Completed Simulated Battle Commencement & Temporary Mutual Standstill

[deadtoyou 2,502]

Bump 4.........

 

I hope something like this will be in Unity, but we all hope for some things......

[TerribleFuzz 9]

I would just like to point to the fact that this element of gameplay is sorely needed. Please do not hog the wonder of fair and enjoyable gameplay for the exclusive club more commonly referred to as, PRO Battling. One thing those of higher rankage seem to forget in every single post, is the fact that gameplay does indeed change if you have players that are actually devoted to the Tanki community instead of just their creepy selves. I'm so sorry to say the truth, but especially at my rank range, (the first red star ranks to the first pop-tart-looking ranks), the players are just absolutely demoralizing; they make me wish to never have faith in humanity for all of eternity. *Shudders* Creepy people infest the lower regions of Tanki rankage. Getting to the point however, this idea would drastically remedy the lack of team play that seems to permeate the internet, by essentially forcing players to communicate as they face obstacles such as stubborn voters.

So imagine this scenario. The players on one team decide to mosey around the map scouting out the kinds of enemies they're going to face, then they communicate using the oh-so precious team only chat feature to tell the players of the team what types of Turret+Hull combos they need to be successful throughout the game. And, since it requires compliant votes from BOTH teams, the teams get as much time as they need to work out their strategies for the players therein; E.G., "Railguns, provide covering fire as B team rushes the right flank, Vulcans, stay on the main offensive line and draw the Shafts' fire, you know you can handle it, you've all got Mammoths!" Example, communicating team is blue on the map Superhov.

Evidence, coordinated strategy. Fun-fun. And for those of you who do not think that this will ever happen I assure you, the three suggested ideas will take hold and settle a more team-orientated kind of battling. Do not underestimate the power of suggestion (it's used in art to make something look amazing when in reality the individual components are hideous). It's all apart of the psychological effects of gameplay. So, please please please implement this into regular, non-PRO battles, it is a necessity.

 

Question. If a player sporadically joins a match, and the five minute no-quit time has already passed for the first players, do they get the same 5-minute regulation as the players who first joined before the vote?

 

Suggestion. If someone is designing a PRO battle, they should be able to say whether or not the Pre-Battle Scouting feature is enabled.

 

Just a concerned tanker,

       Mr. TerribleFuzz

[Eragon 13,876]

For PRO and XP battles its sounds okay, but for normal battles,I don't think so. Either way a brilliant idea and a very understandable description. 

[TerribleFuzz 9]

For PRO and XP battles its sounds okay, but for normal battles,I don't think so. Either way a brilliant idea and a very understandable description. 

Please elaborate.

It would be great for normal battles, and that's the reason why I wrote a gigantic post about it. If you are going to state an opinion, please have an actual reason behind it, not just a statement. This is one thing that most people in the forum seem to ignore completely...

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

 

Unfortunately, in recent updates, implemented only a few months ago; almost all customization of battles have been limited to PRO battles. Normal battles breed chaotic, dulling gameplay that can't and shouldn't be tamed. If players want to capture the enemy flag whilst overpowering two to one, then they can do that in normal battles. If players want to wander around destroying tanks, with no regard to teammates or flag, then they can do that in a normal battle. I think that this idea would receive more negativity and not be well receipted amongst the majority of the playerbase (as a lot of people still play normal battles, for some reason)

 

I, personally, have not lost sight of others dedication to the game. I see it expressed by ranks big and small in the support of this idea which aims to better everyone as a whole and help bring devoted players together to conduct fair and enjoyable battle. I also understand how mindless the game is at the lower ranks, I was once there myself. It gradually improves as you go up in the ranks. However some never really beat the learning curve.

 

Answer to the Q: Yes, to be fair to the others, and prevent constant "joining and leaving spam" (if thats a thing, pretty sure it is)

 

It is indeed a mechanism that would be toggled on or off in the creation of battle. I thank you for your input.

[TerribleFuzz 9]

 

This is a rather comely predicament, and I would have none of it.

But, of course, I understand that there are many people who play and see this game as just one of the many arcade games on the wall at addictinggames.com essentially. Thus, my solution.

You are, at the time of your previous post, thinking under the mindset of equality, now, that is exactly what I am and was thinking beforehand. So ponder this: why is only one people group being catered to in this situation? Why should the disrespectful arcade players be the only ones who get their decisions to be integrated into the vast web that is Tanki? We need this system in regular battles, but to inoculate it, we must continue with our theme of equality, so, we make it a choice. When one creates a regular battle, they can choose whether or not to have this wonderful concept, this Mutual Team Play as it could be called (MTP), and we shall have peace for once in a Tanki lifetime. Please tell me what you think, because at the moment, I see no flaw in being able to control whether or not MTP is active in a regular battle; nothing about the MTP would be controlled, (it isn't a PRO battle) but it could simply be enabled/disabled by the creator at the beginning.

 

Suggestion: I also noticed the schematics for the Mutual Team Play would say that the teams cannot vote for the match to start until the rosters are full. Now this is perfectly fine for PRO battles, since everyone already has the mentality of team play, but a different system might be used in regular battles; they can vote once two minutes has passed, after the roster is half full. This just might work.

 

Terrified to see the possibly creepy future of Tanki,

              

              ~TerribleFuzz

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Having the system in regular battles would benefit the playerbase; in fact I'd like it just as much as you, for others, however, is a different story,

I find your point of view to the arcade gamers input interesting, as I don't necessarily look at players as coming from those sites, and because you're voting for having such a complex equalizing system in place for "disrespectful arcade players."

I categorize the younger/lower ranks that create multiple topics at once, and make suggestions that have already been suggested before in this section of the forum. They cause ideas with potential to go under quick.

Now, back to the psychological aspect of the MTP (Like the acronym btw). The system would not be welcomed in normal battle due to varying goals in gameplay, whereas its more defined in PRO. There are 15 votes in this topics poll for "No, it disrupts gameplay." If the poll was taken by all players and not just forumers, that option would receive significantly more votes and rival the yes option with a smaller margin. Players in normal battles want to get in and cause as much destruction as they can in the amount of time they have and don't want to wait until the game is fair.

I brought up the fact that most customization is resigned to the PRO, but didn't explain why that is a problem. Developers wont want to implement MTP to regular battles when they've restricted something as simple as making the battle private to PROs, which is a bit ridiculous. They would look at this idea and say "PRO battlers would love this, normal players would hate it." You gotta think like the developers when trying to promote the idea, they have their own way of looking at stuff.

 

I'm not totally convinced on promoting it for normal battles, but will keep it in mind. Now you know why its primarily for PRO.

[TerribleFuzz 9]

If the poll was taken by all players and not just forumers, that option would receive significantly more votes and rival the yes option with a smaller margin.

Ah yes, good point. I continuously see this from the standpoint that would suggest PRO battling is an impossibility, I, in a way, forgot how it feels to be one of a higher rank. I just recently went back on my highest account, and boy is the gameplay different. People are actually decent for once in a lifetime. Yes, PRO battling is easily attainable at higher levels, and thank goodness the first ranks don't take long enough to get through that the other creepy players aren't entirely an issue. I now agree, the lower levels must not know of this precious artifact that is Mutual Team Play. Aside from this however, I declare this idea, according to myself, perfect in every way. You have my seal of approval. Good day.

[56_redbarron_56 0]

Has any Tanki executives or representatives seen this post or commented on this post? We need to get the ball rolling on this. Almost all action based games that involve battles have something similar to SBC. Why doesnt Tanki? They obviosly havent seen this post.

 

-56_redbarron_56

[saad455 70]

Good idea  :D

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Has any Tanki executives or representatives seen this post or commented on this post? We need to get the ball rolling on this. Almost all action based games that involve battles have something similar to SBC. Why doesnt Tanki? They obviosly havent seen this post.

 

-56_redbarron_56

I've requested that it be looked at, and it has. However, the ideas goal was not interpreted correctly. I am working to see that it does.

 

Perhaps Hazel could interject?  (after reading PMs)

[ThouShallNot 963]

Good ideas.

[Maf 32,300]

Finally got around to reading this topic from start to finish.  -_-

 

Overall, all three suggested systems could very well work in this game. However, the main problem is human error, more precisely, the willingness of players to follow such rules if the only thing they get from it is fair games.

 

In an ideal world, everyone joins the game to play, everyone patiently waits for the battle to fill up and everyone responds in time for the call to confirm that they are ready. In the actual game what you'll end up with is perhaps (in a game of 16), 5-6 players will confirm, 3 will be AFK or distracted by other programs open in a new window over the top of the game, maybe one player won't confirm on purpose (for the fun of it) and the rest will simply have no idea how to use the system.

 

I hope I'm wrong and generally players in the game are more organised than I imagine, yet on the other hand look at the /vote system - even when there is obviously a violator in the battle, who is making the match unfair, it takes incredible amount of effort and patience to get enough players to complain. Most of the time people either have chat turned off, don't speak the language, don't know how to use the system or are simply too lazy to do the simple task of copying the nickname and posting it after "/vote" in chat.

 

The other big problem is the fact that, as stated here before, people don't like to wait. Most normal players come to the game to have fun without any limitations and formalities, regardless of whether the other players/teams are too weak and the game is unfair. Many even think that unfair is BETTER, and they actually enjoy capturing flags one after the other when there are 2 vs. 10 players left on the other team. Effortlessly capturing  flags and killing the remaining players makes them (the winning team) feel strong, powerful and dominant. This mostly applies to children (players under the age of 15, with exceptions), who, unfortunately, make up more than half of the total Tanki player base.

 

 

Also, there's an issue with TMS that hasn't been mentioned here. What happens to flags when TMS is enabled? Do they automatically get returned to bases and locked? What if a bunch of friends are playing and two of them agree to always leave as soon as they sense that their flag is about to be captured? That seems like a great opportunity to sabotage the other team - leave the battle to effortlessly return your flag via TMS, re-enter, continue playing and leave again if your flag is about to be captured. I realise that you lose points in the process, but some people are willing to do that in order to win the battle at any cost.

[deadtoyou 2,502]

Hmmmm...:ph34r:

 

Good points.

[SUP3R_ST4R 1,205]

Good idea but a lot of works to be donee...

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

#walloftext

In an ideal world, everyone joins the game to play, everyone patiently waits for the battle to fill up and everyone responds in time for the call to confirm that they are ready. In the actual game what you'll end up with is perhaps (in a game of 16), 5-6 players will confirm, 3 will be AFK or distracted by other programs open in a new window over the top of the game, maybe one player won't confirm on purpose (for the fun of it) and the rest will simply have no idea how to use the system.

 

I hope I'm wrong and generally players in the game are more organised than I imagine, yet on the other hand look at the /vote system - even when there is obviously a violator in the battle, who is making the match unfair, it takes incredible amount of effort and patience to get enough players to complain. Most of the time people either have chat turned off, don't speak the language, don't know how to use the system or are simply too lazy to do the simple task of copying the nickname and posting it after "/vote" in chat.

I think your example reflects more of the players who'd rather play Non-PRO. Sure, some will be open in a different tab while they load. I hope people aren't imagining this thing being a /command initiation type system because its not intended to be. There could be a button in between the flag/timer and the supplies, making it easy to pick up and get the battle going.

 

The vote system wouldn't be comparable to this. Players don't have to vote violators. Players don't want to be tasked with having to rally the team into voting a null player out while trying to be of use in the match. That is not being lazy, its taking priority on how you spend the time.

Developers also draw the conclusion of the players being too lazy to vote in the previous function in the TAB. They are focused on playing the game. They can't be expected to vote the null player after it gets a kill once every two minutes + tell teammates to vote + play the game. In the heat of battle, its not efficient.

Older, more experienced players are less likely to /vote players because it may not have done anything for them in the past, they have little faith in it.  I would personally rather rage quit a game that is dragged down by a mult or record video of the violation and leave. I'd rather not call the chat mod in to take video of this null player. Not to get into the issue of there not being enough staff to cover the servers, but couldn't there be Gameplay moderators? They don't necessarily have to have the power to ban, just be able to see votes and use spec. Get in, record proper evidence and be on their way to another battle.

The newer up incoming players may not know how to use it. Why are they not educated of this? There are the loading screen tips of linking your account to an email and tank controls, etc. Why is there not something saying "Players who negatively impact your team can be removed by entering /vote_nickname in the the chat" ?

 

I kinda deviated from the point with these other suggestions for the game, but It all boils down to the fact that players have to VOTE in order to PLAY.  They would be more likely to vote to start than vote a violator.

 

The other big problem is the fact that, as stated here before, people don't like to wait. Most normal players come to the game to have fun without any limitations and formalities, regardless of whether the other players/teams are too weak and the game is unfair. Many even think that unfair is BETTER, and they actually enjoy capturing flags one after the other when there are 2 vs. 10 players left on the other team. Effortlessly capturing  flags and killing the remaining players makes them (the winning team) feel strong, powerful and dominant. This mostly applies to children (players under the age of 15, with exceptions), who, unfortunately, make up more than half of the total Tanki player base.

It is probably pretty clear the normal playerbase would not jump and cheer at this type of addition, something they don't have to play. Yeah sure, they can play a senseless 10 vs 2 for the confidence boost. Whatever. Have at it.

Believe it or not, there are a substantial amount of players who don't want those type of games, especially for the loosing team. Regardless of the age of players that are more likely to enjoy limitlessness, there are also the kids who get frustrated because of how unfair/balanced battles can get; which in turn goes against the fundamental goal of the developers. They'll eventually seek something granting more equity, or quit the game. Its a matter of perspective, I guess. I see 10 vs 2 as being far from balanced.

 

Also, with both the vote system and unfair battles, I think it kinda resembles the herd mentality of the playerbase. If you're trying to vote against someone, and nobody else is, why should you? IF you are on a team of 5 playing against 10, are you going to quit like the other three did? Probably. Are you going to strive to be the team of 10 to dominate 5 people? Yes. Its unfortunate that those aspects of the game are as they are.

 

Also, there's an issue with TMS that hasn't been mentioned here. What happens flags when TMS is enabled? DO they automatically get returned to bases and locked? What if a bunch of friends are playing and two of them agree to always leave as soon as they sense that their flag is about to be captured? That seems like a great opportunity to sabotage the other team - leave the battle to effortlessly return your flag via TMS, re-enter, continue playing and leave again if your flag is about to be captured. I realise that you lose points in the process, but some people are willing to do that in order to win the battle at any cost.

Very good point. The intention was for the flag to be returned in the event of a TMS. A valid circumstance that I would hope doesn't happen, but I think this compromise will ease the issue a bit:

Say the red team has taken the blue flag and blue players leave, causing a TMS. Instead of the blue flag being returned, red players temporarily lose possession of the flag, making it idol, without the capabilities of picking it back up. Once the battle starts back up, the flag is dropped in a "fair zone" more towards the center of the map away from the bases, so each team has a fair chance of returning/taking. The same would go for if both teams had each others flag. Both temporarily losing possession and being able to try for the flags in a fair zone.

 

This then creates the issue of players leaving to get the TMS if the enemy takes their flag in order to potentially get it back without fighting as hard for it. I mean it sounds much more fair and intriguing than simply giving the flag/capture to the team that had the flag in the event of a TMS. Its a compromise for both in the fact that the blue team gets a better chance of getting their flag back, and the red teams work to get the flag isn't a complete waste. It would also simulate the fight to return the flag as it were before the TMS. So I hope this would deter such sabotage by leaving, an issue I feel would be an isolated occurrence.

 

^Anything to build on that aspect of TMS?

[Maf 32,300]

 

Very good point. The intention was for the flag to be returned in the event of a TMS. A valid circumstance that I would hope doesn't happen, but I think this compromise will ease the issue a bit:

Say the red team has taken the blue flag and blue players leave, causing a TMS. Instead of the blue flag being returned, red players temporarily lose possession of the flag, making it idol, without the capabilities of picking it back up. Once the battle starts back up, the flag is dropped in a "fair zone" more towards the center of the map away from the bases, so each team has a fair chance of returning/taking. The same would go for if both teams had each others flag. Both temporarily losing possession and being able to try for the flags in a fair zone.

 

This then creates the issue of players leaving to get the TMS if the enemy takes their flag in order to potentially get it back without fighting as hard for it. I mean it sounds much more fair and intriguing than simply giving the flag/capture to the team that had the flag in the event of a TMS. Its a compromise for both in the fact that the blue team gets a better chance of getting their flag back, and the red teams work to get the flag isn't a complete waste. It would also simulate the fight to return the flag as it were before the TMS. So I hope this would deter such sabotage by leaving, an issue I feel would be an isolated occurrence.

 

^Anything to build on that aspect of TMS?

 

Yeah, this seems like a good way to solve this issue. Players would still be able to save some effort of returning their flag by leaving and triggering a TMS, but that also means that they lose their score in the process, which is a disadvantage of such a "tactic". Another big disadvantage is potentially losing your spot in the battle while you re-enter. When the players return (or others join), the flag would be placed somewhere in the centre, but the location would be randomly chosen from a number of spots, much like the old gold box, to stop players camping the centre to return their flag.

 

Another potential idea is to have the flags drop instantly when the TMS is enabled, stay there while both teams wait for players to join and when the battle starts again the flags will stay untouchable for another 10 seconds before interacting with players again. This is to make it fair for the teams as they gather around the flag just before the end of TMS. Rather than giving the flag to whoever happened to be on top of it when the game initiated, there will be 10 seconds for the players at the flag to battle it out so that the winner takes or returns the flag.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Another potential idea is to have the flags drop instantly when the TMS is enabled, stay there while both teams wait for players to join and when the battle starts again the flags will stay untouchable for another 10 seconds before interacting with players again. This is to make it fair for the teams as they gather around the flag just before the end of TMS. Rather than giving the flag to whoever happened to be on top of it when the game initiated, there will be 10 seconds for the players at the flag to battle it out so that the winner takes or returns the flag.

That would look silly. Like in American football where players wait for the ball to be hiked. All the tankers sitting there waiting to either take or return the flag. Sure everybody is there with what you could say its a fair chance of getting the flag. However, that suggestion would not fit with SBC mechanism. Battle is re initiated with the self-D and respawn function, which contradicts this. In the event the TMS begins, the player who had the flag would automatically drop the flag right where they were at that point, just like if they pressed F, and becomes untouchable. Then when the battle restarts, players are destroyed and the flags dropped in the middle of map; or a "Reverse Flag Drop" if you will. Like I said: the blue team gets a better chance of getting their flag back, and the red teams work to get the flag isn't a complete waste. Wouldn't be fair if you could sit on the point at which the flag would be dropped anyways.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Updated the TMS description. Added Reverse Flag Points/Drops.

[GreatIraan 647]

Dear TankiOnline,

 

As we know, after many complaints about the previous format of XP/BP battles, a new form of XP/BP battles (As new formats) has been successfully introduced by Tankionline team. It is so interesting and works great.

However, I think that the tanki team can improve it in more interesting form for PRO players.

 

I'm sure that you see some moments in battle that you are the winner of a battle but in the last flags some teammates go out of game and you are less than your competitor in count (for example in CTF). 

Unfortunately, in this time,  your loser competitor mostly starts to capture the flags to win and finally they can win the lost game! This is not a fair game and you can see that we cannot call this game PRO!

 

I suggest that Tanki add some new structure to game that players cannot capture (even destroy) any flag when the number of players are not equal.  In such this moment, tanki can give for example 2 or 3 min to winner team (or any team) that can invite a new person to game. 

 

Moreover I think that we need another structure in starting game in PRO battle mode. As we see it, mostly in starting game specially in XP/BP, players ask theirs competitor as "ro" or "go"? This is fair mode to start. But unfortunately, we can see some players that starts game without saying anything (while their competitors are less in count or joined but are in  freeze mode) and this enrage other players. As we know, the vote system is not effectively work as previous one (It had some problem too). Therefore, players have to quite the game or continue with that situation.

I suggest that tanki start a new system that ask a question as "Are you ready" in starting of a game from all players. When all players accepted it, the game starts (before all acceptations, they cannot do anything such as destroy, CTF,...). Moreover, by this method, you can give a time like 30 sec to accept, if player does not accept it, it will be go out and there will be chance for other players to enter. In this situations, we cannot see some freeze players in starting a game. 

 

Best Regards,

GreatIraan 

 

[Maf 32,300]

^ 

Merged with "SBC and TMS".

[dilsharox 2,395]

just go with it devs has already done enough for XP battles

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

I'm sure that you see some moments in battle that you are the winner of a battle but in the last flags some teammates go out of game and you are less than your competitor in count (for example in CTF). 

Unfortunately, in this time,  your loser competitor mostly starts to capture the flags to win and finally they can win the lost game! This is not a fair game and you can see that we cannot call this game PRO!

Best Regards,

GreatIraan 

Exactly. If you have to join a clan to participate in fair battles than whats the use of calling them PROs.

 

I have thought out a similar system as you described to enhance the chance of a fair balanced battle (great minds think alike, eh?). Also adding the TMS and EBF. Similar to the EBF, the early end function that is optional in the game now will not have the impact the SBC and TMS could have.

 

just go with it devs has already done enough for XP battles

The examples of XP are just to exemplify the basis of the idea and its function. I'm promoting this for PRO battles as a whole, not just for formats.

[dilsharox 2,395]

Exactly. If you have to join a clan to participate in fair battles than whats the use of calling them PROs.

 

I have thought out a similar system as you described to enhance the chance of a fair balanced battle (great minds think alike, eh?). Also adding the TMS and EBF. Similar to the EBF, the early end function that is optional in the game now will not have the impact the SBC and TMS could have.

 

The examples of XP are just to exemplify the basis of the idea and its function. I'm promoting this for PRO battles as a whole, not just for formats.

then u better tell devs to remove the private battle function from pro battles

& also we need some more formats this might be a good idea but consider about other formats as well

[Yisroel.Rabin 16,224]

I believe it's an amazing idea, but the one little thing bothers me; "Player cannot leave the battle until 5 minutes into the game starts". I say shorten it to 3 minutes or find another solution to people not leaving as soon as the battle starts.