MM balancing - imcompetency or favouring russian players?

[BigCar 54]

how would you balance the game that wouldn't require you to wait 5+ minutes to join a battle due to the small playerbase, wouldnt break the moment someone leaves, isnt easy to abuse and isn't the ''remove matchmaking, it sucks'' because we know that's not happening.

i dont see a decent way to do it, so i cant really complain about it.

 

[Viking4s 10,791]

14 hours ago, DieselPlatinum said:

There are many reasons why many people leave the battle that they dont like. They don't just do it without reason.

It would be best to fix the reasons that are making people not want to stay in that battle.

Good luck trying to fix people.

There are many personal reasons, but once the player leaves it increase the burden for the whole team that remains on the battlefield. Enhance it increases the chance for that team to be massacred.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Viking4s

[wolverine848 13,097]

2 hours ago, Viking4s said:

There are many personal reasons, but once the player leaves it increase the burden for the whole team that remains on the battlefield. Enhance it increases the chance for that team to be massacred.

In most of these cases, where it's 3-0 and your team is being spawn-killed, it really does not matter.  The outcome of the battle has already been decided.

Leaving is actually the bes thing for many of those that remain as they have better chance of getting more stars - assuming they reach minimum threshold - no guarantee in many of these battles.

Endorsing the crappy aspects of MM by remaining in those unfair battles will not help the game overall.

[yellowghetto 3,206]

On 5/21/2020 at 6:13 AM, Maf said:

What does this have to do with Russian players? You have no way to be sure where the enemy players are from.

Also, GS is just one of the factors taken into account in MM balancing. A player could have a low GS, but enough skills to be equivalent to one with higher GS, so their overall K/D, W/L ratio and other stats will affect their strength when being put into teams. And sometimes you just get unlucky and lose even while having an overall gear advantage.

Can we pin Maf's comment explaining MM to us?

[Maf 32,302]

11 hours ago, yellowghetto said:

Can we pin Maf's comment explaining MM to us?

I wouldn't do that, because my comment still somewhat consists of speculation. The thing about MM taking into account all these different factors is just a guess based on what developers hinted and suggested whenever similar questions got asked. Also, it was around 2 years ago already, so I may not remember exact details.

[Viking4s 10,791]

7 minutes ago, Maf said:

I wouldn't do that, because my comment still somewhat consists of speculation. The thing about MM taking into account all these different factors is just a guess based on what developers hinted and suggested whenever similar questions got asked. Also, it was around 2 years ago already, so I may not remember exact details.

Furthermore, the secret formula would most likely have evolved over time.

[Maf 32,302]

43 minutes ago, Viking4s said:

Furthermore, the secret formula would most likely have evolved over time.

For all we know, MM balancing could be as simple as a group/no group check, rank and GS check. But the truth is, even if two teams are perfectly balanced by all parameters, the chaotic nature of the gameplay makes the result completely unpredictable, and two teams fighting one another with two equipment could each win with a huge score gap in two identical battles.

Although it's also worth noting that, according to developers and despite what you'd expect, perfect balance actually results in people spending less time in the game. This is because a balanced game presents the player with a significant challenge, where they have to focus hard to win against the equally matched team. Such battles are fun, but they are quite tiring and therefore the player ends up taking a break (i.e. ending the session) after just a few matches.

However, if the system intentionally puts the player into an unbalanced game, it gives the player a chance to play in a relaxed manner. This works for both the winning and losing team. If you're clearly winning then you don't have to focus much to win, while if you're losing, you realise that playing to your best ability is pointless so you just casually drive around and shoot a bit. So such battles serve as a "break" for players of both teams, which generally increases the overall length of the play session.

Therefore the bottom line is that perfect MM balance may be nice for individual players, but could actually harm the game as a whole.

[Viking4s 10,791]

23 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

In most of these cases, where it's 3-0 and your team is being spawn-killed, it really does not matter.  The outcome of the battle has already been decided.

Leaving is actually the best thing for many of those that remain as they have better chance of getting more stars - assuming they reach minimum threshold - no guarantee in many of these battles.

Endorsing the crappy aspects of MM by remaining in those unfair battles will not help the game overall.

Such a pessimist view. The outcome of life is already decided too, what are you going to do? Staying is the best thing to do (for most of the cases). I don't think that every players are chasing stars anyway as daily missions are IMO more rewarding and easier to complete.
The crappy MM as you name it, is 1/ fun 2/ unpredictable due to humans factors 3/ offer variety due to maps, randomized drops and randomized spawning. 4/ different level of team mate 5/ sure to be in a team and little waiting.

There is some area to improve, such as the starting point where we all start at the same time.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Viking4s

[Benefactor 6,888]

1 hour ago, Maf said:

For all we know, MM balancing could be as simple as a group/no group check, rank and GS check. But the truth is, even if two teams are perfectly balanced by all parameters, the chaotic nature of the gameplay makes the result completely unpredictable, and two teams fighting one another with two equipment could each win with a huge score gap in two identical battles.

Although it's also worth noting that, according to developers and despite what you'd expect, perfect balance actually results in people spending less time in the game. This is because a balanced game presents the player with a significant challenge, where they have to focus hard to win against the equally matched team. Such battles are fun, but they are quite tiring and therefore the player ends up taking a break (i.e. ending the session) after just a few matches.

However, if the system intentionally puts the player into an unbalanced game, it gives the player a chance to play in a relaxed manner. This works for both the winning and losing team. If you're clearly winning then you don't have to focus much to win, while if you're losing, you realise that playing to your best ability is pointless so you just casually drive around and shoot a bit. So such battles serve as a "break" for players of both teams, which generally increases the overall length of the play session.

Therefore the bottom line is that perfect MM balance may be nice for individual players, but could actually harm the game as a whole.

Isn't that (borderline) multing? 

[Maf 32,302]

24 minutes ago, Benefactor said:

Isn't that (borderline) multing? 

When I say "casually driving around and shooting", I imagine it being similar to waking up at 3 AM and instantly joining a battle, playing with one hand and eating a sandwich with the other while watching a youtube video on a second screen. So basically, still playing but with very little actual effort.

I think battle mods no longer enforce inactivity to the same extent in MM battles compared to PRO battles, simply because the line between bad players and intentional saboteurs is too thin. It's mostly the obvious actions of sabotage (like repeatedly pushing teammates and blocking the flag) that can get you punished.

[TaffyTank 1,890]

2 hours ago, Maf said:

Although it's also worth noting that, according to developers and despite what you'd expect, perfect balance actually results in people spending less time in the game. This is because a balanced game presents the player with a significant challenge, where they have to focus hard to win against the equally matched team. Such battles are fun, but they are quite tiring and therefore the player ends up taking a break (i.e. ending the session) after just a few matches.

However, if the system intentionally puts the player into an unbalanced game, it gives the player a chance to play in a relaxed manner. This works for both the winning and losing team. If you're clearly winning then you don't have to focus much to win, while if you're losing, you realise that playing to your best ability is pointless so you just casually drive around and shoot a bit. So such battles serve as a "break" for players of both teams, which generally increases the overall length of the play session.

Therefore the bottom line is that perfect MM balance may be nice for individual players, but could actually harm the game as a whole.

No idea where they're getting that idea from cos it makes little sense to me. Unbalanced, chaotic battles are absolutely not a chance to play in a more relaxed manner, quite the opposite IMO. Especially when it's a system out of your control which you have no idea how it works that's lumping you into that battle to get creamed (or an easy boring win).

Wiping the floor with opposing teams due to unbalance also doesn't keep me in the game. It's a quit while I'm ahead mentality. I have one hopeless cause battle followed by an easy win and say that'll do for now, missions done in that easy win, I'm off before I get another duff battle.

Now speaking from personnal experience I do take a short break after a run of good balanced battles, but I usually come back quite soon. A short session of unbalanced battles and I just leave for the day. The key point that completely unravels devs thoughts on this from my viewpoint is I'm far more likely to jack the game in for good or take a long break from it if the rate of unbalanced battles is too high, they are not enjoyable or engaging to me.

MM gives you something to blame for being dumped into a hopeless cause. As soon as a feature of the game itself is causing you to be annoyed, it turns you against the game.  Yes!..you may still have a chance for stars or whatever, but getting extra stuff is only a motivator if the game you're playing is worth the effort. I play a Tank game to be involved in good tank battles first and foremost, the rest is just icing on top that increases the probability that you gain more from those good tank battles, by buying better gear to be more competitive.

There are some good battles to be found in this game, nowhere near enough though.

Edited May 23, 2020 by TaffyTank

[Maf 32,302]

17 minutes ago, TaffyTank said:

No idea where they're getting that idea from cos it makes little sense to me.

Doesn't make sense to me either, but that's what Hazel was saying in one of the past livestreams. Although I tried to find some article or study to support it, but wasn't able to. The theory does have some logic though, because the brain craves variety, and having one intense game after the other will exhaust the mind's capacity fairly quickly. You could think of it another way - you need a certain amount of good games before you're satisfied enough to take a break or stop, so if "good" games are spread across a longer period of time by inserting "bad" games in between, then you will spend longer playing. So there could be some truth to this.

[sharifsahaf 656]

2 hours ago, Maf said:

For all we know, MM balancing could be as simple as a group/no group check, rank and GS check. But the truth is, even if two teams are perfectly balanced by all parameters, the chaotic nature of the gameplay makes the result completely unpredictable, and two teams fighting one another with two equipment could each win with a huge score gap in two identical battles.

Although it's also worth noting that, according to developers and despite what you'd expect, perfect balance actually results in people spending less time in the game. This is because a balanced game presents the player with a significant challenge, where they have to focus hard to win against the equally matched team. Such battles are fun, but they are quite tiring and therefore the player ends up taking a break (i.e. ending the session) after just a few matches.

However, if the system intentionally puts the player into an unbalanced game, it gives the player a chance to play in a relaxed manner. This works for both the winning and losing team. If you're clearly winning then you don't have to focus much to win, while if you're losing, you realise that playing to your best ability is pointless so you just casually drive around and shoot a bit. So such battles serve as a "break" for players of both teams, which generally increases the overall length of the play session.

Therefore the bottom line is that perfect MM balance may be nice for individual players, but could actually harm the game as a whole.

actually according to the statstics when MM didn't exist the number of players who played the game was about 50 -100k depending on the years and events .ik a lot of player who have quit due to MM .it definetly doesnt take your GS into account and im sorrry @Mafbut i think balanced games are more fun .u have no idea how frustating it is to enter a match and find that the other team is crushing yours .no one drives arounds and shoots a little .they just quit and it ends up being 8v3 or 8v4 .and by actually harm the game as a whole you mean that buyers would be pissed cause they can't dominate every match?ya ,u have a nice way of putting it 'subtly'ik what these buyers are like -complaining about immunity augments being available in containers cause a f2w player may get them or whining that they couldn't one-shot a juggernaut  with their mk7 gear.u should try getting put in losing matches .those require breaks that are more like umm.....permanent

[Maf 32,302]

3 minutes ago, sharifsahaf said:

ik a lot of player who have quit due to MM

A lot of players have quit, but you can't say it was all because of MM. I've been saying time and time again that the reason players leave is simply because the game is old and outdated. No balance update or bonus crystals will fix that. And definitely not "bring back old tanki", as some people seem to believe.

P.S. I totally agree that balanced games are more fun to play in. But as far as keeping the number of online players higher, the other way is more effective (if the theory is true).

[sharifsahaf 656]

1 hour ago, Maf said:

A lot of players have quit, but you can't say it was all because of MM. I've been saying time and time again that the reason players leave is simply because the game is old and outdated. No balance update or bonus crystals will fix that. And definitely not "bring back old tanki", as some people seem to believe.

P.S. I totally agree that balanced games are more fun to play in. But as far as keeping the number of online players higher, the other way is more effective (if the theory is true).

tanki doesnt need updates .it needs a do -over .and the devs have to promote this game ,otherwise it'll die .im not saying all players left due to MM but a fair amount did .MM is also not the only bad update they made .i don't think hazel's theory is true but that's just my opinion

[Maf 32,302]

19 minutes ago, sharifsahaf said:

tanki doesnt need updates .it needs a do -over .and the devs have to promote this game

• It does need updates because a game without updates is a dead game
• HTML5 is exactly that — a do-over. It was supposed to be Tanki X, but TX didn't work.
• Promotion in the form of advertising has diminishing returns. Advertising this game will cost more than the income it will bring.

[Assad 9]

We're way past the point of reviving this game, they have done too much damage and too many players have quit because of the horrible updates.

The developers have killed the game with all the money sinks and wallet-sucking modules/alterations/overdrives/drones/batteries/premiums/coins and whatever other artificial items they will come up with next.

They're milking so hard it's not even funny, just sad. It's like a cow that can't produce any more milk but the farmer keeps trying to milk it for any last drop of $$$

Edited May 23, 2020 by Assad

[sharifsahaf 656]

2 hours ago, Maf said:

• It does need updates because a game without updates is a dead game
• HTML5 is exactly that — a do-over. It was supposed to be Tanki X, but TX didn't work.
• Promotion in the form of advertising has diminishing returns. Advertising this game will cost more than the income it will bring.

tanki x would have worked if tanki online was closed and a bit more work was put into tanki x .personally i loved tanki x more than tanki online .and lets face it -even with its flaws and lags it was better than html5 .tanki x was very neglected by the devs but the matchmaking it had was fairer than we have here.also im dissapointed that the turret and hull effects while using supplies werent implemented in html 5 .besides some good modules like spider mines and invisibility have been left out .they could've been made as hull alts and they still would be better than immunity modules .also paints should be separated to another container cause when u get a legendary item after a long time 90 percent of the time its paints and shot-effects .besides what i liked in tanki x was that the graphics were mind-blowing and the tanks felt connected to me (it had a weight that i could feel) which is absent in html 5

.without advertising new players wouldn't get a chance to join and tanki will die faster

[Maf 32,302]

2 hours ago, sharifsahaf said:

 

HTML5 is still in its early stages, and there is plenty of potential to add back most, if not all of the features you listed. Not sure if you'd want them though. The modules system in TX was pretty badly made, and I remember it being incredibly P2W, way worse than the current drones and augments combined.

[sharifsahaf 656]

14 minutes ago, Maf said:

HTML5 is still in its early stages, and there is plenty of potential to add back most, if not all of the features you listed. Not sure if you'd want them though. The modules system in TX was pretty badly made, and I remember it being incredibly P2W, way worse than the current drones and augments combined.

was it extremely p2w .idk i played from the beginning and pretty much had everything except al the xt skins .one bad thing about it was everything was put into containers ,which tanki is currently doing . and i wasnt suggesting adding modules -most people hated that feature in TX .i was merely suggesting some of the interesting ones be reconfigured into hull alterations(for crystals ofc not tankoins)

[Maf 32,302]

2 minutes ago, sharifsahaf said:

one bad thing about it was everything was put into containers

Wasn't it extremely hard to get high tier containers? And tank upgrades were directly related to drone upgrades, which you only got from containers? I remember when Tanki X was closing and I used the promo code for 50 000 X-crystals (which are premium currency). It wasn't enough to get even half of the drone upgrades.

[wolverine848 13,097]

9 hours ago, Viking4s said:

Such a pessimist view.

The outcome of life is already decided too, what are you going to do? Staying is the best thing to do (for most of the cases). I don't think that every players are chasing stars anyway as daily missions are IMO more rewarding and easier to complete.
The crappy MM as you name it, is 1/ fun 2/ unpredictable due to humans factors 3/ offer variety due to maps, randomized drops and randomized spawning. 4/ different level of team mate 5/ sure to be in a team and little waiting.

There is some area to improve, such as the starting point where we all start at the same time.

1) Maybe - the current game set-up has led many players to this "view".  Maybe you just block out the many, many complaints in the forum.  If a large portion of the playerbase thinks there's problems - they are real.

2) Would you regularly start chess games 1-2 pieces down, or by letting opponent have 2-3 moves before you have 1?

3) MM was very poorly adopted.  How do you not add frustrating or, even unfair in your list of what MM is?

4) "some area to improve"?   It needs a LOT of improvement.

7 hours ago, Maf said:

Doesn't make sense to me either, but that's what Hazel was saying in one of the past livestreams. Although I tried to find some article or study to support it, but wasn't able to. The theory does have some logic though, because the brain craves variety, and having one intense game after the other will exhaust the mind's capacity fairly quickly. You could think of it another way - you need a certain amount of good games before you're satisfied enough to take a break or stop, so if "good" games are spread across a longer period of time by inserting "bad" games in between, then you will spend longer playing. So there could be some truth to this.

He's full of crap - it's just an excuse to not fix things.  I don't believe for one second that balanced games lead to LESS gameplay.  It's ridiculous to posture that "even" battles are harder on our minds than the completely frustrating spawn-killing blow-outs.  The Theory is not sound.

[sharifsahaf 656]

2 hours ago, Maf said:

Wasn't it extremely hard to get high tier containers? And tank upgrades were directly related to drone upgrades, which you only got from containers? I remember when Tanki X was closing and I used the promo code for 50 000 X-crystals (which are premium currency). It wasn't enough to get even half of the drone upgrades.

there were drones added?i missed the game in 2019 because of exams throughout the year .but i had all high-tier modules so it wasnt that bad for me.guess i had more luck in tx than here

[Maf 32,302]

20 minutes ago, sharifsahaf said:

there were drones added?

My mistake. I meant modules.

[sharifsahaf 656]

38 minutes ago, Maf said:

My mistake. I meant modules.

hmm.what was the highest tier module ?i forgot .maybe 3 .i had some modules maxed out so even against buyers it was a fair matchup for me