update Continuing experiments

[Dictator_Haddou 31]

My opinion on this update is:

Too bad I can't play with my friends because they have devices that can't handle this with a large number of players!

And it became difficult to steal a flag or control a point because there are many enemies

I don't know what they were thinking when they did this bad update!

 

 

 

[wolverine848 13,097]

Just now, Dictator_Haddou said:

And it became difficult to steal a flag or control a point because there are many enemies

Especially when more than half your team decides to camp, giving you no support.

[WreckerX 28]

I actually really like 16 v 16.... It is very easy to get high scores with guass, rail, and other long range guns. I feel like there is a little advantage with the long range guns but thats how it always is on large maps... (unless there is lots of buildings like dusseldorf) The one thing i hate tho, is that flags are very hard to capture in 16 v 16 - it isnt impossible, but it is very difficult! between 16 other teammates competing to cap 5 flags and the enemy having so many ppl spawning at their base, i have struggled to cap 3 flags for the mission! I got it done but it took me like an hr and a half...

[Jankorona2.0 30]

3 hours ago, SulfuricAcid said:

by considering the new large maps have been added into the MMS such as Scope and Deathtrack, I confess that this new experiment is great. Additionally, it will be greater if>>
In details :

1. there will be other maps such as Lost Temple and Madness .
2. there will be smallest maps such as Ping-Pong to make 2 vs 2 battles possible in MMS (for those who argue about deficiency of melee & short range turrets)
3. there will be a combination of maps ranging from 2 vs 2 to 6 vs 6 and so on... to 16 vs 16. ( 6 v 6 battles was tested in previous experiment and had its own fun as well)
4. there will be an increase in the rank brackets in just extra large maps. (from captain to legend) (this one is only to fill up MMS fast for the largest maps such as lost temple)
5. there will be a new created maps for having 30 vs 30 players in battle. (the maximum number of players is 16 vs 16 even in "Lost Temple") (lets create a maps for 30vs30)
    

my feedback as a conclusion:

I like this, but no i disagree with 30 vs 30, it would make the game simply too laggy.

[TESTOK8 2]

hi, i would like if developers enhance the MM list to chosing a battle according to map, not just a mode (for example i like polygon so i choose polygon map regardless of a mode)

I would also appreciate if  they add formats to MM such as wasp/fire, xp/bp or 5vs5 players in a small maps, 8vs8 in middle maps and 16 vs 16 in big maps...

in my opinion that would make Matchmaking more interesting and more players would play MM instead of PRO battles

Anyway i enjoy current experiment very much. I like new maps, some of them reminds me old times

I would be also more interested in the ge if u add more special missions and more paints as rewards for them

 

I hope you will concern my ideas, i love this game ^_^

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by TESTOK8

[Vanisher 3]

G'day.

I liked and disliked both experiments - so no clear answer to what was best and/or worst of them, also in comparison with the not experimental mode (I must admit though, that once again being able to play on 'new' maps in the 16 vs. 16 experiment have been absolutely great - I have really missed more maps in the MM battles!!).

So, after having thought a little about these experiments and normal game mode too, I got to the conclusion, that possibilities for some more diversity in the MM battles, at least for me, would be really nice.

One idea I got to think of, was to do/add a kind of a matrix to the MM battles, where you could choose what kind of combination/combinations you would like to play. Probably one should be 'forced' to choose 3-4 of the combinations, which you then randomly were connected to in the MM battles - this to prevent people to only play one combination all the time and also to decrease waiting time.

The matrix I thought of contains three parameters (axis) with two values on each parameter:

1. axis
Parameter: Maps
Values: Small and Big
2. axis
Parameter: Players
Values: Few and Many
3. axis
Parameter: Time
Values: Short and Long

This matrix hence contains eight combinations, but you can easily increase/decrease number of combinations (e.g., in 'Time' values could be 'Short, 'Medium' and 'Long') - if so wanted - and the numbers in the values can also easily be changed (e.g., in 'Players' 'Few' could be 6 and 'Many' 16 or any other number).

If this matrix or something alike or a part of it could be added to the MM battles, I think this would increase level of satisfaction at quite some players, as the matrix can cover quite some different areas/playing styles. At least I hope/interpret so - after having read some of the comments regarding these experiments.

The only thing I'm a bit worried about is the waiting time and that's why I propose, that players should be forced to choose 3-4 combinations, as this makes it's faster to reach the wanted/needed number of players.

Hope this thought will rise some interest.

Slainté

[kydapoot 570]

Hey! Idk if anyone will actually see a comment this far down, but I figured I'd give some honest, constructive feedback. Here goes!

• I like this experiment better than the last one, and indeed better than the original 8v8. Here is what I liked the most:
  • There is always something to do in battle - no cruising around waiting to find any enemy or teammate.
  • The turrets are more balanced: various ranges and styles are all viable when there are more targets
  • Supplies don't go to waste as often, but also don't seem to give druggers quite as huge of an advantage over other players as before. It's a good balance that makes players rely more on skill.
  • Introducing several of the previously pro-only maps to MM brought more variety and interest to the game.
  • Drones and alterations that previously were hard to use to their fullest can now more easily be used, making creative strategies more viable.
  • Waiting times and lag were only minimally affected, at least for me.
• There were a couple things I didn't like so much either, so here they are:
  • Light hulls did not function as well in such crowded battles. Though their speed was nice for the size of the maps, there are simply too many enemies to effectively dodge shots from or avoid, and so the speed was less of a redeeming quality than it used to be. Wasp and Hornet suffered the most, but Hopper probably would've as well if the experiment continued long enough for people to get used to fighting it.
  • Despite the 16v16 format, the largest maps still felt empty. Specifically, Dusseldorf, Berlin, and Lost Temple would better with 20v20.
  • Small maps are fun too, and I missed the variety they brought.
• So, what do I suggest?
  • Bring back all map sizes, but instead of standardizing the number of players in every MM battle, balance the number of players with the size of the map. This should make players' experience more interesting but also more balanced. This balancing of players-to-size should also address light hulls' difficulty.
  • Keep the overall density of players higher. Maybe not quite as high as, say, 16v16 in Year 2042, but definitely higher than, for example, 8v8 in Highways. Again, make the number of players proportional to the size of the map.

Edited December 14, 2020 by kydapoot
added bit about berlin also feeling empty

[Vanisher 3]

6 minutes ago, kydapoot said:

Hey! Idk if anyone will actually see a comment this far down, but I figured I'd give some honest, constructive feedback. Here goes!

• I like this experiment better than the last one, and indeed better than the original 8v8. Here is what I liked the most:
  • There is always something to do in battle - no cruising around waiting to find any enemy or teammate.
  • The turrets are more balanced: various ranges and styles are all viable when there are more targets
  • Supplies don't go to waste as often, but also don't seem to give druggers quite as huge of an advantage over other players as before. It's a good balance that makes players rely more on skill.
  • Introducing several of the previously pro-only maps to MM brought more variety and interest to the game.
  • Drones and alterations that previously were hard to use to their fullest can now more easily be used, making creative strategies more viable.
  • Waiting times and lag were only minimally affected, at least for me.
• There were a couple things I didn't like so much either, so here they are:
  • Light hulls did not function as well in such crowded battles. Though their speed was nice for the size of the maps, there are simply too many enemies to effectively dodge shots from or avoid, and so the speed was less of a redeeming quality than it used to be. Wasp and Hornet suffered the most, but Hopper probably would've as well if the experiment continued long enough for people to get used to fighting it.
  • Despite the 16v16 format, the largest maps still felt empty. Specifically, Dusseldorf and Lost Temple would better with 20v20.
  • Small maps are fun too, and I missed the variety they brought.
• So, what do I suggest?
  • Bring back all map sizes, but instead of standardizing the number of players in every MM battle, balance the number of players with the size of the map. This should make players' experience more interesting but also more balanced. This balancing of players-to-size should also address light hulls' difficulty.
  • Keep the overall density of players higher. Maybe not quite as high as, say, 16v16 in Year 2042, but definitely higher than, for example, 8v8 in Highways. Again, make the number of players proportional to the size of the map.

Nice feedback with good arguments and thoughts - do hope somebody still are reading these late comments

[Tokamak 1,021]

8 hours ago, Jankorona2.0 said:

Maybe crystal boxes could have a lower amount of crystals/drop less frequently. I think players dont catch crystal boxes for crystals but rather for the novelty. After all, older players would think it's such a nostalgic sight.

Pointless, plus you already have the gb.

[vecky 93]

On 12/5/2020 at 5:56 PM, The_Pakistani said:

I said aiming* Re-read.

 

Oh thanks, I didn't knew this. LOL

Maybe I didn't (just maybe) understood enough, but maybe you don't know how to ask what you want to know.

But I am pretty sure that I was understood what you wrote.

Edited December 11, 2020 by vecky

[meanmax1 0]

I don't like it it makes my game take longer to load and the game is supper glitchy when I am in battles

[Eithern 412]

I LOVE big maps with more players, but I think that 16 is too much so maybe you should reduce it to 10 or 12 (relative to the map). You should also increase the TIME! Or at least allow us to decide it in the matchmaking options, I suggest to make battles of 7, 15 and 30 minutes  
P.s. what's wrong with railgun? I have it at Mk7-9 with large caliber rounds alteration, but it is so weak... I need 2-3 shots to kill anyone, this is not railgun anymore!

[Spy 14,687]

14 minutes ago, meanmax1 said:

I don't like it it makes my game take longer to load and the game is supper glitchy when I am in battles

That is an expected disadvantage of this experiment, you can try one of the solutions suggested in this article to reduce lags.

[betochingon 2]

Almost to meet the deadline for the tests, I can tell you that I did not like the battles with 16 at all, I think they are good with the number that are always played, because if they maintain that number of players, the first matching criteria should be the score of your tank and not the rank because it is very difficult to compete with too many players who bring a tank much higher than yours and I have played games that I bring a tank with a score of 6000 and they match me with tanks with a score of 8500 or more and it is very difficult like this because you die and die and it becomes very unbalanced the games with the usual number of players is more than enough and maybe one or two more players would be fine

[DMR 675]

This experiment is annoying and useless.

[vecky 93]

1 hour ago, Eithern said:

I LOVE big maps with more players, but I think that 16 is too much so maybe you should reduce it to 10 or 12 (relative to the map). You should also increase the TIME! Or at least allow us to decide it in the matchmaking options, I suggest to make battles of 7, 15 and 30 minutes  
P.s. what's wrong with railgun? I have it at Mk7-9 with large caliber rounds alteration, but it is so weak... I need 2-3 shots to kill anyone, this is not railgun anymore!

Nothing is like it was, anymore!

[vecky 93]

3 minutes ago, Yveltal9 said:

This experiment is annoying and useless.

It is not an experiment but an Earthquake with many collateral damage!

[vecky 93]

2 hours ago, Spy said:

That is an expected disadvantage of this experiment, you can try one of the solutions suggested in this article to reduce lags.

Nothing can reduce so much, so many lags on an heavy job for your pure servers and not optimized software.

When it was needed to change the interface to HTML5 you said that it will be solved problems which was in the

game but instead of that like in a sentence of a real bad programmer with one change of solving the one error

entered in the program code, you enter the much more new errors in the code.

And in the name of masking that errors you constantly enter new objects like new hull, new weapon, augments etc.

in short more new objects which in consequence is more job for a weakened servers and the lags knocking on the door.

Edited December 12, 2020 by vecky

[vecky 93]

11 hours ago, Positive said:

Positive notes:
- Different maps in rotation
- More fun and intensity

Negative notes:
- Extremely difficult to capture flags
- FPS drops
- Simply too overcrowded, dying quickly
- Most maps too big to even consider playing certain short-range turrets


Overall I'm not a big fan of 16 v 16. It's too clouded and medium-long range turrets are dominating battles. The solution may be 8v8 in smaller maps, and 12v12 in bigger maps. 16v16 is simply too much. 

Don't forget the mission of a 3 captured flags almost impossible mission.

Supply drugs don't do any job two or a three second more or late not change anything.

Absolutely agree with almost everything except clouded (like in a rainy day) but maybe crowded.

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

This is the biggest cluster of enemies I have seen in the siege mode.

Thanks to this experiment, we see huge clusters of tanks in the siege mode.

[tanki-fish 2]

it is amazing the 16 vs 16 and the big battles now it is harder to cap and need team work

[abxpbp 0]

its too conjusted but we can get kill streaks

 

[Zekrom 316]

1 hour ago, RIDDLER_8 said:

This is the biggest cluster of enemies I have seen in the siege mode.

 

Spoiler

 

Thanks to this experiment, we see huge clusters of tanks in the siege mode.

You were about to die  

 

Also maybe Hopper wasn't the best for this experiment after all

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

@tanki-fish

Teamwork is beneficial for properly maintain a good team.

[ernisamuel_BR 2]

please remove the 16 vs 16 battles, literally I can't play before my maximum FPS was 60 with ping 120, now my maximum FPS is now 11 with ping 270
  I loved the change that put different punch maps with 31 players in the same battle it is impossible to play, I will not be able to complete the challenges of the week and even gave up on completing the challenge this month because I can’t play, I joined the test server and I loved it the new hull and I want to get it from the ultra containers, so I won't be able to do it if the battles continue this way,
silifying everything: remove 16 vs 16 battles