2018 by r_Issimo2

[wolverine848 13,097]

Weekly Challenges and Super Missions

 

My idea about weekly missions is to rename it as Weekly Challenges, do some tweaks to it, and daily missions need to be easier.

 

 

 

These Challenges would be all about daily missions:

 

10 daily missions would give us 2 containers

15 daily missions would give us 1 extra container

20 daily missions would give us another extra (1) container.

And devs could decide on giving Weekly Containers or the old Weekly Rewards.

 

The look would be different, instead of looking like missions maybe there should be a progress bar and a week counter.

 

To get the rewards you'd have to do the missions during a week. That means all progress would reset every week if not completed.

 

Now you're thinking why it only gives 4 containers for 20 hard missions compared to today's total of 5?

 

That's because I would like to see Super Missions:

 

3 Super Missions like "Finish Top 3 in 10 Battles", "Destroy 250 Tanks", "Earn 10000 Exp", and so on.

 

Each of the Super Missions would give us 1 container. You can finish these Super Missions in a day, a week, a month or whatever time it takes you to complete them, because these don't reset. After completing a Super Mission in less than a week you get a new one at the start of the next week, but if let's say you complete one in 10 days, you get a new Super Mission the next day.

 

 

 

In total, Hardcore players would be able to get 7 containers a week. Lightcore players and casuals ought to do 10 missions to get 2 containers and eventually get containers from eventually completing Super Missions.

It all looks so familiar... kinda like deja-vu all over again...

 

Joking aside - summary ... hardcore would seem to earn more than 2x containers as casual players.  Ratio is currently not as bad.

 

I can't support any revisions that widens the income gap.

 

Also - once again - how are the blue "weekly" containers accounted for?  The ones with guaranteed crystals / supplies...

[OKDad70 862]

someone already mentioned... include "finish top-2 on losing team" as part of the condition - just like earning stars.

 

That way players might be more inclined to stay on a team that is losing - they at least have something to accomplish.

 

Else players with finish top-3 winning will just bail on every battle where their team starts losing.

I'm bragging, but with OKDad70 and Ricosck, I'm good. I get top 3 often. Sadly, it is often on the losing team. Frankly, it is easier to get first on the losing team in most battles than top three on the winning team. The more lopsided the battle, the truer. As soon as the battle starts looking hopeless, players on the losing team start to leave. On the winning team, the lead players, especially those fortunate enough to be forward and near the spawn zones, start pulling away with the lead. They get an extra overdrive, and they simply have first dibs on the targets. Those in the back and behind in score, especially if they have weaker equipment or their skills are above average for their current configuration or the map, well, tough. 

 

So, I think it would be good to let first place on the losing team count, but I emphasize first on the losing team is usually easier than third on the winning team.

 

As to finishing battles, I like that, but it takes so long. I've requested incentives for completing battles many times. Mission rewards for doing so is a good incentive. It is hard to see that it is working. Perhaps the devs have better stats. 

 

I really don't know what to suggest for missions. Whatever the combination, three daily missions should not require an hour of player with average or above skills. (The weaker players may benefit from needing more time as they get more practice and get better.)

 

Weekly missions that require more than seven hours playtime seem excessive. 20 daily missions is reasonable, but when a typical daily set requires two hours, that is excessive, even extreme. It will lead to burn out for many players. It is also unreasonable to ask for 15X-top3. That is a two to three week goal for most players.

 

Perhaps a tiered system of daily and weekly missions?

 

With missions, as with most every aspect of the game now, luck matters most. My skills, my ability to plasma on target, doesn't matter nearly as much as luck. My ability to pick protections quickly doesn't usually matter because opponents change turrets.

 

My sense of how to advance the team in the different modes doesn't matter if I'm on the weaker team. Granted, my skill level seems to be significant in 20% of matches, when the teams somehow balanced, and the battle isn't decided until the last seconds. Seeing a teammate pull a particularly skillful maneuver (or being that teammate) and pulling out the victory just before time expires is still exhilarating, but so rare.

 

Luck matters on the containers. Most containers hold speed or mines. Good, but with thousands of each, it gets disappointing. I can only wear so many paints. I'll never be seen in most of the paints in my garage. Even the coolest paints can be disappointing when I already have four high-level paints, three of which I like a lot.

 

The blue-weekly-containers are fine, but it is currently unreasonable to play enough to win all three each week. Average looks to be less than two per week. That is a reduction in supplies. "Opening" the weekly reward is a good idea, but it is of rather limited utility.

 

The overall point is stated more than once in prior comments, the effort required went up about three-fold, while the rewards went down more than a quarter, and is much less for those who play less than four hours per week.

 

The incentives in missions are mixed. So far, the balance is heavily toward disincentive. 

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

It all looks so familiar... kinda like deja-vu all over again...

 

Joking aside - summary ... hardcore would seem to earn more than 2x containers as casual players.  Ratio is currently not as bad.

 

I can't support any revisions that widens the income gap.

 

Also - once again - how are the blue "weekly" containers accounted for?  The ones with guaranteed crystals / supplies...

The problem with the current system is that it's confusing to players and the daily missions are too hard. My idea allows for missions to be easier in exchange of a weekly reset.

 

If you can only do 10 (easier) missions a week you get 2 containers while doing some progress with the Super Missions, and you could be completing one Super Mission a week, meaning another container. I know it's not like 7 missions a week to get 4 containers, but remember that was like an exploit of the system.

 

Hardcores could get 6 or 7 containers, but they would be investing a lot more time, effort and exp.

 

I think most would prefer and be encouraged to do 10.

 

I also know that Tanki is now more expensive, so maybe the system could give more containers, like 3 for 10 missions; +1 for 15; and +1 for 20. And Weekly containers or Weekly bonus.

Edited November 28, 2018 by r_Issimo2

[Hoashim 7]

when will the mission update be removed from the game?

[Viking4s 10,791]

when will the mission update be removed from the game?

Never, it is a basic feature of every game. They provides additional resources to tankers that are willing to complete them.

However they can be changed / improved, so let know the game developer what you dislike about the current variant and what would improve them according to you.

[austen_pierce 1,948]

IMO the “Score 1500 in Deathmatch/Team Deathmatch” daily mission needs to be reduced in difficulty. Getting that score in other modes is much easier via flag captures, rugby goals, point captures, etc. But when score is only achievable by kills, 1500 is just too high for a daily.

 

For me, that’s a ‘Change on Arrival’

[CooperO 7,956]

Never, it is a basic feature of every game. They provides additional resources to tankers that are willing to complete them.

However they can be changed / improved, so let know the game developer what you dislike about the current variant and what would improve them according to you.

when will the mission update be removed from the game?

In addition to what @Viking4s said, the developers are aware of the concerns players are having about the mission system. They're looking into different options to improve the way the system currently works. They don't have an approximate date yet though for when to expect any changes.

[Bydo 20,119]

trying to kill 500 for a weekly mission is next to nearly impossible now. even getting 25 kills in a daily battle are hard . seeing now there is nothing but heavy drone druggers in battles. before they were implemented into the game system it was normal to get near 20 kills per battles..

 

this drug mission needs to be replaced with the old system. that system worked way better and had more chances of finishing missions. now forget it. and they wonder why players are leaving . the games is not like it use to be and even with all these improvements forget it..

 

CooperO

They don't have an approximate date yet though for when to expect any changes.

 

in other words its put on the back burner seeing this is not important ..

[wolverine848 13,097]

The problem with the current system is that it's confusing to players and the daily missions are too hard. My idea allows for missions to be easier in exchange of a weekly reset.

 

If you can only do 10 (easier) missions a week you get 2 containers while doing some progress with the Super Missions, and you could be completing one Super Mission a week, meaning another container. I know it's not like 7 missions a week to get 4 containers, but remember that was like an exploit of the system.

 

Hardcores could get 6 or 7 containers, but they would be investing a lot more time, effort and exp.

 

I think most would prefer and be encouraged to do 10.

 

I also know that Tanki is now more expensive, so maybe the system could give more containers, like 3 for 10 missions; +1 for 15; and +1 for 20. And Weekly containers or Weekly bonus.

All they need to do is tweak the daily mission difficulty down a bit, and either remove the top-3 winner mission, or allow top-2 on loser to qualify.

 

Playing like it's Star-week is not sustainable.  I have no interest in playing 1.5 hrs per day per account.  There a ppl who will do that - so allowing them up to 10? containers will give them way too much advantage over casuals.

 

Still no mention of the blue containers that give the crystals and supplies?

[austen_pierce 1,948]

Well, it’s happened.

 

Real world commitments kept me from playing yesterday, so my weekly 20 mission is shot.

 

No reason for me to play this game for the next 7 days because of the way weekly missions reset.

 

See you in a week, everyone.

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

trying to kill 500 for a weekly mission is next to nearly impossible now. even getting 25 kills in a daily battle are hard . seeing now there is nothing but heavy drone druggers in battles. before they were implemented into the game system it was normal to get near 20 kills per battles..

 

this drug mission needs to be replaced with the old system. that system worked way better and had more chances of finishing missions. now forget it. and they wonder why players are leaving . the games is not like it use to be and even with all these improvements forget it..

CooperO

They don't have an approximate date yet though for when to expect any changes.

 

in other words its put on the back burner seeing this is not important ..

The big problem is Drones and it will only get worse and worse. They need to remove Drones.

 

But you don't need to do any Weekly Mission within a week.

• You can aim to do 10 missions a week to complete 10/10 and progress the other to 10/20, then wait for a reset to do another 10. And the floater can be done as you can progress it, in 2 weeks or more, and even wait for a reset when completed.
• You can also play only the time you want while doing progress to the Daily Missions, if you can do 1 or 2 that day, great, if not, it's okay. Just remember that when you reach 10/10 you wait for a reset.

I'm playing like the latter or worse, my aim is 1 mission a day, but if I get missions I don't like I don't play that day, if I do 2 or 3 in a battle great. Then when I complete 10 I wait for a reset. 10 missions are better than 20, why?

• 10 missions for 10/10 and 10/20 means 2 containers
• then another 10 missions for another 10/10 and the 20/20 means 5 containers

This way you get 7 containers for 20 missions as opposed to 10 containers for 40 missions. Plus the containers from "floaters" whenever you complete them.

Edited November 29, 2018 by r_Issimo2

[Bydo 20,119]

The big problem is Drones and it will only get worse and worse. They need to remove Drones.

 

But you don't need to do any Weekly Mission within a week.

• You can aim to do 10 missions a week to complete 10/10 and progress the other to 10/20, then wait for a reset to do another 10. And the floater can be done as you can progress it, in 2 weeks or more, and even wait for a reset when completed.
• You can also play only the time you want while doing progress to the Daily Missions, if you can do 1 or 2 that day, great, if not, it's okay. Just remember that when you reach 10/10 you wait for a reset.

I'm playing like the latter or worse, my aim is 1 mission a day, but if I get missions I don't like I don't play that day, if I do 2 or 3 in a battle great. Then when I complete 10 I wait for a reset. 10 missions are better than 20, why?

• 10 missions for 10/10 and 10/20 means 2 containers
• then another 10 missions for another 10/10 and the 20/20 means 5 containers

This way you get 7 containers for 20 missions as opposed to 10 containers for 40 missions. Plus the containers from "floaters" whenever you complete them.

 

I fully understand and have been doing it this way. but when you have a mission like take the top 3 places on a winning team /15 or 500 kills per week. those need to be gone.. the daily's are fine its the weekly ones were having a huge issues with and also not being allowed to change them is bad.. seeing in the past we got to do week after week and I was at the 10 week mark for so long that only getting one or maybe depending weekly missions getting 3 containers is poor .

[wolverine848 13,097]

I fully understand and have been doing it this way. but when you have a mission like take the top 3 places on a winning team /15 or 500 kills per week. those need to be gone.. the daily's are fine its the weekly ones were having a huge issues with and also not being allowed to change them is bad.. seeing in the past we got to do week after week and I was at the 10 week mark for so long that only getting one or maybe depending weekly missions getting 3 containers is poor .

Daily's can get bad too.

 

Imagine getting 3 daily missions simultaneously - complete 7 battles - each for a different battle mode.

Switch one and it asks you to finish top-3 winning team 2 times.

Good luck finishing that in one day. :blink:

[Katanga_Fried_Chiken 0]

I am working on rank up to WO1 (I now am a Sgt-Major) so that I can buy Pro pass so that I can forget about all the missions because they suck.

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

Daily's can get bad too.

 

Imagine getting 3 daily missions simultaneously - complete 7 battles - each for a different battle mode.

Switch one and it asks you to finish top-3 winning team 2 times.

Good luck finishing that in one day. :blink:

And missions for new accounts are very easy, maybe Tanki wants players to open new accounts and abandon their high rank accounts.

 

I think all missions should have the same difficulty regardless of the rank. Complete 3 battles mission would be good for all ranks.

[OKDad70 862]

It is amazing how hard it is to get 1-3 on the winning team. I was leading, solidly in first place, but I got unlucky on a couple of the flag runs. The Blue team (Assault) happened to all spawn near the point. Ricosck, even as a full M4 against mid-M3s, can't win over four defenders. The match was a total massacre by my Red team, but I missed third with 390, 5 points behind in fourth. First had an even 500. Red had no problem at all, but I failed 3rd mostly for being unlucky on two flag runs.

 

I'm complaining more about the significance of luck than the 15X-top3 mission. 15X-top3 is a bad mission. It requires much too much time. It wouldn't be nearly so frustrating if I had only to depend on my own skill, but skill matters too little. Equipment matters too much. Being able to change equipment only once in a match matters too much. Luck of the draw on the team matters too much. Whether match-maker drops 8 and 8 together within a couple of seconds matters too much. (And MM never gets everyone in within the first ten seconds.)

 

Too much depends on luck. It is like rolling dice. Sure, you win some, but you lose some, and there isn't really anything the player can do about it.

 

Tanki has lost sight of the players. They focus only on the next new thing, the next thing that will bring in some cash as players want it or realize they need it to keep competing. Of course, in the long run, players keep realizing too much depends on luck. They are either okay with that, as attested by very high level legends, or they quit.

 

I've seen Legends as high as 83, and just yesterday I saw a Legend 68. So, obviously some are sticking it out. Embrace the suck, as they say.

[OKDad70 862]

BLUF: It is much easier to get first on the losing team than third on the winning team.

 

I mostly play my Marshal account now, Ricosck.

 

M4 Rico-Dic, with 3 good protections and Trooper drone equipped, GS 9007 as configured. Highest GS in the match. (I checked.)

 

Mission for TDM. Battle started out lopsided with multiple Red moving immediately, and only 4 Blue showing on my side, with only me moving. I was 0-4 before our team got going. By the time I was 5-5, our team was down about 20 to 12. It didn't get better. Blue lost at about 7:30, score of 100 to 64.

 

Ricosck had 14 of those kills and lead blue team. Second place had 12, and the five other players listed on the end-panel had 35 kills. So, only three kills unaccounted for. It would seem our players held strong and finished. I assume we only lost the one player. I suspect we had only seven players for much of the time. Hard to tell, even harder to prove while trying to play.

 

Obviously, MM doesn't work. The match was totally lopsided from the first seconds.

 

There were 8 Legends on Red (ranged from level 2 to level 36). The top four each equipped 50% protection against Ricochet. It obviously mattered to them. I led Blue as Marshal, we had four Legends, another Marshal, and a Generalissimo.

 

I looked up our second place finisher, a Legend 5 BP, and our third place was a Viking-Firebird Legend 4, who managed a rather astonishing 0.4 K/D for a third-place finisher (9 kills to 21 deaths). I trust he wasn't an intentional mult. I suspect he didn't have Vulcan protection. (Red had two, and an Isida each.) Our 6th & 7th finishers had 0.4 K/D also. We were woefully outgunned.

 

In looking at details of this particular battle and the profiles of the players, I can see no pattern. I see nothing that would provide a suggestion as to how to actually balance MM battles. Since Ricosck, as a Marshal, had the highest gear score, I again assert that GS is meaningless. It tells nothing useful in typical MM battles.

 

First place on Red was a Legend 36 with Vulcan-Dic, GS = 7955. He had double my kills and less than half my deaths. 9007 - 7955 = 1052. From this single example it would seem that having 1052 lower gear score makes you twice as good. Ricosck had 42% Vulcan protection equipped, BTW.

 

Second bottom line: Regarding match making balance potential, it seems hopeless. MM doesn't work. It cannot be fixed. It must be abandoned.