update Continuing experiments

[Joeguy 941]

Can Tanki ever improve anything?  This new forum layout is annoying.  Of course it is still usable, but not as good as before.  And this is to accommodate pointless statistics and place redundant ads that also have no real purpose.  If Tanki was going to sell advertising space to generate revenue for themselves it would be fine, but what the hell do we need to see the same old tired Tanki ads for?...we see them everywhere already...main front page, lobby, and intermittently elsewhere.

 

Updated rant:  Well it looks like the OCD aggravating forum layout was just a glitch.  The right side pane seems to only be for the Forum Homepage which is completely fine and possibly even helpful with the list of helpers online and other possible bits of pertinent information.  So it looks like I was wrong, Tanki seems to have miraculously improved something with an update...my bad. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Joeguy
updated rant and had some crow pie

[Tanker-Arthur 2,971]

Just now, Joeguy said:

Can Tanki ever improve anything?  This new forum layout is annoying.  Of course it is still usable, but not as good as before.  And this is to accommodate pointless statistics and place redundant ads that also have no real purpose.  If Tanki was going to sell advertising space to generate revenue for themselves it would be fine, but what the hell do we need to see the same old tired Tanki ads for?...we see them everywhere already...main front page, lobby, and intermittently elsewhere.

 

 

The stats would've been better as a simple button on the top or the bottom of the page.

[Risk 1,249]

1 hour ago, ReptilianTroll said:

The experiment is over, did you guys like it? 

The experiment had advantages and disadvantages as with everything, I believe there are a number of players who were happy that the experiment ended because for several players it was what affected their FPS and also the game experience, however you were able to do more kills in the same amount of time.

[Thunderwhip2.0 40]

I really liked this experiment and even though my mac is from early 2015, the gameplay was still smooth and i didn't need to turn down my graphics. Playing in this experiment was extremely fun and easier to get xp. Hope this will be implemented to the game!

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

This experiment has finally come to its conclusion. The best mode where this experiment worked the best of large maps was the juggernaut game mode. The reason for that is the fact that there were twice as many players on both teams. With bigger maps and more enemies, a camping juggernaut could simply wait for enemy players to come towards you and the juggernaut players could attack and destroy multiple enemies quickly, meaning that you, as a juggernaut, had 100% chance of completing first place, getting a very high score, kills and experience.

I would suggest that the juggernaut game mode has an update to increase the size of maps to huge maps and have 20 vs 20 players in the juggernaut mode.

For other game modes, the size of maps and the number of players on each of the teams would be different, so I cannot say what the size of teams of maps be. However, both experiments was very enjoyful for me. I do understand that quite a few players hated it, but both experiments have brought a new dynamic gameplay and new ways to utilize maps in matchmaking battles.

Now, for the developers part, I hope that they listen to me and all other players and take necessary steps to make perfect adjustments so that gameplay in matchmaking battles suits all players in their playing desire. Bugs and other glitches will need to be fixed along the way as well.

[wolverine848 13,097]

14 hours ago, At_Shin said:

Make that mammoth and Ares for me. You should try out those hulls in Rugby and ASL modes too. It's very fun when hunters can not stun your mammoth and IB vulcuns Or Vikings can't decimate your Ares. 

Another CTF battle - Iran - where a Hopper with Crisis capped first flag before defenders finished loading.  It capped all 5 flags in the 5-0.

There is NO defending this Hull.  You don't see wasps+Crisis or hornets+crisis doing all the capping.  It's Hopper.

[Tokamak 1,021]

As time go by, IT equipment goes obsolete, xmas is the good time to upgrade or to go mobile.

[erppi 91]

i liked this this test. the battles were very intense, and shooting never ended. but i think that this idea should modified to optional, and heres how it would work;

 

when u choose the mm battle mode, in the right upper corner should be a box for choosing 8vs8, 12vs12 or 16vs16. In the smallest mode the maps would be smaller too, and the medium one the maps would vary between small, medium and large. In the 16vs16 the maps would only be big maps. It would also affect the score counting system in tdm and asl. (70 kills, 105 kills and 140 kills) juggernaut, ctf, siege and rugby would remain as it is.

[paulus2019 29]

11 hours ago, Emil said:

The experiment had advantages and disadvantages as with everything, I believe there are a number of players who were happy that the experiment ended because for several players it was what affected their FPS and also the game experience, however you were able to do more kills in the same amount of time.

I am happy and relieved that the experiment finally ended. In my opinion the problem was basically not the large map but the large number of players 16vs.16. I was smashed and smashed again and again before I could do anything. Since yesterday TO makes pleasure again!!

16vs16 is very corowded for large maps. For some small maps even 8vs 8 is too many!!

 

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

[wolverine848 13,097]

22 minutes ago, RIDDLER_8 said:

Competition was pretty weak.  I mean, look at those GS scores... wow.

[DaringDeer 656]

I overall enjoyed the 16v16 experiment, especially once I gave up on capping in CTF and RGB which was too difficult.  Loved having other maps in circulation and larger group size.  Enjoyed CP, SGE, and TJR more than ever.  ASL was very unbalanced but I only ever play that for missions, not by choice.  

It comes down to Tanki being able to have different team sizes and different length battles for different maps sizes along with keeping all the game modes balanced.  I hope they can do it.

[NobleWinchester 22]

Hello. I want to preface my reply to this topic by stating that solely changing the amount of players within a battle, whether it be a 6v6 or 16v16, will not rectify all of the issues surrounding matchmaking. The amount of players in a battle is only one aspect of the game, and there is work needed to be done in numerous other areas to attempt a balanced Tanki. 

 

With this new experiment, I definitely will say it was better than the prior one, where the amount of players in a battle was reduced, while health being doubled. The 16vs16 had its ups and downs, but was an overall improvement to matchmaking. There are many reasons why I've come to this conclusion, to which I will explain now.

This was my first observation of the experiment, and unsurprisingly, I made this observation before experiment #2 was introduced to the servers. The reason being that this came from a more logical standpoint, and it concerns protections. For argument's sake, I will refer to a 50% module. In an 8v8, if you had 3 modules, each bearing 50% protection, there is a high chance that you would have protection of at least 1 turret upon entering the battle. If you change these protections to better suit you whilst in the mid of battle, you can potentially have protection from 3 different turrets, which in practical terms, would not be all too rare, considering almost everyone has protection from railgun and thunder, and many with gauss/magnum etc. Having 50% protection against 3 different people on the opposing team, would equate to having protection of about 38% of the opposing team (3/8), almost half of the opposing team. Now, it is common to have people who are on the same team to also have the same turret in battle, again I refer to the popularity of rail/thunder, etc. If this is the case, which it almost always is, then a player may have protection against 4/8 players, or even 5/8 players. Theoretically, the number could reach 100%, but practically, this never happens. Regardless, having protection against half of the players on the enemy team is way to overpowered in my opinion. It makes the person with the 50% modules receiving little damage from turrets he/she has protection from, whilst making gameplay for the enemy tanks unentertaining, as people can't usually mount a strong offense to players with 50% protection.

 

In a 16vs16 however, the number of players you can have protection from is dramatically reduced. Assuming the aforementioned assumption, one can start in a battle with protection from 3 out of 16 players in a match, equating to less than 20%. This is however, impossible because  the nature of a 16vs16 demands  for 2 or more of the SAME TURRETS to show up on the SAME TEAM, as there are only 14 turrets to choose from. So if we factor this fact into our assumptions, the minimum amount of players you can have protection from would be about 31% (5/16). IDK about you, but Ill take the 31% over the 38% any day of the week. What's more is that the percentages here can be a bit deceiving, as our total amount of players have changed. Lets say you have protection from 6/16 players on the enemy team. That would be also 38% of the enemy team you have protection from, but that still means there are 10 people without protection from you, as opposed the 38% from an 8v8, leaving only 5 people without protection from you. This means you can definitely get more kills, and contribute more overall to your team, even thought there are 6 people with protection against you. Even if it increases to a 7/16,  or even 8/16 which is HALF OF THE WHOLE TEAM, that still leaves a significant amount of people without protection from you, leaving you more equipped to better assist your team rather than an 8v8 if there were 5/8 or 6/8 people with protection from you, which is common unfortunately with certain turrets. Perhaps I was wrong to look at this from a percentage standpoint because it can seem counterintuitive to what I'm arguing for. Nevertheless, if we look at the INTEGERS rather than percentages, you can see why my argument would be correct. What to take away from this: There are, on average, more people that will have no protection against you in a 16vs16 rather than an 8v8, leaving room for you to score more points, and be an even more effective team member.

 

My second observation came to me whilst playing in the experiments. In a 16v16, if you have 1 player afk or just left the battle so it becomes a 16vs15, its not a huge blow to your own team, because you still have 15 other players that can potentially do the work of 16 players. This is not the same in an 8v8, and even more true in a 6v6, which is why 6v6 was such a terrible idea. Regarding 8v8, if you just lose 1 player on your team, you can be dealt a serious blow because there are not as many other players as in a 16vs16, meaning that each player in an 8v8 is much more important in a battle practically, and mathematically speaking. In a 16vs16, if you lose 1 player, you lose 6% of your team, 12% if you lose 2 players. It does have potential to become an issue, but not as a serious problem in an 8v8. In an 8v8, if you lose 1 player, you lose 12% of your team, 25% if you lose 2 players. And yes, I have played in countless matchmaking battles where I see 1 or 2 of my teammates afk, multing, or we are just short of 1 or 2 players because we are losing so badly, and the matchmaking system just stops putting players on our team, because everyone who joins our team sees we are losing, and doesn't want to partake in it, usually resulting in a landslide victory in the opposing team. In a 16 vs 16, if you lose 1 or 2 players, yes I agree you can still lose, but its not to a great of an extent as it is in an 8v8, and I played both formats extensively. Each player matters more in an 8v8, which is why in a 16vs16, you still have some cushion to work with if you lose 1 or 2 players from being afk, multing, or the matchmaking system just screwed you over by not adding more players to your team anymore.

 

My final point I'd like to make in this reply is the outcome of battles. In an 8v8, becoming even more common as you increase in rank, battles almost always end in a landslide, being 5-0 in CTF/Rugby, or 70-40 in TDM, etc. Its so annoying to be dealt a bad team from the start, and me knowing early on we are going to lose this battle tremendously. To be honest, I'd say those types of battles occurring about 80% of the time. I arrived at that number just from the sheer amount of MM battles I played, which has to be in the thousands. I can't give a rough estimate as to how many landslide battles I encountered in 16v16, because I haven't played on it as long, but I can assure you it is nowhere near 80%. I feel battles tend to be more even, with close matches becoming more frequent, as it should be. A close match means both teams are almost perfectly evened in strength, which makes for exciting and FAIR gameplay. The reason I feel this way about 16vs16 is just because you have more people to depend on as opposed to an 8v8. I can almost guarantee which battles I join in an 8v8 will be a landslide, but its harder for me to predict that in a 16v16. More people means a lesser chance of the battle being a landslide. More people means more activity. More participation. More fun in my opinion. Yes, in a 16v16, I do encounter landslide battles, but not the same frequency or intensity as in a 8v8. And to reduce this landslide frequency even further would require different changes to different aspects of the game, as this was the first thing I stated in this reply. Modules, drones, alterations, etc need to be reworked by the devs in order to achieve a more balanced MM system, which I will begin to talk about specifically in the corresponding forums. Changing the amount of players in a battle won't solve all of the problems of the MM system, and it arguably introduces new problems to the system, which I will probably comment on at a later time. But this is definitely a start, and I hope they bring back 16v16 as a permanent change to Tanki.

 

 

 

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

17 minutes ago, NobleWinchester said:

Hello. I want to preface my reply to this topic by stating that solely changing the amount of players within a battle, whether it be a 6v6 or 16v16, will not rectify all of the issues surrounding matchmaking. The amount of players in a battle is only one aspect of the game, and there is work needed to be done in numerous other areas to attempt a balanced Tanki. 

 

With this new experiment, I definitely will say it was better than the prior one, where the amount of players in a battle was reduced, while health being doubled. The 16vs16 had its ups and downs, but was an overall improvement to matchmaking. There are many reasons why I've come to this conclusion, to which I will explain now.

This was my first observation of the experiment, and unsurprisingly, I made this observation before experiment #2 was introduced to the servers. The reason being that this came from a more logical standpoint, and it concerns protections. For argument's sake, I will refer to a 50% module. In an 8v8, if you had 3 modules, each bearing 50% protection, there is a high chance that you would have protection of at least 1 turret upon entering the battle. If you change these protections to better suit you whilst in the mid of battle, you can potentially have protection from 3 different turrets, which in practical terms, would not be all too rare, considering almost everyone has protection from railgun and thunder, and many with gauss/magnum etc. Having 50% protection against 3 different people on the opposing team, would equate to having protection of about 38% of the opposing team (3/8), almost half of the opposing team. Now, it is common to have people who are on the same team to also have the same turret in battle, again I refer to the popularity of rail/thunder, etc. If this is the case, which it almost always is, then a player may have protection against 4/8 players, or even 5/8 players. Theoretically, the number could reach 100%, but practically, this never happens. Regardless, having protection against half of the players on the enemy team is way to overpowered in my opinion. It makes the person with the 50% modules receiving little damage from turrets he/she has protection from, whilst making gameplay for the enemy tanks unentertaining, as people can't usually mount a strong offense to players with 50% protection.

 

In a 16vs16 however, the number of players you can have protection from is dramatically reduced. Assuming the aforementioned assumption, one can start in a battle with protection from 3 out of 16 players in a match, equating to less than 20%. This is however, impossible because  the nature of a 16vs16 demands  for 2 or more of the SAME TURRETS to show up on the SAME TEAM, as there are only 14 turrets to choose from. So if we factor this fact into our assumptions, the minimum amount of players you can have protection from would be about 31% (5/16). IDK about you, but Ill take the 31% over the 38% any day of the week. What's more is that the percentages here can be a bit deceiving, as our total amount of players have changed. Lets say you have protection from 6/16 players on the enemy team. That would be also 38% of the enemy team you have protection from, but that still means there are 10 people without protection from you, as opposed the 38% from an 8v8, leaving only 5 people without protection from you. This means you can definitely get more kills, and contribute more overall to your team, even thought there are 6 people with protection against you. Even if it increases to a 7/16,  or even 8/16 which is HALF OF THE WHOLE TEAM, that still leaves a significant amount of people without protection from you, leaving you more equipped to better assist your team rather than an 8v8 if there were 5/8 or 6/8 people with protection from you, which is common unfortunately with certain turrets. Perhaps I was wrong to look at this from a percentage standpoint because it can seem counterintuitive to what I'm arguing for. Nevertheless, if we look at the INTEGERS rather than percentages, you can see why my argument would be correct. What to take away from this: There are, on average, more people that will have no protection against you in a 16vs16 rather than an 8v8, leaving room for you to score more points, and be an even more effective team member.

 

My second observation came to me whilst playing in the experiments. In a 16v16, if you have 1 player afk or just left the battle so it becomes a 16vs15, its not a huge blow to your own team, because you still have 15 other players that can potentially do the work of 16 players. This is not the same in an 8v8, and even more true in a 6v6, which is why 6v6 was such a terrible idea. Regarding 8v8, if you just lose 1 player on your team, you can be dealt a serious blow because there are not as many other players as in a 16vs16, meaning that each player in an 8v8 is much more important in a battle practically, and mathematically speaking. In a 16vs16, if you lose 1 player, you lose 6% of your team, 12% if you lose 2 players. It does have potential to become an issue, but not as a serious problem in an 8v8. In an 8v8, if you lose 1 player, you lose 12% of your team, 25% if you lose 2 players. And yes, I have played in countless matchmaking battles where I see 1 or 2 of my teammates afk, multing, or we are just short of 1 or 2 players because we are losing so badly, and the matchmaking system just stops putting players on our team, because everyone who joins our team sees we are losing, and doesn't want to partake in it, usually resulting in a landslide victory in the opposing team. In a 16 vs 16, if you lose 1 or 2 players, yes I agree you can still lose, but its not to a great of an extent as it is in an 8v8, and I played both formats extensively. Each player matters more in an 8v8, which is why in a 16vs16, you still have some cushion to work with if you lose 1 or 2 players from being afk, multing, or the matchmaking system just screwed you over by not adding more players to your team anymore.

 

My final point I'd like to make in this reply is the outcome of battles. In an 8v8, becoming even more common as you increase in rank, battles almost always end in a landslide, being 5-0 in CTF/Rugby, or 70-40 in TDM, etc. Its so annoying to be dealt a bad team from the start, and me knowing early on we are going to lose this battle tremendously. To be honest, I'd say those types of battles occurring about 80% of the time. I arrived at that number just from the sheer amount of MM battles I played, which has to be in the thousands. I can't give a rough estimate as to how many landslide battles I encountered in 16v16, because I haven't played on it as long, but I can assure you it is nowhere near 80%. I feel battles tend to be more even, with close matches becoming more frequent, as it should be. A close match means both teams are almost perfectly evened in strength, which makes for exciting and FAIR gameplay. The reason I feel this way about 16vs16 is just because you have more people to depend on as opposed to an 8v8. I can almost guarantee which battles I join in an 8v8 will be a landslide, but its harder for me to predict that in a 16v16. More people means a lesser chance of the battle being a landslide. More people means more activity. More participation. More fun in my opinion. Yes, in a 16v16, I do encounter landslide battles, but not the same frequency or intensity as in a 8v8. And to reduce this landslide frequency even further would require different changes to different aspects of the game, as this was the first thing I stated in this reply. Modules, drones, alterations, etc need to be reworked by the devs in order to achieve a more balanced MM system, which I will begin to talk about specifically in the corresponding forums. Changing the amount of players in a battle won't solve all of the problems of the MM system, and it arguably introduces new problems to the system, which I will probably comment on at a later time. But this is definitely a start, and I hope they bring back 16v16 as a permanent change to Tanki.

 

 

 

They might just do that (16v16). But, then you get squads of 4 in a group, and if that group is strong it's lights out for the enemy team, especially if they have a hopper with crisis.

I personally thought 16v16 was good, but that's only because i could adjust my style of play to accommodate such large numbers.

In the end it's 50/50 if you get put in with a % of decent players who no what they are doing, if not your on your own and do the best you can.

[paulus2019 29]

14 minutes ago, NobleWinchester said:

 

 

 

 

You have made a big effort to bring up this analysis, thank you very much. However, in my opinion, the arguments may apply to some players but not to most of them.

The first argument supposes that EVERY player has 3 x 50% modules. I  do not. Whwn I press TAB I may find one player or two who has them. You just think about the best players and ignore all other players who would be smashed again and again in a crowded 16vs 16.

The second argument may make some sense, but a player who would be always smashed over and over again because of the 16vs 16 ist practicaly no help th his team.

The third argument: We had very bad teams in 16vs 16!

 

The most important argument for me: I play TO to have some good time and en joy the game. I could not enjoy the game in the 16vs16. 

 

[Lurch_1 19]

I think the best mod that's come to the game in a while was the 4 on 4 legacy railgun battle on sandbox a couple of weeks back.  It had two things Tanki has been lacking lately: simplicity and balance.  Sometimes you need to go back to basics...

 

As for the latest experiment.

• I did like seeing some of the larger maps again.
• 16x16 is a bit much though, even on some "large" maps.
• As a couple others have pointed out, winning scores need to be adjusted for such large numbers of players.
• Regardless of the number of players, wildly mismatched battles still happen.  (5x 9999 tanks against a mix of 6-9000s is just a mess)

[MRL-Missoula 96]

9 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

Another CTF battle - Iran - where a Hopper with Crisis capped first flag before defenders finished loading.  It capped all 5 flags in the 5-0.

There is NO defending this Hull.  You don't see wasps+Crisis or hornets+crisis doing all the capping.  It's Hopper.

I have the hopper with crisis... I know i cant get flags very well since i know im a sitting duck when i use everything except double armor. I came to the conclusion that thae drone takes out wehatever armor that you have and uses it on the other things

[wolverine848 13,097]

55 minutes ago, cmirotomill said:

I have the hopper with crisis... I know i cant get flags very well since i know im a sitting duck when i use everything except double armor. I came to the conclusion that thae drone takes out wehatever armor that you have and uses it on the other things

Well yes - did u not read the description?

If you know how to use it, capping is easy.  I see it every day.

[Double.kokos 4]

My comments on the big maps experiment:

• I really liked the addition of big maps like Berlin, Kolhoz, Dusseldorf, DeathTrack and Temple. But I think that small maps shouldn't be removed. Having both small and big maps creates beautiful diversity in MM.
• The developers should't remove any old maps, unless they create new maps, that prove to be better. I think that players should have a final say in this.
• The experiment didn't lead to any FPS drops or loading problems in my case. Except it took a little longer to load into a battle. 
• 16v16 is fine by me on the biggest maps. But on medium maps, I'd like the number to be as it was before the experiment. 

 

• Overall, I liked this experiment more than the previous one. I prefer adding these maps to the game, but not removing any.

One more thing:

• I really liked the festive legacy mode on Sanbox. I suggest implementing it into the game as a "Legacy CTF Mode". It could make some older players come back to Tanki.

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

Now that this experiment is over, the juggernaut mode feels kind of empty with 8 vs 8 players. I would suggest that developers "at least" make the team juggernaut mode have 20 vs 20 players to make this game mode more challenging to play, increasing the armor of the juggernaut itself so that it is harder to kill.

Developers said that they were never going to make any future experiments. That was mentioned in V-Log 283. However, it would not be a bad thing to make team juggernaut battles playable in huge maps with 20 vs 20 players. Such an improvement to the team juggernaut mode would attract more players to come and play this battle. That means that waiting times in the queue of matchmaking battles would become much shorter.

I do not know about the other game modes, but I would suggest all other game modes to be played with team sizes of 10 vs 10, as originally planned before the release of the matchmaking system. By having 10 vs 10 players in other matchmaking battles, that would make greater competition in battles with more action and less waiting times.

[alkyng 3,080]

49 minutes ago, RIDDLER_8 said:

Now that this experiment is over, the juggernaut mode feels kind of empty with 8 vs 8 players. I would suggest that developers "at least" make the team juggernaut mode have 20 vs 20 players to make this game mode more challenging to play, increasing the armor of the juggernaut itself so that it is harder to kill.

Developers said that they were never going to make any future experiments. That was mentioned in V-Log 283. However, it would not be a bad thing to make team juggernaut battles playable in huge maps with 20 vs 20 players. Such an improvement to the team juggernaut mode would attract more players to come and play this battle. That means that waiting times in the queue of matchmaking battles would become much shorter.

I do not know about the other game modes, but I would suggest all other game modes to be played with team sizes of 10 vs 10, as originally planned before the release of the matchmaking system. By having 10 vs 10 players in other matchmaking battles, that would make greater competition in battles with more action and less waiting times.

I think the more armor simply will make the jgr immune from death.

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

@asem.harbi

More armor is needed if juggernaut is to survive with 20 vs 20 players. More players means more vulnerability for juggernaut of being destroyed, so more armor is needed. That makes proper sense.

[OUTAMYWAY 48]

Originally i had misgivings about 16v16 modes but i have come to like it quite a bit.

However I should clarify that i play shaft so was rarely caught in the thick of fighting, yet there is always a risk from players more easily getting to the back row.

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

I am glad that this thread is still open. Please keep this thread open for as long as possible so that the discussion about this experiment can continue. Experiments are all finished for the near future.

Developers said in V-Log 283 that all experiments would be concluded for the near future, but what kind of tweaking update will be added in the future? Developers said that there were some features that players liked in both experiments. One feature that I would like to be tweaked and expanded is the active duration of Viking's overdrive. This overdrive should return to 14 seconds and the double armour for all the hulls should also be implemented. Wasps and Hornets dies too quickly, even before taking quick actions such as planting a bomb. Wasp's bomb is also another feature that should be doubled to deal double damage so that no enemy can escape.

As a whole, I enjoyed both experiments. Those experiments brought a lot of fun in Tanki Online as well as differentiation between the number of players on each team and different maps that we all enjoyed playing on. I also liked the good old taste of crystal boxes at my legend ranks.