Returning after a long hiatus. Wow has this game changed a lot!

[sensei_tanker 3,098]

11 minutes ago, GG_reg said:

Stars were something positive that were added to the game. With Stars, players don't just get crystals at the end of a battle, but they also unlock other great rewards in the battle pass such as containers, supplies, paints, shot effects and more. If the battle times are longer, then it makes it more difficult for players to earn such rewards.

Stars to me aren't that straightforward. It's a pretty controversial thing when I think about it. The pro is that it allows players to unlocked cool rewards. The con is that it hurts the average player who doesn't have hours to play and that it creates a toxic atmosphere.

[wolverine848 13,097]

9 minutes ago, GG_reg said:

Stars were something positive that were added to the game. With Stars, players don't just get crystals at the end of a battle, but they also unlock other great rewards in the battle pass such as containers, supplies, paints, shot effects and more. If the battle times are longer, then it makes it more difficult for players to earn such rewards.

You missed my point.  I (and others) do not see the addition of Stars (Challenges) as something positive.  They distract from the actual battles and players ONLY become focused on getting the most stars they can.  Challenges should only be occasional - special events.  Not every day every month.

[SporkZilla 1,775]

16 minutes ago, sensei_tanker said:

Stars to me aren't that straightforward. It's a pretty controversial thing when I think about it. The pro is that it allows players to unlocked cool rewards. The con is that it hurts the average player who doesn't have hours to play and that it creates a toxic atmosphere.

I also think stars are a problem.

I rarely play for longer than is needed to finish all of my daily missions. I used to get an extra three containers from challenges per month, now I get just two because I rarely get beyond Tier 15. My average is probably 75 stars per week.

I'm a team-focused player that likes winning battles, and stars incentivize selfish play instead of team play, especially when the top player on the losing team can walk away with 3 stars. Why focus on winning the battle when all you have to do is get the most points?

[GG_reg 1,521]

54 minutes ago, sensei_tanker said:

Stars to me aren't that straightforward. It's a pretty controversial thing when I think about it. The pro is that it allows players to unlocked cool rewards. The con is that it hurts the average player who doesn't have hours to play and that it creates a toxic atmosphere.

I understand that some players might find completing stars harder than others but at the same time, you do not need to play for hours and hours. The battle pass silver tier is completely free and most importantly, an optional thing. A lot of players who complete their daily and weekly missions really fast will run out of things to do, so the battle pass gives them more of a reason to play and earn cool rewards. 

 

18 minutes ago, SporkZilla said:

I'm a team-focused player that likes winning battles, and stars incentivize selfish play instead of team play, especially when the top player on the losing team can walk away with 3 stars. Why focus on winning the battle when all you have to do is get the most points?

 

54 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

You missed my point.  I (and others) do not see the addition of Stars (Challenges) as something positive.  They distract from the actual battles and players ONLY become focused on getting the most stars they can.  Challenges should only be occasional - special events.  Not every day every month.

I know what you mean by the odd player who focuses just on earning as much score as possible in MM, but it doesn't always happen. However, if this is an issue for you, maybe it would be more enjoyable to play Pro battles which are longer and require more team play. If you have any ideas on how to improve matchmaking, feel free to suggest them here.

[Viking4s 10,791]

Stars are a simple way to provide more stuff for players who contributed most to the battle (and/or play on regular basis). They are like a long term missions with bigger rewards if you complete it and small additional reward if you play as usual.

They recognise MVP in a battle and those who participated to a minimum requirement. Being first is an incentive, having on top stars it does increase that desire to finish first. However current selfish attitude from players will still remain even if you remove stars (or change the way they are given - you did not change the player). And you should remove the crystals rewards too, give 100 crystals for each participant for example. This still is way better than crystals boxes falling from the sky.

This is still a game with specific activity and goals and not a pure battlefield where you only defend your country.

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 hour ago, GG_reg said:

I know what you mean by the odd player who focuses just on earning as much score as possible in MM, but it doesn't always happen. However, if this is an issue for you, maybe it would be more enjoyable to play Pro battles which are longer and require more team play. If you have any ideas on how to improve matchmaking, feel free to suggest them here.

It's not the "odd player" - it's many.

LOL. Would be more helpful if you tailored your responses to your audience.

Been there many times with many suggestions. In the last 3 years what changes have been made to MatchMaker that have improved MM?

(FYI - shortening battles down to 7 minutes is not considered an improvement)

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by wolverine848

[Triton 23]

6 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

One of the biggest problem with todays TO.  Stars.  It's all about stars.  Who cares abou the actual battle so long as players get their stars - right?

This! This is probably THE biggest change in my opinion that has happened to the game in the past 3-4 years. There was never an "agenda" when I left around 2016. 

[KillerDiesel 188]

10 hours ago, GG_reg said:

Stars were something positive that were added to the game. With Stars, players don't just get crystals at the end of a battle, but they also unlock other great rewards in the battle pass such as containers, supplies, paints, shot effects and more. If the battle times are longer, then it makes it more difficult for players to earn such rewards.

The challenges concept was a cool idea to reward those that play more. But what the devs went with the idea is a complete nightmare. They are not challenges, but actual grindfests. Which has negatively affected the quality of MM battles.

 

In my view, the challenges feature should have their own missions system which stars would be earned, rather than earning them through battles.

[Triton 23]

1 hour ago, KillerDiesel said:

The challenges concept was a cool idea to reward those that play more. But what the devs went with the idea is a complete nightmare. They are not challenges, but actual grindfests. Which has negatively affected the quality of MM battles.

 

In my view, the challenges feature should have their own missions system which stars would be earned, rather than earning them through battles.

Are you talking about the daily/weekly challenges in the game or is there something separate going on with the gold stars handed out to players at the end of each match? I'm confused about the whole thing tbh. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 hour ago, hao said:

Are you talking about the daily/weekly challenges in the game or is there something separate going on with the gold stars handed out to players at the end of each match? I'm confused about the whole thing tbh. 

The gold stars.  2 "Challenges" per month - each lasting ~ 2 weeks.  Go to missions tab and one of them shows your progression. 

[NooNooHead 121]

On 4/20/2020 at 6:03 AM, hao said:

One thing I definitely miss about TO that they removed was longer battles. 7 minutes per battle is just too short in my opinion. The moment you get used to the map and the dynamic of the players on both teams, the match ends. If matches have to be time capped, at least make them 15-20 minutes.  What were the reasons Devs decided to shorten all battles I'm assuming for people who do not by pro passes? (They want the $$$?)

 

Short battles are good for the f2p players. With long battles, there were some issues. (a) Technical difficulties causing you to lose your rewards. (b) Rage quitting when an OP player shows up and steals the pot. (c) Some missions based on finishing a battle type is possible now even on the lobsided losing side.

[JohnMatrix 18]

On 4/18/2020 at 7:03 PM, hao said:

I'm looking for personal input from seasoned players on their view of the game and how it has evolved over the years. Where do you think this game is headed? 

I enjoy games like red dead redemption & age of empires. And here I am, grieving the death of what "could-have-been" a timeless classic game for almost all ages. The game developers recently admitted the success of TO was unexpected & that they were ill-equipped to handle (read profiteer off) it. So along with that shift in perspective, they've joined a  bandwagon of games that focus on trends rather than tradition (read change as the operative word here). So in-game skill, experience, strategy all go out the window... With the new management's stance on ethics, lack of transparent communication & a non-receptiveness to feedback at crucial points; I would say TO has changed it's identity & moral compass. I don't know a whole lot about industry regulations & acceptable business practices, but I will go out on a limb here & say that this game over the last 4 years would make a fine example of a study.

[Triton 23]

5 hours ago, JohnMatrix said:

I enjoy games like red dead redemption & age of empires. And here I am, grieving the death of what "could-have-been" a timeless classic game for almost all ages. The game developers recently admitted the success of TO was unexpected & that they were ill-equipped to handle (read profiteer off) it. So along with that shift in perspective, they've joined a  bandwagon of games that focus on trends rather than tradition (read change as the operative word here). So in-game skill, experience, strategy all go out the window... With the new management's stance on ethics, lack of transparent communication & a non-receptiveness to feedback at crucial points; I would say TO has changed it's identity & moral compass. I don't know a whole lot about industry regulations & acceptable business practices, but I will go out on a limb here & say that this game over the last 4 years would make a fine example of a study.

Perhaps a study of what makes online games succeed and fail? I'm sure TO will continue to grow over the years, and more and better changes will come. I will say though, the TO game we have today is not the same game that existed 3-4 years ago, or even 8 years ago. 

[JohnMatrix 18]

15 hours ago, hao said:

Perhaps a study of what makes online games succeed and fail? I'm sure TO will continue to grow over the years, and more and better changes will come.

I'm sure they will keep up in the rat race as long as players don't learn to differentiate between "value" & "price". Having a whole lot of currencies doesn't make the world rich. It's what it's based on that counts.

[JOSH492 9]

On 4/18/2020 at 11:58 PM, DieselPlatinum said:

Hi. Check out this topic.

Just to let you know, there's been a lot of bad updates that got released just in the last year.

Most updates released this year were bad  

[mather_the_master 9]

On 4/19/2020 at 4:33 AM, hao said:

I just came back to this game after being absent for 4+ years? Wow, has this game changed a lot! It is not the same game as I remember it to be. New upgrade levels, new gameplay modes, new rules, new players! It just blows my mind how much things can change with time. Are there any players who have been playing for a long time that can clue me in on some of the changes that have been made? 

A few things I remember when I was present in the game:

- Turrets and hulls could only be upgraded M0-M3. 

- Hammer was the newest turret added to the game. 

- Semyon Kirov was the big man of the show. 

- OUFA was a huge promoter for the game.

- Godmode_ON was the big demon everyone feared and anticipated. Is he even still around? 

I know a lot of these questions can be answered by searching the Tanki wiki. I'm looking for personal input from seasoned players on their view of the game and how it has evolved over the years. Where do you think this game is headed? 

lol i stopped the same time as you did

[georgiaboy_61 46]

Yeah this game is down!  Do we need to put this on facebook, youtube, instagram and twitter, that the game is down. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by georgiaboy_61
do l really need to

[prithvi0 5]

On 4/19/2020 at 4:33 AM, hao said:

n

started this game 8yrs ago its difficult to manage with a weak garage, but since i have the weakest gear score in battle im also the most skilled

[Snafu 139]

On 4/20/2020 at 7:40 AM, GG_reg said:

 A lot of players who complete their daily and weekly missions really fast will run out of things to do, so the battle pass gives them more of a reason to play and earn cool rewards. 

So GG, tell us - what did players do before stars? When they had nothing to do? Did the game flounder? I'll tell you - in 2013 it actually won the best RUNET game reward.

And now with MM, stars, challenges and other goodness it's dying... How come?

BTW, is this metric broken or was intentionally turned off? - http://tankionline.com/graphic.swf