Complaint Book

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

Issho, you speak as if moderators are very professional in what they do and that they only make sure rules aren't broken by posters.

 

But what if they bring their biases and bad judgment? What if they break the rules? Who is policing them?

 

I know that you're helpers and some of you likely do a good job thus helping the community and the game, but like in real life there are bad cops there are also bad mods.

[Mikaelson 664]

Issho, you speak as if moderators are very professional in what they do and that they only make sure rules aren't broken by posters.

 

But what if they bring their biases and bad judgment? What if they break the rules? Who is policing them?

 

I know that you're helpers and some of you likely do a good job thus helping the community and the game, but like in real life there are bad cops there are also bad mods.

Hey,

 

Although the question was directed to a much, much more qualified person than myself, the answer to this question is very common and can easily be answered with a few lines, so here I go:

 

You aren't wrong here, at all. Moderators should indeed be held accountable for their actions, misbehaving and/or breaking the game rules. After all, just like us, they too are players (with an extra benefit of a few powers or two). To put it quite simply, they are held accountable. If for any reason you have a complaint against a Moderator, you are to contact their Administrator via Forum PM. They will then be able to look into the complaint and take any necessary actions. With complaints regarding an Administrator, you are to contact the Community Manager. 

• Helpers of the Game — ("Click Here")

[Guest]

• I know there is through experience, and you're either delusional or being downright dishonest if you say otherwise. There are many many many instances that I see in the lobby chat where different Chat Moderators respond to the same scenario in different ways. I'm not saying this is wrong or anything - we're all only human after all, and who wants to be moderated by robots? What I meant with "personal judgement" is what I have said above - I didn't mean personal bias or anything like that. And no, it is personal judgement (a personal "take" on the grey area between a downright violation of the rules and something that has been said in pure innocence), no matter what flowery description you try to lable it as. :)
• Yep pal, I was also a candidate once. I know to a certain degree how things work, but you realise that even in the real world (in an important job anyways) it's not simply enough to be qualified (passed your candidacy). You're not "sorted for the rest of your career". Refresher courses etc are often useful.
• I'm sure they do. But as an example, Chat Mods have to deal with sudden potential chat violations all the time - and it would clearly be stupid and unwise to consult a colleague before acting, as damage could be done in the meantime. So no, it's not at all times as you say it is.

On an unrelated side note, welcome back! I thought you were still away.

 

• Well, I'd rather say I'm just being honest, not delusive. What you call personal judgement, I prefer to call it "situational awareness and evaluation" - it's just a matter of words, but the idea changes with it: a personal judgement involves emotional and general evaluation of something, but situational awareness and evaluation involves specific criteria and boundaries, that's why it is different :) A Helper has to be able to keep him/her-self detatched from the situation while evaluating it and eventually taking action, it has to be able to distinguish violations and be able to bypass that "grey zone" you speak of - a personal take is not always a good choice, you are not dealing with random stuff but with violations and users, so you cannot have light. Altough, I've to agree with you that there are times where personal experience is involed into this.
• Of course, that's what I said, but you firstly said otherwise - in your first post you said that Helpers did not under-go a training which is totally untrue.
• False, to some extents, because Chat Mods' candidates are indeed trained to report a possible violation in a language they do not know to more experienced colleauges or to colleagues that can translate them - they do not take immediate actions unless sure and the very same goes for all Helpers.

Thanks dear, I'm really glad to be back myself :D

 

 

Issho, you speak as if moderators are very professional in what they do and that they only make sure rules aren't broken by posters.

 

But what if they bring their biases and bad judgment? What if they break the rules? Who is policing them?

 

I know that you're helpers and some of you likely do a good job thus helping the community and the game, but like in real life there are bad cops there are also bad mods.

Again, @Issimo, I do understand where you come from and I know your reasoning too, which I can relate to, but this same argument has been going on for years and I've been here for as long as this argument has existed.

Denying that Helpers may happen to be biased and have bad judgement is not logical and not correct toward the Community - there are times when this may happen, hiding it makes no sense, but you cannot keep yourself in a defensive position and always be prejudicial.

I myself personally felt into some bad judgement and possible bias in certain situations and you very well know my past roles and skills, but I gladly admit those doings as I've learned from them - the very same happens with Helpers: if they happen to be going offset in their jobs they'll get called back to order and face consequencies of their actions - this has always been one of the first fundamentals of Helpers' groups and applies to everyone in the Helpers' team, be it a candidate or an Admin.

Helpers, like Users, can get banned and grounded if they violate the Rules, no exception has been made in the past and I myself have been one enforcing this statement when I was an Admin, even if that meant to be hated or criticized.

 

 

Hey,

 

Although the question was directed to a much, much more qualified person than myself, the answer to this question is very common and can easily be answered with a few lines, so here I go:

 

You aren't wrong here, at all. Moderators should indeed be held accountable for their actions, misbehaving and/or breaking the game rules. After all, just like us, they too are players (with an extra benefit of a few powers or two). To put it quite simply, they are held accountable. If for any reason you have a complaint against a Moderator, you are to contact their Administrator via Forum PM. They will then be able to look into the complaint and take any necessary actions. With complaints regarding an Administrator, you are to contact the Community Manager. 

• Helpers of the Game — ("Click Here")

Exactly, very well said and resumed. Also, do not worry to put additional info in an argument as long as you are not repeating stuffs or being misrespectful - I may have been and may still be a qualified person, but everyone has the right to express himher-self.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Guest

[OKDad70 862]

The "inactive" rule for Stars is bogus.

 

The actual threshold for earning Stars is not specified. (If it is, officially, please provide the official reference and link, not somebodies studied guess.)

 

I don't know why this complaint is simply deleted.

 

The Devs need a different critieria for Stars. No Stars for Multing is reasonable. No Strars because MM put me in a battle with no hope of getting to the threshold is not dealing straight.

[Moraine 5,877]

But what if they bring their biases and bad judgment? What if they break the rules? Who is policing them?

 

I know that you're helpers and some of you likely do a good job thus helping the community and the game, but like in real life there are bad cops there are also bad mods.

I spoke about this in more than one topic on the forum, such as this one. All helpers go through a long candidacy period which allows both administrators and future helpers to evaluate each others and how they fit the very position they applied to. Same period is used by candidates to understand their duties properly and to learn to execute them without any favouritism or bias. No one is allowed to go down that road, otherwise they won't stay candidates nor helpers for long. We take everyone in the community seriously and since - as I said above - everyone can approach administrators to file personal complaint, no issue can stay unresolved for long nor bad mods (if it's proven they are indeed damaging the reputation of the game and the community with their actions) can stay helpers.  

[Viking4s 10,791]

 

Welcome back Savage. :) 

Please spend time writing to Coop and me, I feel sad that you don't have time too. :(

 

[OKDad70 862]

I spoke about this in more than one topic on the forum,[…] We take everyone in the community seriously and since - as I said above - everyone can approach administrators to file personal complaint, no issue can stay unresolved for long nor bad mods (if it's proven they are indeed damaging the reputation of the game and the community with their actions) can stay helpers.  

Acknowledged. My complaint is about posts that are simply deleted with no audit trail and no note regarding why. I sometimes see my posts edited with a Mod-note, but other times, it is simply changed, no audit trail. Most often, I simply see my posts disappear, never a word as to why.

 

The system may have accountability, but it has no transparency, and references to privacy and airing dirty laundry rarely seem to apply.

[Pyre 3,485]

Acknowledged. My complaint is about posts that are simply deleted with no audit trail and no note regarding why. I sometimes see my posts edited with a Mod-note, but other times, it is simply changed, no audit trail. Most often, I simply see my posts disappear, never a word as to why.

 

The system may have accountability, but it has no transparency, and references to privacy and airing dirty laundry rarely seem to apply.

All you have to do for transparency is to send a PM. How is that too much to ask?

[Moraine 5,877]

We hear you. Please continue this discussion with @CooperO via private messages to avoid clogging this topic and to get proper explanation on how forum moderation works. We'll definitely stay open for any other suggestions and constructive criticism.

Thank you :)

[OKDad70 862]

We hear you. Please continue this discussion with @CooperO via private messages to avoid clogging this topic and to get proper explanation on how forum moderation works. We'll definitely stay open for any other suggestions and constructive criticism.

Thank you :)

If you delete my post, I want something marking the spot. If you edit my post, I want an explanation in the audit trail. I want everything audited and public. Specifically, what happened should be clear to anyone looking. The why may sometimes need to be private. I accept that. But, if you want me to change something I do, you have to say so. Hoping I will be annoyed enough to initiate a private discourse is wishful thinking.

[Moraine 5,877]

It doesn't work that way. Now kindly, enough of the subject and please contact @CooperO for any further discussion regarding forum moderation. 

[cyborg11b 95]

In my opinion, that was a respectful comment that implied that he respected you guys for sticking around... 

 

 

He just says ''gg'', it's a nice word, it's a respectful word, I don't get why you guys thought something is wrong with this word. Personally, I think nothing is wrong with this.

 

 

Good game is inherently a nice word. I've never, in my 9 years of gaming, seen someone use it sarcastically.

That's one way to interpret 'gg'.

To me, at that moment, it was like saying blue had a good time spawnkilling red.

There are other ways of showing respect, like saying 'thx for not leaving'.

[OKDad70 862]

Match Making doesn't work.

 

I was just in a Tribute CP that lasted just over five minutes. My team lost 50 to 0. Oddly, I dropped in at the start, and was rolling by 7:57. Freeky.

 

I was playing Field Marshall Ricosck. I was the lowest rank, so that wasn't a problem. (I'm full M4 with a good garage.)

 

I captured a point, captured a second. Died, respawned, got the second point back, and that was the last point we held for over two minutes. We had two for a few seconds at about the three minute mark (~5:00 remaining).

 

Somehow, I had an even K/D. It sure seemed like we were all just being spawnkilled the whole time after the first 30 seconds.

 

My point is the teams were horribly unbalanced. My team obtained a significant edge by half-a-minute into the match, but we were hopeless another half-minute in.

 

Why?

 

That was my complaint, now some rambling, explaining my thinking:

MM doesn't work, and it cannot. I keep trying to find keys to why it is so bad, but I have to look up the profiles of each player immediately after the match to hope to see the actual conditions of that match. I figure if I can spot something significant, I can point it out, and maybe someone will think of a fix. Maybe I will find a useful suggestion to make. The big problem is it takes so long to analyze a single match, and then I only have one more data point. It will take months to even gather a few data points.

 

Don't the Devs have the stats I'm trying to look at? Can't the Devs look at the stats for Tanki as a whole, rather than me trying to find something one match at a time when I have the extra time required, and an itch that has to be scratched?

 

Can't the Devs see that team battles on Massacre are always one-sided?

 

Can't the Devs feel our frustration with match making?

 

Match making was intended to eliminate lopsided battles caused by "teams" raiding the battles when players began leaving hopeless losses. Players leaving hopeless battles still happens all the time; so no gain there.

 

Group-rules or no, teams still get into the MM battles and make them lopsided. So, no gain there.

 

And! MM makes lopsided battles that seem to have no rhyme or reason. So, no gain there.

 

Why are we sill subjected to match making for all potentially rewarding game play?

[OKDad70 862]

Very next battle, same Ricosck, but CTF in Serpahov. My team was mixed, from General to Legend. The other team was all Legend. Things seemed even for about four minutes. Then, we got the advantage, and it was down hill for them to the end. It took all eight minutes, and it ended about 3 seconds before we'd have capp'd the seventh flag.

 

It seemed even, balanced, at first. By the end, the other team was down to five players, but I was focused on helping my team, and didn't see if numbers grew lopsided at about that three minute mark. I mean, it was even. Why would players start bailing?

 

I don't know why for much of any of it. I do know the match making system doesn't work. It rarely sets up even teams.

Edited December 17, 2018 by OKDad70

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

Matchmaking and game balance are really bad. I have to play PRO battles after dealing with MM battles to have some fun. Matchmaking could be improved, but balance will only get worse and worse.

 

Challenge just makes the matter worse at least for MM team battles, because many play team battles as of these were TDM.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Match Making doesn't work.

 

 

 

I was just in a Tribute CP that lasted just over five minutes. My team lost 50 to 0. Oddly, I dropped in at the start, and was rolling by 7:57. Freeky.

 

I was playing Field Marshall Ricosck. I was the lowest rank, so that wasn't a problem. (I'm full M4 with a good garage.)

 

I captured a point, captured a second. Died, respawned, got the second point back, and that was the last point we held for over two minutes. We had two for a few seconds at about the three minute mark (~5:00 remaining).

 

Somehow, I had an even K/D. It sure seemed like we were all just being spawnkilled the whole time after the first 30 seconds.

 

My point is the teams were horribly unbalanced. My team obtained a significant edge by half-a-minute into the match, but we were hopeless another half-minute in.

 

Why?

 

That was my complaint, now some rambling, explaining my thinking:

MM doesn't work, and it cannot. I keep trying to find keys to why it is so bad, but I have to look up the profiles of each player immediately after the match to hope to see the actual conditions of that match. I figure if I can spot something significant, I can point it out, and maybe someone will think of a fix. Maybe I will find a useful suggestion to make. The big problem is it takes so long to analyze a single match, and then I only have one more data point. It will take months to even gather a few data points.

 

Don't the Devs have the stats I'm trying to look at? Can't the Devs look at the stats for Tanki as a whole, rather than me trying to find something one match at a time when I have the extra time required, and an itch that has to be scratched?

 

Can't the Devs see that team battles on Massacre are always one-sided?

 

Can't the Devs feel our frustration with match making?

 

 

 

Match making was intended to eliminate lopsided battles caused by "teams" raiding the battles when players began leaving hopeless losses. Players leaving hopeless battles still happens all the time; so no gain there.

 

Group-rules or no, teams still get into the MM battles and make them lopsided. So, no gain there.

 

And! MM makes lopsided battles that seem to have no rhyme or reason. So, no gain there.

 

Why are we sill subjected to match making for all potentially rewarding game play?

Actually no.

 

MM was created to make it easier to get into battles, remove mults and have even teams in terms of numbers.

One would hope that 8 vs 8 would result in fairly even battles...

To get all that we give up A LOT, including map choices and decent-length battles.

 

Unfortunately MM does not even do any of the things I listed above.

 

So you were wrong and right.

 

Wrong about what it is supposed to do.   But right about the fact that MM does not do what it was intended for.

[OKDad70 862]

Actually no.

 

[…] Wrong about what it is supposed to do. But right about the fact that MM does not do what it was intended for.

Not important, but I think you might change your mind if you review the forums at least two years farther back. My review of the forums started in May of 2014.

[OKDad70 862]

From the wiki page for Matchmaker:

 

Advantages of Matchmaking System:
In the literal sense, the matchmaking system makes it impossible to send a mult into the enemy team. You will no longer need to worry about someone possibly playing for the other team (a.k.a sabotaging his/her own team) in any battle.

In the matchmaking system, every battle will start from exactly eight minutes. Joining a battle in the middle is still possible, but the system favors creating new battles more than making people join battles that are already underway.

The teams in Matchmaking battles will be almost always full right from when the battle begins - the system tries to fill up empty slots in battles as fast as possible.

 

Mults? No, I still see them. Perhaps the other team didn't send them, but inactive players are still too common, and some players still work against the team.

 

That second one is problematic on its face. I can't think of any possible good, nor any possible fix for such an intentionality. The third one and the second one cannot both be true.

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

The wiki page for history stops in 2016, long before matchmaking was postulated.

 

The history paragraph on the MM wiki page indicates the MM test was a total failure and the biggest gripe Tanki ever had. Yet, it went forward anyway. It continues to be a failure, but it continues to be required for missions and challenges (and "black" box drops) anyway.

 

If anyone might provide additional information and history on MM, and links to document, I'd appreciate.

[OKDad70 862]

I'm hoping for an answer to this question, please.

 

I managed to snag a black box drop. After the match, I opened it. It turned red.

 

The wiki page for containers says, "Red — extremely rare items (unique skins, a package of a million crystals)" {What I would do with a million crystals!}

 

You can imagine I was a bit excited. However, I received the Mt Fuji paint. (I'll never wear that baby blue (and pink) paint.)

 

I suppose that is the Gold level, "Gold — legendary items (crystals and animated paints, which were or not available, but now unavailable for purchase)."

 

But the container turned red, not gold.

 

Also, I have three Legendary animated paints now, and I hope to pick up another at Tier 22. How legendary can they be if I have so many? How legendary can they be if many thousands of players will have more than one before 25 January 2019?

 

My main question is why did I receive the gold reward for the red color?

[x_Sorinel_x 52]

Stupid crap matchmaking battles...

Got a mission in a CP battle (5 control points). Started a game; my team got 2 Legends, the other one got 3. I decided to stay. In the first 2 minutes my team was ahead with 25-5. Guess what happend... In the enemy team 3 low rankers left and 3 Legends join (in about 30 seconds). And my "coward" Legend teammate "run". And for about 5 minutes we where 7 versus 8. Only 1 Legend rank (me). My team lost; second place was behind me with 200 points. And last minute of battle I was in Garage; my team got spawn killed by 5 enemys full on druggs.

 

Really Tanki Online ? This is a fair MM for you ?

[Moraine 5,877]

My main question is why did I receive the gold reward for the red color?

Please report such issues to tech support or post them in this topic, this one is not a place for it. 

 

Really Tanki Online ? This is a fair MM for you ?

Given the vast possibilities for gameplay customization in Tanki Online, creating an effective system is incredibly challenging. Tanki  programmers devote the majority of their time and effort studying the MM system and tweaking it for improvement. It will take some time but we'll get there. 

[SprayGround 2,851]

Really Tanki Online ? This is a fair MM for you ?

Agreed, MM is not fair at all. Tanki made matchmaking so the battles would be kind of fair and balanced right? this right now isn't fair nor balanced at all.

Right now Matchmaking is working same way as it was before there wasn't any matchmaking system, one team have ''noobs'' and other team full team of players who actually know how to play, this is ridiculous, why even make such system if it doesn't even work as it should.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Not important, but I think you might change your mind if you review the forums at least two years farther back. My review of the forums started in May of 2014.

This is pretty much exactly what I typed above.

- Easier to enter battle

- remove multing

- same number of players each team.

But it does none of those with any effect. In it's current form MM is failing.

 

Says nothing about eliminating "lopsided battles" as it does not seem to be able to evaluate skill, nor can it make players play the battle they were assigned, nor can it make players stay in the battles.

 

From the wiki page for Matchmaker:

 

Advantages of Matchmaking System:

In the literal sense, the matchmaking system makes it impossible to send a mult into the enemy team. You will no longer need to worry about someone possibly playing for the other team (a.k.a sabotaging his/her own team) in any battle.

In the matchmaking system, every battle will start from exactly eight minutes. Joining a battle in the middle is still possible, but the system favors creating new battles more than making people join battles that are already underway.

The teams in Matchmaking battles will be almost always full right from when the battle begins - the system tries to fill up empty slots in battles as fast as possible.

 

 

 

Mults? No, I still see them. Perhaps the other team didn't send them, but inactive players are still too common, and some players still work against the team.

 

That second one is problematic on its face. I can't think of any possible good, nor any possible fix for such an intentionality. The third one and the second one cannot both be true.

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

The wiki page for history stops in 2016, long before matchmaking was postulated.

 

The history paragraph on the MM wiki page indicates the MM test was a total failure and the biggest gripe Tanki ever had. Yet, it went forward anyway. It continues to be a failure, but it continues to be required for missions and challenges (and "black" box drops) anyway.

 

If anyone might provide additional information and history on MM, and links to document, I'd appreciate.

 

 

[OKDad70 862]

Given the vast possibilities for gameplay customization in Tanki Online, creating an effective system is incredibly challenging. Tanki  programmers devote the majority of their time and effort studying the MM system and tweaking it for improvement. It will take some time but we'll get there. 

Are you sure?

 

I'm not fully convinced they are working devotedly on it. More importantly, I'm nearly certain it is impossible to reliably balance teams within the existing system. Yes, it is incredibly challenging, even worse.

 

The only thing I can think might help is truly tracking every individual's stats, not with the efficiency rating, but actual performance and behavior.

 

I have too little data to guess what matters most, but per mode performance is likely significant. That is, a player who is good in CTF may be poor in CP. A player who tends to snipe and camp may be good for some battles/teams and bad for others.

 

I also suffer from playing near server reset. Most of my playing time is limited to when fewer than 7,000 players are online (often fewer than 3,000). I suspect my first-hand experience is not representative of the majority of players. (Something I'm having to remind myself of often.)

[AncientFire 1,894]

Stop complaining about Match Making. Developers are trying hard to balance it, you try coding. It will take FOREVER.