update 12 minutes battle duration

[kydapoot 570]

I think 12 minutes is a good length! 

[kydapoot 570]

8 hours ago, Incorp said:

This is twice the usual amount of battle time; could we at least get double funds?

As far as I know, the fund isn't displayed in MM but it still increases based on the number of kills and other battle actions that happen, so longer battles should naturally get larger funds. Not totally sure on that though.

[Broocker 6]

I think the duration of each battle should not be fixed, but based on the size of each map. Long maps, long time, example: 12 minutes, short maps, less time. But this can influence the funds as well. However, the suggestion is to be discussed and evaluated.

Thanks.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Broocker
More words.

[wolverine848 13,097]

3 minutes ago, Broocker said:

I think the duration of each battle should not be fixed, but based on the size of each map. Long maps, long time, example: 12 minutes, short maps, less time. But this can influence the funds as well. However, the suggestion is to be discussed and evaluated.

Thanks.

Funds don't really need to be tweaked.

The longer the battle, the more funds generated in that battle, but you play less battles per hour.

Shorter battles generate less funds, but you get in more battles per hour.

Evens out in the end wrt to funds.

I, like many feel 7 min (really 6.5) battles are too short and something closer to 10 min is better.

[1stElite 16]

 12 minutes is good, but a bit over. 8-10 minutes is good enough time to gather up kills and points, but with this increase, I think the max amount of 3 stars earned should be bumbed up to 4 or 5, and premium should stay the same. 

[Spy 14,687]

17 minutes ago, Broocker said:

I think the duration of each battle should not be fixed, but based on the size of each map. Long maps, long time, example: 12 minutes, short maps, less time. But this can influence the funds as well. However, the suggestion is to be discussed and evaluated.

Thanks.

On one hand the idea is interesting but on the other hand, many players (including myself) dislike big maps like Lost Temple, Berlin etc.. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

5 minutes ago, Spy said:

On one hand the idea is interesting but on the other hand, many players (including myself) dislike big maps like Lost Temple, Berlin etc.. 

But they are already here - might as well have a longer game to make the map palatable.

If you don't like the map - exit.  I do that with Stadium and Archipalego automatically.

[kydapoot 570]

I think what Spy was saying is that a long battle on a disliked map is less palatable than a short one, but I do see your point.

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

1 hour ago, kydapoot said:

As far as I know, the fund isn't displayed in MM but it still increases based on the number of kills and other battle actions that happen, so longer battles should naturally get larger funds. Not totally sure on that though.

Deva said a while ago that the battle fund also increases on its own (at a rate undisclosed). 

[Snafu 139]

Leave 7 minutes. Or even better reduce to 5. In MM I only do missions like participate in battles, collect drop or use OD. So the shorter battles the better!

 

On a more serious note - have you guys fixed all the bugs that you have nothing else to do??

[Frylock 1,617]

In my opinion I think 12 min battles are a little to long but I think I'll give it a try. I would think 10 min on larger maps and 7 or 8 min on smaller to medium maps would be better; I don't know yet. Ima give 12 min battles a try like I said before. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by MysticBlood

[DestrotankAI9 1,513]

1 hour ago, Broocker said:

I think the duration of each battle should not be fixed, but based on the size of each map. Long maps, long time, example: 12 minutes, short maps, less time. But this can influence the funds as well. However, the suggestion is to be discussed and evaluated.

Thanks.

There is logic behind your idea, but personally I would hate this. As has already been mentioned, many players hate the large maps (and that includes me). Capture modes such as CTF and Rugby are simply awful on these maps, as it is so hard to capture most players simply ignore the objective and play as if they are in TDM. Being forced to play on these maps for a longer time than other maps would be truly hideous.

On the other hand, matches on small maps are often the best games. Heavy hulls are very viable on these maps, and some of my most fun battles have been in 6v6 and 8v8. So having my favourite smaller battles made shorter, and my most hated maps with 14v14 battles made longer would be a double kick in the teeth.

Another factor to consider is missions. This would mean luck plays an even bigger part in getting missions done. If you got "lucky" you would get drawn into smaller battles where you can complete "finish battles in top 3" and "finish battles" missions more quickly, while also having more chance to complete "Capture flags/balls" missions (and "finish top 3", since teams are smaller). But if you got unlucky, you would be drawn into long battles on large maps, where completing many kinds of missions would be harder and would take longer. In general, most missions (not all, but most) are easier to complete on small maps, so from that perspective players would not welcome this change.

Finally, as already discussed in depth battles over a certain length are simply too long for Matchmaking, and variable battle length would include some of these games. I won't go over those reasons again.

In general therefore, while I had also considered this idea, with the way matchmaking is set up - and also the way the missions system is set up - variable match time dependant on map size would NOT work. It would be totally hated by many players including me. An appropriate set time for MM battles would be best - and I believe that "golden" time is 10 minutes.

Edited September 10, 2021 by DestrotankAI9

[Eradication 0]

12-minute MM battles are better than 20-minute ones since score limits for MM battles DON'T change regardless of battle duration. I'd say 20-minute MM battles are good only if score limits for specific battle modes are suitable for the battle duration. (e.g. 200 kills for TDM, 20 Juggernaut destructions for TJR, etc. in 20-minute MM battles)

[Eradication 0]

11 hours ago, abdul12340 said:

Yeah 12 minutes is kind of calm 

But 15 to 20 minutes is horrible

@abdul12340 I agree to your opinion that 15-20 minutes of MM battles are horrible since the score limits for specific battle modes DON'T change at all regardless of battle duration. They were too long for the score limits used in 7-minute MM battles

Edited September 10, 2021 by Darien-John-306

[artc 1,119]

12 hours ago, Marcus said:

your comments and feedback are much appreciated. 

so then keep the battle duration at 7 min

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 hour ago, DestrotankAI9 said:

There is logic behind your idea, but personally I would hate this. As has already been mentioned, many players hate the large maps (and that includes me). Capture modes such as CTF and Rugby are simply awful on these maps, as it is so hard to capture most players simply ignore the objective and play as if they are in TDM. Being forced to play on these maps for a longer time than other maps would be truly hideous.

On the other hand, matches on small maps are often the best games. Heavy hulls are very viable on these maps, and some of my most fun battles have been in 6v6 and 8v8. So having my favourite smaller battles made shorter, and my most hated maps with 14v14 battles made longer would be a double kick in the teeth.

Then why don't you quit the battles on very large maps if prefer the smaller maps?

7-min battles on very large maps suck. period.  If no one likes them, what's the point.  At least ppl that DO like longer battles will enjoy those maps more, since it gives them time to complete the objectives.  You spend a disproportional amount of time driving around on the larger maps - more time is needed to compensate for that.

 

 

[DestrotankAI9 1,513]

11 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

Then why don't you quit the battles on very large maps if prefer the smaller maps?

7-min battles on very large maps suck. period.  If no one likes them, what's the point.  At least ppl that DO like longer battles will enjoy those maps more, since it gives them time to complete the objectives.  You spend a disproportional amount of time driving around on the larger maps - more time is needed to compensate for that.

 

 

Combined queue + loading time for me is usually about 2 minutes (most of that is loading), quitting battles is therefore a massive waste of time, especially when trying to get missions done. The fact that the quit option is available, does not mean that it makes it OK to force players into matches that they don't want to play for excessively long periods of time. Quitting should ONLY be necessary if a player has to quit for real life reasons - it does not make forcing players into bad matches regularly a reasonable thing.

Right now, if I get placed on a large map in CTF or Rugby I CAN endure it for 7 minutes - finish and collect my mission progress without crying too much - and given the large variation in maps available I am unlikely to be placed in a large map in those modes the next time (large maps are OK for CP & TDM which are independent of map or team size, OKish for TJR but the problems come in capture modes - 3 modes only).

However, if I am forced to endure 12+ minute battles on such maps, then I WILL be forced to quit - and many other players will do the same - and if I am forced to start quitting battles when I can get away without doing that (and wasting 2 minutes queuing + loading) then I will be pretty angry about that.

10 minute battles on large maps are perfectly fine, that is sufficient time for such maps - and for any match. Due to the nature of the matchmaking system, numerous problems occur going above that duration - 12 minutes is the absolute limit - but even that I feel would be too long.

From looking at player feedback in-game, and on the forums I am fairly confident also that MOST players find large maps, especially in capture modes, their least favourable battles. So players who enjoy long battles (in those modes in particular) on these maps are surely in the minority. If those players want to play long games of CTF on Lost Temple - feel free to go to PRO battles to do that, DON'T force it on the rest of us, and also make missions much harder to complete at the same time.

Edited September 10, 2021 by DestrotankAI9

[wolverine848 13,097]

7 minutes ago, DestrotankAI9 said:

Quitting should ONLY be necessary if a player has to quit for real life reasons - it does not make forcing players into bad matches regularly a reasonable thing.

It's a game.  PPL can quit for various reasons.  It's not like leaving your post at a job, or waliking out on an exam.

How is it a regular thing?  There are only a few of the super-large maps.  You will be placed in them a LOT less often than the rest of the maps.

I am "forced" to quit Archipalego when I'm placed in there. It's the dumbest map ever invented.

[Frylock 1,617]

7 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

I am "forced" to quit Archipalego when I'm placed in there. It's the dumbest map ever invented.

Something we would actually agree on. BTW I don't like the map how its so restricted that forces players to use melee turrets especially when tesla is around now. XD

Edited September 10, 2021 by MysticBlood

[NikmanGT 4,362]

The timing should be suitable as not too long, as to bore the players in the same match and not too short as players wont be able to do anything and the battle will pretty much end. The 12 min battle duration is pretty suitable ^^

Edited September 10, 2021 by nikunj04

[PirateSpider 1,489]

2 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

I am "forced" to quit Archipalego when I'm placed in there. It's the dumbest map ever invented.

 

2 hours ago, MysticBlood said:

Something we would actually agree on. BTW I don't like the map how its so restricted that forces players to use melee turrets especially when tesla is around now. XD

that map is literally the Pluto of the maps. Nobody wanted it.

 

It would've been fine IF the islands were connected to each other.

[alkyng 3,080]

5 hours ago, kydapoot said:

I think what Spy was saying is that a long battle on a disliked map is less palatable than a short one, but I do see your point.

I think what Wolverine was saying is that the big maps are unpalatable because their time was short, so if we increased their time they will be palatable. 

[DROR-ORGAD 3]

Tank devs, maybe just make a vote and ask everyone what is the optimal battle duration instead of doing these expirements? And if you ask me you should just make 3 types of battles - 5 minates, 10 minates, 20 minates and everyone can enjoy the kind of battle duration they want

[DestrotankAI9 1,513]

5 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

It's a game.  PPL can quit for various reasons.  It's not like leaving your post at a job, or waliking out on an exam.

How is it a regular thing?  There are only a few of the super-large maps.  You will be placed in them a LOT less often than the rest of the maps.

I am "forced" to quit Archipalego when I'm placed in there. It's the dumbest map ever invented.

Oh yes you are right - this IS a game, and I play it to have fun, not to waste time sitting on long load screen, restarting client and then having to quit matches - wasting a ton of time for nothing. I can cope perfectly well with the current 7 minute battles NOT quitting games (apart from when I get the no damage bug, which is quite often I must say) - because they are short enough that no matter what match I get put into, even if it is a map + mode I don't like or if my team has no chance whatsoever to win, it is a bearably short length of time, and I can get mission progress and move on.

But, battles above 10 minutes (and I am already experiencing this having tried a few games with the current 12 minute settings), are truly awful if you get stuck in a "bad" battle (whatever qualifies as bad for you, different for each player). For me "bad" battles are not just the large maps in CTF, but also matches where my team has no chance to win (low ranks + me vs 9999 clan groups, let's say), or perhaps also certain modes on very open maps such as Stadium. I find all of these games bearable at 7 minutes, especially when I can earn good progress on "finish battles" and other mission types, but above a certain length the threshold tips in favour of being effectively "forced" to quit these battles, rather than to make the best of them and move on as can be done with the 7 minute time limit.

I don't know if you have a much better PC than I do, but here is the typical process for getting into a game:

1) Queue for the right mode (depending on what missions I have)
2) Wait 20 seconds (typical queue time)
3) Wait 15 seconds to see if I have the "infinite loading bug" (occurs 50% of the time for me)
4) If I do have the infinite loading bug, restart client (otherwise I will wait loading the match for 2 minutes, and will be kicked back to the homepage screen, while still "queued" for the battle, and never enter)
5) After 2 minutes of loading + restart, finally enter the match. At this point, I have about a 30% chance to have the "no damage" bug, where you can do no damage. For me, a client restart usually doesn't fix this - so if I have it I have to quit the battle, and start the process again.

So, if I spend 2 minutes trying to get into a match, then end up actually being able to deal damage (no damage bug hasn't occurred - amazing!), there is no way I am going to quit a battle off trivial matters such as "maps that I don't like", or "imbalanced matches" - even though it may suck to play those games. Otherwise, I will never get any progress with missions and special missions made. But, if Matchmaking throws us into 12 minute + battles in map/mode combos that are sub-optimal for doing missions, or battles that we really don't enjoy, many players including myself will feel forced to quit a lot more battles than we do now.

And thus I reiterate my previous point - just because the quit battle option exists does not justify regularly throwing players into bad matches. And matches which are currently "bad" become vastly worse if rather than being over quickly, they become extremely long - then the balance is tipped to "unbearable". IF Tanki wasn't ridden with bugs (infinite loading/no damage), and quitting battles and joining new ones was a fast and efficient process, then quitting battles MIGHT be OK. But in its current state? No way. Quitting battles is a waste of time, at least with my PC anyway. If I have to quit more battles than I do now, the game will be almost unplayable.

Edited September 10, 2021 by DestrotankAI9

[Spy 14,687]

1 hour ago, DROR-ORGAD said:

Tank devs, maybe just make a vote and ask everyone what is the optimal battle duration instead of doing these expirements? And if you ask me you should just make 3 types of battles - 5 minates, 10 minates, 20 minates and everyone can enjoy the kind of battle duration they want

There a few reasons as to why a vote wouldn't be accurate. First, the amount of players that would actually vote wouldn't be close to the amount of the players in the game. Secondly, players could use their alt accounts to change the results. Last but not least - The developers read the feedback you guys post in the announcements topic (including this topic) so by leaving your reply with your opinion, you actually "Vote" in a way. On top of that, the developers look at other things when releasing new updates such as stats of kills, deaths, amount of players online and so on.