category Ideas for Matchmaking System!

[Picassoo 134]

Also, making the battles 15 minutes long again would be great. 7 minutes is too short for epic pushes and teamwork.

[Picassoo 134]

Also, the stakes for one battle are too small. Lower mission rewards in exchange for higher battle fund. Combined with making the battle longer this will make the game more fun and winning will actually matter.

[LOL_101 0]

My suggestion is that people should not face all buyers (for example scanning that they have premium), so then the battles would be fairer. Then in matchmaking in recruit, etc, pros who make new accounts should not be paired with people who just started playing because it would be unfair to them, and make them think that the game is bad, etc.

[BRO0088 1,724]

MM balancing

 

Nowadays the biggest complains from players/buyers are 

1)Game is Laggy

2)MM is unbalanced

 

 

But  aI silly mortal might have found a solution to MM.

 

Since Tanki devs introduced the new "GS" system at first it seemed useless and a waste of an update.

 

What if that GS was put into use?

 

Every Match should have an "Average GS" system and both teams must have the sane "Avg GS". After adding the 1st 4 players the rest 4 players would be added/kicked from matches to balance the "AVG GS".

 

Now this idea has an flaw i.e. any player in M2 rank can equip M0 and go in low ranks and then change equip,

 

This can be avoided.....once u enter  a MM battle u can change euip a turret which is +-50 GS of the current turret/hull/drone/prot module u have,

 

Exp; I entered a match with Railgun GS of 2069 If I feel like changing my turret then I must equip any turrets within the range of 2019-3021 GS. Same goes for hulls drones and prot modules. 

[Maf 32,300]

Paraphrasing Hazel from the RU livestream:

 

Matchmaking balance works as intended and unfortunately it does mean that sometimes the rank range (and therefore gear difference) will be quite large. This often depends on the time of day – if there aren’t many players online the rank ranges have to be greater, otherwise battles will take ages to start. The system does try to balance the players by equipment to make sure that both teams have equal numbers of strong and weak players, but this is not always possible.

 

Also, it’s not a great idea to always have even battles. If every single battle is an even fight where both teams have to concentrate hard to win, then players will get tired faster, which ultimately results in them spending less time playing, which in turn means we get less revenue. Our aim is to increase the playtime, and studies have shown that having a mix of even battles, easy wins and big losses is better psychologically than having completely even battles all the time. However, you’ll have plenty of difficult even battles once Rating MM is released.

[Initiate 1,306]

 

The problem with the last suggestion is that I might join with an M3 combo and then feel that Dictator/Vulcan will do better than Shaft/Hunter, but I'm stuck choosing between a combo of my 4 M3 turrets, even if I want to use an M2 turret.

[u812ic 1,629]

What about Generals and above who have an M0 or M1 garage by choice. Where do they fit in? Are you proposing to demote them and let them play with newbys? 

[Guest]

However, you’ll have plenty of difficult even battles once Rating MM is released

Is this a lofty idea or is this "Rating MM" in active development?

Edited July 13, 2019 by Guest

[Maf 32,300]

Is this a lofty idea or is this "Rating MM" in active development?

It was talked about a lot in the livestream. I think they plan to add it eventually after all the HTML5 stuff is done. It's a fairly high priority task.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Paraphrasing Hazel from the RU livestream:

 

 

 

Matchmaking balance works as intended and unfortunately it does mean that sometimes the rank range (and therefore gear difference) will be quite large. This often depends on the time of day – if there aren’t many players online the rank ranges have to be greater, otherwise battles will take ages to start. The system does try to balance the players by equipment to make sure that both teams have equal numbers of strong and weak players, but this is not always possible.

 

 

 

Also, it’s not a great idea to always have even battles. If every single battle is an even fight where both teams have to concentrate hard to win, then players will get tired faster, which ultimately results in them spending less time playing, which in turn means we get less revenue. Our aim is to increase the playtime, and studies have shown that having a mix of even battles, easy wins and big losses is better psychologically than having completely even battles all the time. However, you’ll have plenty of difficult even battles once Rating MM is released.

I can't believe you actually typed that out and actually posted it...

 

You increase the playtime by making it fun for players to play.  Blow-outs are not fun... many times for either side...

[Maf 32,300]

I can't believe you actually typed that out and actually posted it...

 

You increase the playtime by making it fun for players to play.  Blow-outs are not fun... many times for either side...

I'm literally saying what Hazel said in the livestream. That answer surprised me too. But according to him, numerous studies have actually proven that a wide range of battle results (blow-outs, easy wins and even battles) is better for player retention than 100% even battles all the time. Probably has something to do with mental stimulation and our subconscious preference of variety, as well as potential increased fatigue from having to concentrate all the time when the teams are evenly matched.

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

I can't believe you actually typed that out and actually posted it...

 

You increase the playtime by making it fun for players to play.  Blow-outs are not fun... many times for either side...

I'm literally saying what Hazel said in the livestream. That answer surprised me too. But according to him, numerous studies have actually proven that a wide range of battle results (blow-outs, easy wins and even battles) is better for player retention than 100% even battles all the time. Probably has something to do with mental stimulation and our subconscious preference of variety, as well as potential increased fatigue from having to concentrate all the time when the teams are evenly matched.

I also think it's like that because you may need to feel satisfied with a win after losing constantly, which may make you play more battles. That may be under the mental stimulation you said. Gotta end on a high note. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

I also think it's like that because you may need to feel satisfied with a win after losing constantly, which may make you play more battles. That may be under the mental stimulation you said. Gotta end on a high note. 

Nah.  A bunch of bad games in a row - I pack it in for the night. 

 

But I'm not surprised at their methodology...  TO does not want balance.  They posit that "losers" will spend $$ to stop losing.

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

Nah.  A bunch of bad games in a row - I pack it in for the night. 

I pack it in for the night when I complete all of my missions or the ones that are needed to be completed. If I'm playing casually as in not having missions to do, I too would stop after losing so many battles, as long as I receive at least 2 stars. 

 

But I'm not surprised at their methodology...  TO does not want balance.  They posit that "losers" will spend $$ to stop losing.

I wonder if that extends to turret balance. 

[Maf 32,300]

Nah.  A bunch of bad games in a row - I pack it in for the night. 

Well, looks like this upcoming Rating MM will be just the thing for you :)

[wolverine848 13,097]

Well, looks like this upcoming Rating MM will be just the thing for you :)

?

[u812ic 1,629]

Will this MM rating stop being put into battles with a 8-10 rank spread?

[Maf 32,300]

?

I mentioned it in my first post here. Devs talked a lot about adding a "Rating MM" system where the battles will be more even and more competitive. Assuming enough people play them, you should be put into games with evenly matched opponents. 

 

Will this MM rating stop being put into battles with a 8-10 rank spread?

Probably. Can't make any promises  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Guest]

 Blow-outs are not fun... many times for either side...

Only for those who are acutally playing the mode, not for braindead RTL accounts who spend huge amounts of money daily on Tanki but can't be bothered to upgrade their own computer or those pathetic noobs playing TDM in in every other team mode. And by shortening battle times means that you have less time to complete missions, requiring you to spend another five minutes frantically trying to complete your 500 XP mission.

 

MM is rigged for profit, and the Hazel admitted it. He's trying to make Tanki more of an unfun grind rather than an engaging and fun experience. Did you have more fun in the old 15 minute battles where it would end at 1-1 or 2-3? I did for sure! It was a constant challenge, making sure that the attackers never got inside of the base to swipe the flag. Now? One team already capped four flags within three minutes, and now you gotta deal with a bunch of m1/low tier m2 noobs who just play TDM and don't give a crap because as long as they get first, they'll get their stars. When you think about it, it's challenges that really make the blowout issue horrible, because if challenges didn't exist at least these noobs would actually make an effort to fight. But if Challenges were removed, a big source of profit would be gone and Tanki would be dead within two years.

 

Notice I never called Hazel a liar... because if you hear closely, he never really said that MM would make balanced battles. He said that it would balance your wins and losses, not battles themselves. So that year and a half WAS NOT SPENT on useful development, it was used to create a sneaky way of creating profit. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong here, but at this point I can't really trust any of Alternava's promises about Tanki anymore.

 

Well played Seymon, well played. :(

Edited August 16, 2019 by Guest

[Thiedes 1,106]

 

 

MM balancing

 

Nowadays the biggest complains from players/buyers are 

1)Game is Laggy

2)MM is unbalanced

 

 

But  aI silly mortal might have found a solution to MM.

 

Since Tanki devs introduced the new "GS" system at first it seemed useless and a waste of an update.

 

What if that GS was put into use?

 

Every Match should have an "Average GS" system and both teams must have the sane "Avg GS". After adding the 1st 4 players the rest 4 players would be added/kicked from matches to balance the "AVG GS".

 

Now this idea has an flaw i.e. any player in M2 rank can equip M0 and go in low ranks and then change equip,

 

This can be avoided.....once u enter  a MM battle u can change euip a turret which is +-50 GS of the current turret/hull/drone/prot module u have,

 

Exp; I entered a match with Railgun GS of 2069 If I feel like changing my turret then I must equip any turrets within the range of 2019-3021 GS. Same goes for hulls drones and prot modules. 

 

 

Topic Merged

[eSportsPlayers 0]

Hi, the idea i have is about main menu of MM. 

 

1---The esthetic of MM overlay is boring.We guide what mode to choose only after an icon.The idea i suggest is to place a video or at least a photo instead of the icon that shows the mod that you wanna play(As it was in Test server before MM release).This think would bring a fresh look of MM menu.

2---Removing the chat form MM menu: I don't consider that Chat is so important in MM menu,if you wanna speak with someone, you can simple go Pro battle menu.

3---Voting maps:That update is the most important because,players have the right to choose to vote(support)the map they want to play. 
It would look like a table(example):           1 Stadium X%(players that voted)

                                     2 Forrest   X%(players that voted)

                                                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so on.

And the percentage means 1 the percentage of the players that voted 

                                            2 the percentage that the map that will drop next is that 

 

        And for the first 3 or 4 maps form table,as example,if i like and choose 2nd map, for me would be a higher chance to drop in+ only first(for example) 6 maps that was voted to have chance to be played.

                                     

                                     Or some think similar like that.

              

Edited July 25, 2019 by eSportsPlayers

[blk.dog 6]

  I agree with you , too many mis-matched games.   the richer player tanks are put against the weak tanks all the time. like you said, just fodder for the richer player to get more kills in the game.  this will not stop. 

[ftp 1,696]

Option to choose (Small/Medium/Large) maps.

Helps us all.

[servusDei2019 1]

Punishing those who enter a battle and then quit, leaving a side weak, as well as punishing those who join a battle but don't fight (they just sit there, and move every now and then).

 

Many times I've joined a battle and because of a player who was doing nothing, or a lot of people (even possibly a group) that joined and then quit, my team lost and I had a horrible time.

[giotaektelestria 0]

that's nice

I don't know if this is the right place to say this.. I just wanted to say that it would be nice if you added juggernaut mode on mobile!