Jump to content
EN
Play

Forum

Ideas for Matchmaking System!


Hate
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/28/2023 at 10:44 AM, master_howitzer said:

great idea but the devs are only willing to put a limited amount of work and effort into this dying game and it has to be profitable.

Also it takes excessive amounts of time after they announce their plans.

When was the last time an HD skin was released? Does anyone realized hornet HD was released back in 2020? They take way too long and their end product wasn't worth the wait

This game is so tarnished. it desperately needs polish, like your idea.

 

if you knew how a game is made...it would give you many answers to your questions

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracking player's battle win rate and displaying it on profile page and scoreboards (Special modes and DM are excluded)

Why?

  1. Encourage players to work together as a team and complete team objectives (e.g. cap points, flags, protect JGR etc.) 
  2. Curb unwanted behaviors like trolling or leaving midgame -- quitting a battle automatically counts as a lost and hurt the player's win rate

 

I also agree with @Warpriest suggestion of "completely remove K/D and death count from the game",

This can help the game become a more team-oriented, real-time strategy MMOG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like it would do the opposite. Currently, winning and losing doesn't make much of a difference, and your previous losses don't matter at all. But with the W/L ratio being displayed, suddenly you're gonna have players blaming each other for "ruining my stats". Instead of working together, it will cause people to be more toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love if there was a quickmatch filter so we could filter maps we don't like or the number of players in a map. Personally I don't like the big maps that are more than 8 vs 8. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2023 at 12:19 PM, elcatalagamer said:

if you knew how a game is made...it would give you many answers to your questions

I don't have any questions. I don't know and don't care about game development, but I do know for a fact the mobile version has drug the game quality down a lot voer the past few years. You know, because all mobile games are trashy low quality cash grabs.

and like I said before the devs take way too long to get anything done. Remember how excessively long it took for overdrives to debut? and how many vlogs they apologized in.

and back in last November how does a game stay down and crashed for two weeks? Its like there are two maybe three people working on the game and the rest of the people we see in the vlog are just paid actors sitting next to computers in the vlogs.

The one dev working on the HD remaster skins only works for less than an hour a day I'm guessing. And the HD skins take even longer when there is a new skin for buyers to purchase like the steampunk, retro, or gt skins. A new set of buyer skins incoming: HD XT skins. This is frustrating to me because all of my favorite turrets still haven't been remastered yet and they're probably starting to slowly pump out HD XT skins. This is just my opinion, but they should be free if you have the old original xt skins, but that wouldn't be profitable for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as far as we're all aware, the current MM doesn't doesn't really work properly. I've narrowed down to why, and I think the system is stressed. It has to do the following:

- put the player on and

- find or create a map

- set the rank limits

- put the player on the map on a random team

- start the battle when both teams are full.

 

Now multiply that by about a thousand or so players. This then causes things like high rank and gs gaps, unbalanced teams, bugs and errors, being unable to load into the battle, being put in the same battle you left multiple times in a row, etc.

So I think the devs bit on more than they could chew when they made a system that was supposed to do practically everything for the player.

 

My proposal is that:

- the player chooses what map size they want to play on and the system will choose the map and an appropriate rank range for their rank.

- the player will not be randomly sent to the battle, rather they'll join when they want to. This also means the player can choose what battle they want to play in from what's available on the list. The system will choose which team they'll be on. 

- The objective phase of the battle will start when half of the players have joined.

 

With this, maybe it'll help with the issues I've mentioned about the current MM.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2023 at 4:24 AM, PirateSpider said:

high rank and gs gaps

 

On 6/6/2023 at 4:24 AM, PirateSpider said:

being put in the same battle you left multiple times in a row

This is not a bug, rather the fact that there are not enough players in that category at that time.

 

On 6/6/2023 at 4:24 AM, PirateSpider said:

bugs and errors, being unable to load into the battle

This is not the job of the MM system, so it's not causing this. The only thing that this system does is creating battles depending on several factors, and distributing the players into teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2023 at 4:24 AM, PirateSpider said:

My proposal is that:

- the player chooses what map size they want to play on and the system will choose the map and an appropriate rank range for their rank.

- the player will not be randomly sent to the battle, rather they'll join when they want to. This also means the player can choose what battle they want to play in from what's available on the list. The system will choose which team they'll be on. 

- The objective phase of the battle will start when half of the players have joined.

Players specifying what kind of battle they wanna join will make it even harder to find other people that have those same preferences. This can work for a game with a larger playerbase, but for a game with only a few thousand players with different ranks from different time zones like Tanki this may not be too practical. Years ago players could select any battle they want by scrolling through a battle list with infinite maps and various gamemodes. MM was introduced to scale down the range of available matches because it became more difficult to find players with the same preferences regarding maps. Introducing other options to choose from, aside from gamemodes, won't make it easier for players to find a map. 

Also, personally I do not really care much about map sizes, as long as they aren't abhorrently large like Berlin or Lost Temple. 

It is not that I dislike your idea - on the contrary - but I'm afraid it just won't work out.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 3:12 PM, TargetXAcquired said:

@mjmj5558 No matter which way you cut it, MM is useless.

Always has been since day 1.

Almost all modern games use MM. This is how you can make missons and rewards fair. This is the path, Tanki followed it and there's no problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, thanks for continuously coming up with different creative ideas and suggestions. Although some may not be practical, I like reading them regardless ?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 9:07 AM, mjmj5558 said:

 

This is not a bug, rather the fact that there are not enough players in that category at that time.

 

This is not the job of the MM system, so it's not causing this. The only thing that this system does is creating battles depending on several factors, and distributing the players into teams.

1. lower the number of tanks required to play.

2. It adds to the MM silliness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 9:24 AM, mjmj5558 said:

Almost all modern games use MM. This is how you can make missons and rewards fair. This is the path, Tanki followed it and there's no problem with that.

If you think the tanki MM system is fair, then THAT--in itself--is the problem.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 6:07 AM, mjmj5558 said:

This is not a bug, rather the fact that there are not enough players in that category at that time.

Not a bug. But still an issue.

On 6/8/2023 at 6:07 AM, mjmj5558 said:

This is not the job of the MM system, so it's not causing this. The only thing that this system does is creating battles depending on several factors, and distributing the players into teams.

And we multiply that by a factor of 100 or so battles, and well we can see why it doesn't work properly.

On 6/8/2023 at 6:24 AM, mjmj5558 said:

Almost all modern games use MM. This is how you can make missons and rewards fair. This is the path, Tanki followed it and there's no problem with that.

It probably could've worked back in 2014 when tanki had like 50k players. But nearly 10 years later, and it can barely reach 1000 players. And so here we are facing problems of high rank and gs gaps.

On 6/8/2023 at 6:22 AM, BloodPressure said:

Players specifying what kind of battle they wanna join will make it even harder to find other people that have those same preferences. This can work for a game with a larger playerbase, but for a game with only a few thousand players with different ranks from different time zones like Tanki this may not be too practical. Years ago players could select any battle they want by scrolling through a battle list with infinite maps and various gamemodes. MM was introduced to scale down the range of available matches because it became more difficult to find players with the same preferences regarding maps. Introducing other options to choose from, aside from gamemodes, won't make it easier for players to find a map. 

Well, we can just put a limit to how many battles can exist at a time. Besides, I'd rather have battles that are of better quality than just finding a battle to play in. A battle doesn't have to be completely full to be considered a battle. I've often find battles of 8v8 or 6v6 to be better than battles of 12v12 or 14v14 because there's alot less chaos going on.

Edited by PirateSpider
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 4:24 PM, mjmj5558 said:

Almost all modern games use MM. This is how you can make missons and rewards fair. This is the path, Tanki followed it and there's no problem with that.

PRO-battles have proven they're working well with Tanki. Also Tanki doesn't have like 1,000,000 active player at a moment to be hard to manage. Active players are very little and PRO

Also, missions exploitation isn't a real problem to be honest. Players who already active and finished a mission by some manipulation wont be that massive difference as they're already active and playing. Giving that most of the missions (if not all) are not probable for exploiting, and the time you spend manipulating is just a wasted time for you and who have helped you.  In real, I may leave Tanki for months without playing a single game, while playing massively for many other days. Definitely the missions' difficulty wont be a matter to me, as I wont play even a single game. You can NEVER compare me to an active player, whatever the way he was finishing the missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 3:52 PM, Jeers4U said:

If you think the tanki MM system is fair, then THAT--in itself--is the problem.

Where did i say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 3:49 PM, Jeers4U said:

lower the number of tanks required to play.

And then at 2am at low ranks there will be 1v1 battles. There's an other solution to that, and that is, the addition of bots to low ranks, which is what tanki is working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 7:53 PM, firety31 said:

Also, missions exploitation isn't a real problem to be honest. Players who already active and finished a mission by some manipulation wont be that massive difference as they're already active and playing. Giving that most of the missions (if not all) are not probable for exploiting, and the time you spend manipulating is just a wasted time for you and who have helped you.  In real, I may leave Tanki for months without playing a single game, while playing massively for many other days. Definitely the missions' difficulty wont be a matter to me, as I wont play even a single game. You can NEVER compare me to an active player, whatever the way he was finishing the missions.

I didn't meant exploitation. It's just simply the fact the missions, especially the special missions can't be balanced so that they are as easy to complete in a 1v1 island battle as in a 20v20 berlin battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 6:28 PM, mjmj5558 said:

I didn't meant exploitation. It's just simply the fact the missions, especially the special missions can't be balanced so that they are as easy to complete in a 1v1 island battle as in a 20v20 berlin battle. 

Well. Doesn't this means exploitation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 5:34 PM, firety31 said:

Well. Doesn't this means exploitation?

Nope. Exploitation is for example, where you make a PRO battle and join with your alts to do your missions. 1v1 island is a complete normal battle if there wouldn't be MM.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only think that can improve MM is having a large playerbase that plays in the battle on relatively same skill and rank level. As of now, there is not really much that can improve the state of a game that is long pass its zenith. BOTS may improve the game a little bit, but that will require a hella good programming to really make them at least on semi-competitive level (even though these days, the players I am meeting in the game are literally below the level of bots, so who knows)

They can improve the state by a little bit by some improvements, like removing Assault and Siege, the two most boring, unbalanced and useless modes to me. This game has too many modes for this playerbase. It would really be better to distribute the playerbase to as little battle modes as possible, especially since Assault and Siege can to extent be replaced by CTF and CP, respectively.

They can also motivate the players by improving missions by removing missions like being in the winning team, or TOP 3 which promote early termination from the side of people who want to finish these.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 11:23 AM, mjmj5558 said:

And then at 2am at low ranks there will be 1v1 battles. There's an other solution to that, and that is, the addition of bots to low ranks, which is what tanki is working on.

Then shut the game down at 2am if it's that bad.

 

Or change to smaller maps to facilitate a lesser numbers of players.

Or only have death-matches (no juggernaut, seige, assault, etc).

I'd rather no game than a game where I'm constantly battling tanks with anywhere from double to triple my gear score.

Because the algorithm/system that allows 2x and 3x GS to play against me at 2am continues at the popular times of the day.

 

Fairness in matchmaking should be a priority. Not an afterthought--just to populate an arena.

Edited by Jeers4U
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 11:22 AM, mjmj5558 said:

Where did i say that?

You implied it with this post:

"Almost all modern games use MM. This is how you can make missons and rewards fair. This is the path, Tanki followed it and there's no problem with that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 12:20 PM, krokorok said:

The only think that can improve MM is having a large playerbase that plays in the battle on relatively same skill and rank level.

And this is something that tanki doesn't--and will never--have again.

 

The problem is:

Their solution to a dwindling player base is to group all kinds of GS together to maintain the number of tanks in an arena.

This also has the effect of unfair matches--which causes players to leave.

Their solution is myopic and ultimately ineffective.

 

What new player is going to stay and play when they continually get one-shotted by an enemy with 2x-3x GS on other side of the arena...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 6:46 PM, mjmj5558 said:

Nope. Exploitation is for example, where you make a PRO battle and join with your alts to do your missions. 1v1 island is a complete normal battle if there wouldn't be MM.

Oh that's a HUGE difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...