Declined Can we have match-making battles seen in battle list?

[DeathIsImminent 153]

Certain maps simply aren't built for certain types of tank combos. And since I only have one tank combo, it is really frustrating having to click into matchmaking, see if the map works for me, then try again if it doesn't work for my weapon.

 

Particularly talking about Twins. Large maps meant for mid and long range weapons simply don't work for close range anywhere near as effectively. It would be great if I could see the current list of matchmaking battles and try to join specific ones.

 

You have PRO battles, but that's an entire different category, as you can customise the game mode. Matchmaking makes things faster, but at the same time it's a detrement to playing where you think you'll be best at. The matchmaking system knows jack-all, it'll put you with twins and mammoth in a highways map and there's nothing you can do other than get out and try again, or use an inferior combo right after you get killed.

 

Rarely anybody uses short-range weapons because of this, it seems. Close range is not the case, however, as people use firebird with wasp or hornet to cover large distances and maul other players.

[GorgoBlesk 831]

Viking and Hunter are fast enough to get your Twins to the battle. You will get kill by all the campers including me (M2 Titan Smoky) but Fire/Freeze users have just the same problem. They also get killed by campers.

 

If you want to kill the campers, become a camper. You can camp with 7 of 13 turrets - Rail, Shaft, Magnum, Vulcan, Striker, Thunder and Smoky.

[Pyre 3,485]

Making a battle list would defeat the purpose of MMS.

[Guest]

Twins is OP and can be used at any range. 

[DeathIsImminent 153]

Viking and Hunter are fast enough to get your Twins to the battle. You will get kill by all the campers including me (M2 Titan Smoky) but Fire/Freeze users have just the same problem. They also get killed by campers.

 

If you want to kill the campers, become a camper. You can camp with 7 of 13 turrets - Rail, Shaft, Magnum, Vulcan, Striker, Thunder and Smoky.

That is complete crap when it comes to battles like Highland. Sure, I can go down to the ground, but by mid-battle, enemies will figure out there's that twin guy going down and start expecting me there and mauling me while I try to get to them.

 

In my experience large open-field maps do not work for this weapon, but small, closed-space maps do so much more. The only exception is when enemies come to you, in cases of CTF or Assault mode when you're in defence.

 

 

Twins is OP and can be used at any range. 

 

 

Making a battle list would defeat the purpose of MMS.

No it wouldn't, the match-making would still be there, just that if it doesn't work out well for you, you can select one of the battles in the list yourself to play in.

[Pyre 3,485]

 

 

No it wouldn't, the match-making would still be there, just that if it doesn't work out well for you, you can select one of the battles in the list yourself to play in.

A lot of people would just use the list, making MMS ineffective as there will be less players queuing.

[Maf 32,308]

Declined

 

As other said above, this will not happen due to it completely defeating the purpose of Matchmaking battles.

[DeathIsImminent 153]

A lot of people would just use the list, making MMS ineffective as there will be less players queuing.

 

Declined

 

As other said above, this will not happen due to it completely defeating the purpose of Matchmaking battles.

 

No it, wouldn't? If you want to quickly get into a battle, you use match-making, if it doesn't work out, use the battle list to select one of the battles created through match-making. That is what I would do and have done for other games. So tell me how exactly it would make match-making useless again?

 

Because again, if I don't like a map, I simply exit anyway and try again, as of now. Anyone can exit and try again. That in and of itself makes match-making just as redundant as having a battle list to go along side it for these types of battles; that is to say that it doesn't make it redundant.

 

All that is being done is just time being wasted, if I have to look through 10 battles until I find one with a map, rank range and may be even mode I want (clicking to select specific mode as of now takes much longer than it should, and I waited for a minute or so to get into a CP battle, nothing happened, then clicked Quick Battle, and got instantly placed in a CP battle).

[Pyre 3,485]

No it, wouldn't? If you want to quickly get into a battle, you use match-making, if it doesn't work out, use the battle list to select one of the battles created through match-making. That is what I would do and have done for other games. So tell me how exactly it would make match-making useless again?

 

They people who dont like MMS would never use it. If there are less players queuing, battles will take longer to be filled.

[Maf 32,308]

So tell me how exactly it would make match-making useless again?

Matchmaking has four main purposes:

1. Get people into battles quickly and efficiently
2. Simplify the process of joining battles
3. Balance the teams to have players of similar power
4. Eliminate sabotage by removing its benefits

So, with your idea points 1 and 2 will still work, but it would break 3 and 4. If people can join whichever team they like, you can get a group of 8 OP buyers joining one team and ruthlessly destroying less skilled or less powerful players in the enemy team. Yes, the current game balance isn't perfect either, but it's better than giving players complete freedom over which team to join and who to play against.

 

It would also bring back "mults" again, just like in PRO battles. If people can choose the teams and see who's playing, you can have one person joining the red team and placing two of their alternate accounts into the enemy team, thus making them 2 players weaker (which is 25% - quite a lot) and most likely getting an easy victory. With MM battles being hidden, this became impossible.

 

Because again, if I don't like a map, I simply exit anyway and try again, as of now. Anyone can exit and try again. That in and of itself makes match-making just as redundant as having a battle list to go along side it for these types of battles; that is to say that it doesn't make it redundant.

Yes, map choice is one of the biggest disadvantages of MM, and I don't like it either. But it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in favour of fair gameplay. Most MM maps are actually OK and there aren't that many I strongly dislike. The majority of casual Tanki players don't care about the map at all and play wherever they're placed.

 

All that is being done is just time being wasted, if I have to look through 10 battles until I find one with a map, rank range and may be even mode I want (clicking to select specific mode as of now takes much longer than it should, and I waited for a minute or so to get into a CP battle, nothing happened, then clicked Quick Battle, and got instantly placed in a CP battle).

I'm not sure what you mean by this, because finding a suitable battle in a list almost always takes longer than queuing for a MM battle. Besides, you can just click to queue and go into another tab to browse the internet or maybe to some small chores in your house while you wait (make your bed, fold clothes, etc.), while with PRO battles you have to keep actively watching the list and checking battles.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Matchmaking has four main purposes:

1. Get people into battles quickly and efficiently
2. Simplify the process of joining battles
3. Balance the teams to have players of similar power
4. Eliminate sabotage by removing its benefits

 

 

So, with your idea points 1 and 2 will still work, but it would break 3 and 4. If people can join whichever team they like, you can get a group of 8 OP buyers joining one team and ruthlessly destroying less skilled or less powerful players in the enemy team. Yes, the current game balance isn't perfect either, but it's better than giving players complete freedom over which team to join and who to play against.

 

It would also bring back "mults" again, just like in PRO battles. If people can choose the teams and see who's playing, you can have one person joining the red team and placing two of their alternate accounts into the enemy team, thus making them 2 players weaker (which is 25% - quite a lot) and most likely getting an easy victory. With MM battles being hidden, this became impossible.

 

Yes, map choice is one of the biggest disadvantages of MM, and I don't like it either. But it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in favour of fair gameplay. Most MM maps are actually OK and there aren't that many I strongly dislike. The majority of casual Tanki players don't care about the map at all and play wherever they're placed.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this, because finding a suitable battle in a list almost always takes longer than queuing for a MM battle. Besides, you can just click to queue and go into another tab to browse the internet or maybe to some small chores in your house while you wait (make your bed, fold clothes, etc.), while with PRO battles you have to keep actively watching the list and checking battles.

 

 

There are still plenty of blow-outs.  And in DM a Colonel fighting a Gismo is ... fair?

 

There are still plenty of mults*.  Not all on match-maker (stars and missions contribute).  But the mults are still there.

 

 

 

*  I'm using the broader definition - in that a mult is a player in the battle but not contributing to the team.

[Maf 32,308]

There are still plenty of mults*.  Not all on match-maker (stars and missions contribute).  But the mults are still there.

I think you are using the term "mult" incorrectly. Plenty of bad payers - yes. But being bad doesn't mean that they should be banned from joining and playing games, so they play with us and do what they do - be useless. But they're not intentional saboteurs put into your team by the enemy in order to get an unfair advantage, since doing that should be practically impossible. You'd have to have quite a bit of luck and coordination to end up in the same battle as your mult account, AND on opposite teams.

[wolverine848 13,097]

I think you are using the term "mult" incorrectly. Plenty of bad payers - yes. But being bad doesn't mean that they should be banned from joining and playing games, so they play with us and do what they do - be useless. But they're not intentional saboteurs put into your team by the enemy in order to get an unfair advantage, since doing that should be practically impossible. You'd have to have quite a bit of luck and coordination to end up in the same battle as your mult account, AND on opposite teams.

You ignored my * ?

 

if a player on your team is 0-15 with score of 5 or even 0 that's a mult.  Was in battle long enough to die 15 times, but basically contributed nothing.

 

Then you get the players who joined just for chance at gold or collecting supplies.  Even though they can use their own - maybe they don't want to 'waste' RKs to finish off that mission.  Or just to finish a mission.  No interest in battle outcome - just that it ends and they are there when it ends.

 

There are plenty of battles that have players who are "so bad" that's there's like a 99% chance it's not a skill issue.

 

And the Gismo vs Colonel in DM issue?

[Maf 32,308]

You ignored my * ?

Oh right, sorry.

 

Well, ideally MM should balance teams to take that into account, so if you have a "mult" on your team, then the enemy team should have one too. Or if you have two really big mults and the enemy team doesn't, then perhaps your team also has two really strong players, while the enemy team is mostly average. That's how it should work, but there's no way to see if that's the reality.

 

As for DM, devs did say that MM increases rank brackets when there's not enough players, but you're right - a colonel against high ranks will only be turret fodder.