merge Proposal: Post-Match Map Selection Voting

[Violation 1]

Overview

One of the strengths of Tanki Online is the large variety of maps available across its different game modes. Every map offers its own style of gameplay, encouraging different strategies and play-styles. However, because the next battlefield is selected automatically, players sometimes encounter several maps in succession that they may not particularly enjoy, leading many to leave the lobby before the next match begins.

To make the transition between battles more engaging while giving players a greater sense of participation, I would like to suggest the introduction of a post-match map voting system.

The purpose of this document is simply to present the concept and demonstrate one possible implementation.

The Core Idea

Once a battle has concluded, players who remain in the lobby would briefly enter a voting phase instead of immediately loading into another match.

During this period, possible maps and game mode combinations would be presented on screen. Players would have a few seconds to select the option they would most like to play. When the countdown ends, the option receiving the greatest number of votes would determine the next battle.

If no clear winner exists, one of the tied options could simply be chosen at random.

This approach preserves variety while allowing players to influence the direction of the next match without significantly slowing down matchmaking.

Why Introduce Map Voting?

Rather than replacing randomness altogether, map voting introduces a small element of player choice.

Potential advantages include:

• Giving players a reason to stay in the current lobby instead of searching for another one.

• Reducing frustration caused by repeatedly receiving less popular maps.

• Making the time between matches more interactive.

• Encouraging players to participate together before the next battle begins.

• Increasing anticipation for the upcoming match.

Because the available choices would still be selected randomly by the game, diversity across maps would remain intact.

Interface Concept

The attached illustration demonstrates one possible presentation of the voting screen.

 

 

Each option displays:

• A preview image of the map.

• The map's name.

• The associated game mode.

• A live vote counter.

• A countdown timer indicating how long players have to cast their vote.

 

Design Flexibility

The exact implementation would naturally be determined by the development team.

For example, the team may decide to:

• Adjust the duration of the voting phase.

• Control how maps are selected for voting.

• Prevent recently played maps from appearing too frequently.

• Decide how ties should be resolved.

• Limit voting to certain matchmaking queues or events.

These decisions would ultimately depend on technical considerations and game-play balance.

Closing Remarks

This proposal is intended only as a community suggestion from a long-time player who enjoys Tanki Online and would like to contribute an idea that could enhance the multiplayer experience.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this suggestion. Regardless of whether it is pursued, I appreciate the continued effort that goes into developing and improving the game.

Regards, 
Violation 

 

[NikmanGT 4,693]

Did you write this all on your own ?

[Maf 32,855]

Suggested multiple times before, probably going back to 2018 when MM was first released. I don't think devs want to add it, but I do support the idea.

[Violation 1]

On 7/24/2026 at 8:39 PM, NikmanGT said:

Did you write this all on your own ?

@NikmanGT Yes I wrote the proposal myself but a little bit of Gen AI was used for formatting and final touch up.

[Sabry 1,094]

The idea is nice, but I doubt this would really work - the more players you get on a battle field, the more "various" decisions, yes three maps will eventually end up with one with the majority of votes, but some could prefer yet another map to play, to a point if you really want to give the freedom to choose the next map, then you'd need to show all the options, thus all the MM maps, otherwise it's not a complete free poll if not all the options are presented. Then you also need to take into account the players leaving and the number of simultaneous players at the same time on the server. That's a lot of factors to consider

[THRN 2]

Maybe an after battIe survey where we can rate Map, and other things, which couId be used to give us more of what we iike.

[integer 30]

It absolutely would be nice to see something different in matchmaking system. Really love that example of "map voting" screen. Acceptable usage of ai xd

[Violation 1]

On 7/26/2026 at 10:10 AM, Sabry said:

The idea is nice, but I doubt this would really work - the more players you get on a battle field, the more "various" decisions, yes three maps will eventually end up with one with the majority of votes, but some could prefer yet another map to play, to a point if you really want to give the freedom to choose the next map, then you'd need to show all the options, thus all the MM maps, otherwise it's not a complete free poll if not all the options are presented. Then you also need to take into account the players leaving and the number of simultaneous players at the same time on the server. That's a lot of factors to consider

@Sabry I totally get what you are trying to say but still getting an option of three maps gives you control over the next match. Although some of the players might not be happy with the three choices provided but majority of the players will be able to select the preferred map to make the experience even better. Moreover providing all maps will not be practical, it might be a total disaster for the Devs and specially the UI team as showing all the maps available in the game on the voting screen will not be practical. If all the maps are provided for voting there will be multiple ties. For an example if 16 players are selecting from all the available maps even if a maps gets three votes there is still a possibility that the remaining 13 players vote for a different map each.  They (The 13 players) might not like the map chosen by the three votes. But if there are three maps, the choice is limited and votes will be divided among just three maps so most of the players will feel included in the decision making. 

[Violation 1]

On 7/26/2026 at 1:01 PM, THRN said:

Maybe an after battIe survey where we can rate Map, and other things, which couId be used to give us more of what we iike.

@THRNMap Ratings is a great idea as well. But this way only the most liked maps by all the players will become popular in the match-making. Which will affect unpopular maps rendering them useless. But if a map voting system gets implemented the algorithm can provide unpopular maps in the voting system as well and cycle the maps available for voting from time to time. This way no map will become obsolete and there will be a diversity in the maps played. Keeping the element of player's choice intact.  

[Sabry 1,094]

On 7/27/2026 at 3:00 PM, Violation said:

@Sabry I totally get what you are trying to say but still getting an option of three maps gives you control over the next match. Although some of the players might not be happy with the three choices provided but majority of the players will be able to select the preferred map to make the experience even better. Moreover providing all maps will not be practical, it might be a total disaster for the Devs and specially the UI team as showing all the maps available in the game on the voting screen will not be practical. If all the maps are provided for voting there will be multiple ties. For an example if 16 players are selecting from all the available maps even if a maps gets three votes there is still a possibility that the remaining 13 players vote for a different map each.  They (The 13 players) might not like the map chosen by the three votes. But if there are three maps, the choice is limited and votes will be divided among just three maps so most of the players will feel included in the decision making. 

This is where I am trying to get, I agree three maps is better than nothing, and I even more agree that bringing all maps will be a total disaster, but the point I am trying to clarify is that only suggesting three maps might not satisfy all players, so even if I agree with the inclusion point, some at the end of the day might just prefer to leave. This can lead to some issues behind such as (rare case, I agree) ties between maps which might create even more complex cases.

 

At the end, to make it short, my point is only three maps on the list doesn't give that much freedom, if one wants something else, he'll leave. Also if we put the map choice on a side for a moment, you also have the mode to take into account. Let's imagine the battle that ended is Rio CTF, what mode will the next map be? I suppose CTF again, but some players might not take part on the vote for that reason too - because they are looking for another mode. Then you also have the case of "This map might be nice, but not with this mode" which complexifies even more.

 

Overall, I have to salute the efforts you've made to the suggestions, the use of the AI to give a visual was a great idea !

[Violation 1]

On 7/28/2026 at 12:08 AM, Sabry said:

This is where I am trying to get, I agree three maps is better than nothing, and I even more agree that bringing all maps will be a total disaster, but the point I am trying to clarify is that only suggesting three maps might not satisfy all players, so even if I agree with the inclusion point, some at the end of the day might just prefer to leave. This can lead to some issues behind such as (rare case, I agree) ties between maps which might create even more complex cases.

 

At the end, to make it short, my point is only three maps on the list doesn't give that much freedom, if one wants something else, he'll leave. Also if we put the map choice on a side for a moment, you also have the mode to take into account. Let's imagine the battle that ended is Rio CTF, what mode will the next map be? I suppose CTF again, but some players might not take part on the vote for that reason too - because they are looking for another mode. Then you also have the case of "This map might be nice, but not with this mode" which complexifies even more.

 

Overall, I have to salute the efforts you've made to the suggestions, the use of the AI to give a visual was a great idea !

@Sabry
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. You raise some valid points, and I actually agree with most of them. 

The exact implementation could certainly be adjusted depending on the use case and the developers' design goals. For example, they could decide how game modes are handled, whether the vote is restricted to the current mode, whether multiple modes are included, or even whether the available options are generated using player preferences or matchmaking criteria. Likewise, the number of maps presented for voting could be revisited if the team believes a different approach would provide a better player experience.

Ultimately, those balancing and technical decisions would be up to the developers if they ever decided to explore the idea further.

I really appreciate you taking the time to point out these scenarios. Feedback like yours helps identify edge cases that I hadn't fully considered and makes the concept stronger. Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion.

[Sabry 1,094]

On 7/27/2026 at 3:20 PM, Violation said:

@Sabry
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. You raise some valid points, and I actually agree with most of them. 

The exact implementation could certainly be adjusted depending on the use case and the developers' design goals. For example, they could decide how game modes are handled, whether the vote is restricted to the current mode, whether multiple modes are included, or even whether the available options are generated using player preferences or matchmaking criteria. Likewise, the number of maps presented for voting could be revisited if the team believes a different approach would provide a better player experience.

Ultimately, those balancing and technical decisions would be up to the developers if they ever decided to explore the idea further.

I really appreciate you taking the time to point out these scenarios. Feedback like yours helps identify edge cases that I hadn't fully considered and makes the concept stronger. Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion.

For example a scenario that could be examined:

Let’s imagine a battle with 10 players: 6 vote for the next map, while the other 4 decide to leave. Even if the majority stays, the next battle would most likely start as a 3v3.

There would also be players coming from other matches that have just ended, but if the poll includes every MM map available for the same mode, that already creates a lot of possible choices. It would be fairly unlikely for players from several different matches to vote for the exact same map, even if they were offered the same selection.

On top of that, they would also need to be playing the same mode and finish their matches at roughly the same time. Once all of those conditions are combined, it becomes quite unlikely that the next battle would immediately be full.

 

On 7/27/2026 at 3:20 PM, Violation said:

I really appreciate you taking the time to point out these scenarios. Feedback like yours helps identify edge cases that I hadn't fully considered and makes the concept stronger. Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion.

That's my pleasure! Thank you as well for making those suggestions, that's those kind that helps the game evolve!

[Violation 1]

On 7/28/2026 at 12:26 AM, Sabry said:

For example a scenario that could be examined:

Let’s imagine a battle with 10 players: 6 vote for the next map, while the other 4 decide to leave. Even if the majority stays, the next battle would most likely start as a 3v3.

There would also be players coming from other matches that have just ended, but if the poll includes every MM map available for the same mode, that already creates a lot of possible choices. It would be fairly unlikely for players from several different matches to vote for the exact same map, even if they were offered the same selection.

That's a great example. But even if 6 players vote the next map, we still have to consider the players joining from the random match making so this way the match making will fill the remaining slots available.

Note that this I concept is a Post Match Map Voting. So the voting option will only be available to the players who have finished one match with the map that was selected randomly and only when that match is finished the voting screen will be displayed to those who chose to stay. So the empty slots will be filled out by the players joining the match making for the first time.

[Sabry 1,094]

On 7/27/2026 at 3:41 PM, Violation said:

That's a great example. But even if 6 players vote the next map, we still have to consider the players joining from the random match making so this way the match making will fill the remaining slots available.

Note that this I concept is a Post Match Map Voting. So the voting option will only be available to the players who have finished one match with the map that was selected randomly and only when that match is finished the voting screen will be displayed to those who chose to stay. So the empty slots will be filled out by the players joining the match making for the first time.

Yeah, but those other player from random matches would need to have the same poll as another to end up in the same map, have the same battle mode and both battles would need to end at the exact same time, which lowers the chances, this is what I meant there. Even in the actual meta I wouldnt be able to know the odds, but I dont think they are high currently that several battles ends at the same time (with a 30s range)

 

Would the Post-Match poll have a limited time to vote?

[Violation 1]

On 7/28/2026 at 12:44 AM, Sabry said:

Would the Post-Match poll have a limited time to vote?

Yes the voting time will be limited and it can be adjusted according to the availability of the players and depending on the logic implemented by the devs.

I believe even if the voting time is kept 30-45 seconds most of the players will be okay with that.

[Violation 1]

On 7/28/2026 at 12:44 AM, Sabry said:

Yeah, but those other player from random matches would need to have the same poll as another to end up in the same map, have the same battle mode and both battles would need to end at the exact same time, which lowers the chances, this is what I meant there.

The empty slots dont necessarily have to be filled by the players who finished a match at the same time and have voted the same map at the end of their match. It will mostly be filled by the players clicking the quick battle for the first time (The Players who have already left a match and are on the home screen and might be in the garage or taking a break for a while). As the players joining their first match will not have the voting option and they will be randomly put in a match already voted.

[Sabry 1,094]

On 7/27/2026 at 3:54 PM, Violation said:

The empty slots dont necessarily have to be filled by the players who finished a match at the same time and have voted the same map at the end of their match. It will mostly be filled by the players clicking the quick battle for the first time (The Players who have already left a match and are on the home screen and might be in the garage or taking a break for a while). As the players joining their first match will not have the voting option and they will be randomly put in a match already voted.

Okay, that point makes sense, then I guess the main factor were the past ones to consider about the mode and the freedom, thanks for clearing that point up

[THRN 2]

Let's see, if 32 pIayers are finishing 2 CTF battIes of 8 x 8.

Then they are aII given the same 3 choices.

10 choose Map A, 10 Map B, and 10 Map C. The other 2 convinientIy Ieave.

WiII the system create 3 battIes because they chose 3 Maps?

Now Iet's say they are no more pIayers to fiII those battIes.

WiII the system fiII them with bots?

---------

Now a diferent scenario where these same pIayers voted: 16 for Map A, 12 for Map B, and 2 for Map C. The other 2 unconvinientIy Ieave.

WiII there be a battIe with Map C for the 2 pIayers that voted for it?

[Violation 1]

On 7/28/2026 at 1:22 AM, Sabry said:

Okay, that point makes sense, then I guess the main factor were the past ones to consider about the mode and the freedom, thanks for clearing that point up

Yes the game mode is still the problem. But I can't think of a possible solution for that right now. We can also remove the mode displayed with each map and let the matchmaking decide the mode and leave it to the fate 

[Violation 1]

On 7/28/2026 at 1:37 AM, THRN said:

Let's see, if 32 pIayers are finishing 2 CTF battIes of 8 x 8.

Then they are aII given the same 3 choices.

10 choose Map A, 10 Map B, and 10 Map C. The other 2 convinientIy Ieave.

WiII the system create 3 battIes because they chose 3 Maps?

Now Iet's say they are no more pIayers to fiII those battIes.

WiII the system fiII them with bots?

Merging the selections from two different battles will create a separate complexity, as it will be very uncommon for two battles to finish at the same time (Limited time for voting) . So we will stick with voting from a single battle and the rest of the players will be joined randomly when they start a quick battle for the first time. As voting will only be available once you have successfully finished the first random selected match. If two battles do finish at the same time and both had the same map available at the voting then its a possibility to merge the players into a single battle if slots are available but again it will complicate things.

 

On 7/28/2026 at 1:37 AM, THRN said:

Now a diferent scenario where these same pIayers voted: 16 for Map A, 12 for Map B, and 2 for Map C. The other 2 unconvinientIy Ieave.

WiII there be a battIe with Map C for the 2 pIayers that voted for it?

No , there will not be a battle for the two players as only the map with the maximum votes will be selected for the next battle. The vote count will be displayed and if the players dont want to play the most voted map they will have the option to leave the match making before the countdown for voting ends.

[Akame 4,664]

1) This game does not have enough players to accommodate for this

2) The players the game does have, majority of them will only go for a mode they will profit on.

3) ASL is still a terrible map in many options, being on the attacking side is preferred by camping farmers.

4) Assumption made that many players queue on rather than wait for a bit. Some may want to change a combo because they were forced to change from their main starter ingame.

5) Voting systems will lead to more imbalanced games as if the map farmers wanted to play isn't selected, or yet anyone else didn't get the map they want. They will most likely leave. Are you going to implement leaving game penalties? As much as I would like that, the game would die a lot quicker than it is lasting.

 

Misc:

Were you about when the game implemented a prematch lobby where players joined and then the game started?

If not, do see if there's any information about that. (It clearly didn't work due to the state of the game)

 

Personal stance:

Great idea, just not suitable for this games current state.

[Sabry 1,094]

Yeah, I agree on that, on the paper the idea is great, but is it realistically possible? That's where things gets complex.

 

Back to the game mode that also made me think about one more factor - so for example I remember Forest is no longer playable in ASL mode because as per the management decision it was removed. Say you end a match that was ASL mode, it means maps like Forest gets excluded by default just because of the mode. That's an example but I suppose that's not the only map that doesn't get a specific game mode, Rio doesn't get TJR mode for example, and so on...so we can't even start from the base where all maps should be treated the same when they don't all get the same playable mode available. This naturally reduces the poll of available maps and needs even more effort to produce to have a dynamic poll according to the mode of the map that ended.

 

  

On 7/29/2026 at 11:29 AM, Akame said:

4) Assumption made that many players queue on rather than wait for a bit. Some may want to change a combo because they were forced to change from their main starter ingame.

This is true, I don't think it's that uncommon that a player doesn't change combo from one another. I think the real point of developers to make new turret and new hulls (like almost any game coming up with new features) is to offer various gameplays. After 3 or 4 battles, I wouldn't be surprised one decides to change his combo, which is natural. Then also playing with always the same (with a few different) players no longer gets funny, you get to know their method and eventually end up leaving. That's surely one common scenario that would happen if you were to vote for the next map with your current lobby