Battle fund depends on map popularity

[Maf 32,312]

Here's another idea that would help bring back old maps without causing too much disbalance, or giving players too much free stuff for nothing (i.e. making 5000 gold boxes on rare maps). The most common idea for this is to increase the battle fund on rare maps. This will make players try out the rare maps, but it will also mean that the rare maps will suddenly become extremely popular and will overshadow the current popular maps, which isn't good.

 

My idea is that instead of a fixed increased fund value for rare maps, the rate of fund growth (i.e. amount of crystals added to the fund per kill) should be dynamic and it should depend on how popular a map is. By using the data about the % of total hours played by tankers, spent on a particular map, a system can be made that creates a map popularity rating and assigns each position a certain fund growth multiplier. E.g. for the rarest map it is 1.8, for average map it is 1.0, while for common maps it's 0.7 (i.e. lower than the current fund growth).

 

The rating will change every day according to statistics collected throughout the previous day (or 7 days, or a month...), so if you want to have big funds you will have to explore uncommon maps and try new experiences on a daily basis.

 

[mps] [ecnm] [bfnd]

[the_blue 25]

How much of an increase is this?

The 1.8, 1.0, 0.7 were examples, will the highest (rarest) be a significant increase? Vice-versa with most used.

 

What about golds, currently, from my understanding, golds have a 1/7000 chance, will this idea affect golds?

[dilsharox 2,395]

good idea

[genak138 950]

I like it, before there was an idea to periodically influence maps and increase their fund manually, but I think an automatic feature would be much better. :) 

[NatchGa 665]

Would the rate of the battle fund on popular maps decrease? because im sure a Polygon CP could get a higher fund than a Kolhoz could, even if the fund rate was increased for Kolhoz...

[Indra_Otsutsuki 329]

Great idea I don't think this will affect popular maps like Polygon CP due to how intense the battles are  :P

[momy950666 960]

i am with you

[PuncherTank 37]

I agree not!

Suppose you have 40 maps that were played 0 times in a day, this means all of them would have the same level of "rarity". Now if your system assigns the same "fund growth multiplier" to each of those maps, then again most players will only play on the small and easy ones and everyone would be stuck with those few maps for the day. The next day, it's another set of few!

The reward you get on a certain map should not be dependent on how rare it is, but rather on how difficult it is. A very smart guy suggested a better idea :P

The objective is not to make rewards higher in rare maps, but to make all maps and battle modes equally efficient in terms of fund growth. So, for example, you'd roughly get the same reward playing 1 hour on Berlin CTF as you'd get from a 1 hour play on Polygon CP.

Fund isn't the only consideration here. Many players choose small and easy maps, like Polygon CP, because they want to earn experience faster or they want a better chance at catching a gold box.

The amount of experience points gained per kill/capture should also be dependent on the map's complexity. You should get significantly more exp. points for killing an enemy tank on Lost Temple than you'd get on Polygon where you can easily find and kill enemies.

Also, fund growth and exp. gain should be greater for DM and TDM than CTF and CP modes for the same map to make all game modes equally efficient/profitable. In CTF/CP more crystals are added to the fund as a result of captures which do not exist in DM/TDM. Additionally, in CTF/CP players usually don't care how many times they get killed as it doesn't affect the outcome of the match, so it's easier to kill enemies there than it is in DM/TDM where everyone is trying not to be shot. The result is more overall kills and thus higher funds in CTF/CP. To balance this, the crystal reward per kill should be higher in DM/TDM.

And finally, the gold box factor. It's ridiculous that you get 30 seconds to locate the drop zone on Polygon and 30 seconds on Berlin! No wonder gold hunters prefer Polygon CP. The gold box timer should be dependent on the size of the map, for example 10 seconds would be enough for Hill, while on Berlin it should be at least 90 seconds. And don't tell me it will affect gameplay, because as long as there are gold boxes in the game it will affect gameplay! So if you want to keep it you might want to do it in a way that doesn't affect map favorability.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

The problem with the concept of difficulty is that the difficulty of a map depends on whether you are blue or red. For example it's much easier for blue to cap a flag in Rio than it is for red.

 

The opposite is true for Serpuhov since red has the high ground and it's more effective for shafts to provide coverage.

 

Strange enough I see little difference in fund growth on both despite one being a small map and one large.

[BuriedSky 1,319]

Good idea..

And a question:

I would be changing when the servers are restarting, right?

Because otherwise, people are playing in battle...and stats show that it has became popular, so it changes the fund growth rate all of a sudden....and maybe even causing lag..?

[Maf 32,312]

 

How much of an increase is this?

The 1.8, 1.0, 0.7 were examples, will the highest (rarest) be a significant increase? Vice-versa with most used.

 

What about golds, currently, from my understanding, golds have a 1/7000 chance, will this idea affect golds?

It will affect golds because they will drop more often due to increased fund growth rate, similar to when we have double funds.

The values I gave are only examples and are free to be adjusted to become fair, but the idea is that 1.8 multiplier = 80% more fund, while 0.7 = 30% less fund than normal.

 

Good idea..

And a question:

I would be changing when the servers are restarting, right?

Because otherwise, people are playing in battle...and stats show that it has became popular, so it changes the fund growth rate all of a sudden....and maybe even causing lag..?

Yes, it would only change at server restart.

[golden5648 1,686]

So you are saying that battles like Polygon and Sandbox get extinct? No.

 

The fund should be same for the famous battles, only the prize of gold-boxes should increase on rare battles. 

[sahl_super 157]

I didn't see this rare battles ?

[ThouShallNot 963]

1.0 = normal battle fund and 0.7 = -30% of normal battle battlefund? so for example i reiceve 700 crys in silence instead of 1000?

[Maf 32,312]

1.0 = normal battle fund and 0.7 = -30% of normal battle battlefund? so for example i reiceve 700 crys in silence instead of 1000?

Precisely. It will force players to explore less popular maps with higher fund, unless they are completely dedicated to their Polygons and Sandboxes and they don't care about the fund.

[drazeruzumaki 5,021]

nice

[creeperskelly 1,281]

I think the one thing that annoys me the most about chat in battle is "Did gold fall yet?"

 

I told someone yesterday it was annoying to keep seeing it - that whether or not it fell already has nothing to with whether or not it will fall in the next second or next 10 hours.

 

An argument got underway - they claimed that it was pointless to play the round if gold fell.

 

I told them about the ratio and the fact that the random chance is the same every time the fund goes up by one.

 

It's like the same people not being able to understand that just because last week's lottery numbers were 1-2-3-4-5-6 that next week's drawing has nothing to do with last week's numbers.

 

I felt like smashing my head into my desk after 5 minutes with that player telling me I was wrong.

[Maf 32,312]

So you are saying that battles like Polygon and Sandbox get extinct? No.

 

The fund should be same for the famous battles, only the prize of gold-boxes should increase on rare battles. 

They won't go extinct. Once the rare maps become popular the old popular maps will become rare again and the funds on them will increase.

[golden5648 1,686]

They won't go extinct. Once the rare maps become popular the old popular maps will become rare again and the funds on them will increase.

Still, I think that The fund should be same for the famous battles, only the prize of gold-boxes should increase on rare battles. 

[i200000 717]

Still, I think that The fund should be same for the famous battles, only the prize of gold-boxes should increase on rare battles. 

Calm down. What is exatcly your problem with the changed battle fund? The popular, small maps won't become unpopular. 

 

Btw, what's the problem with that this popular maps become less popular? What is the game's for: enjoy the playing in interesting battles OR gleaning crystals all the day? You have gone mad in the playing.

[kayitsiz 621]

Still, I think that The fund should be same for the famous battles, only the prize of gold-boxes should increase on rare battles. 

Some players can never get a gold box, so this would be pointless.  :unsure:

[golden5648 1,686]

Some players can never get a gold box, so this would be pointless.  :unsure:

Maybe yes, but I still don't accept this idea. Polygon battles would be near-extinct.

[T.O.T.A.L.W.A.R 581]

The problems we have with maps , the problems we have with mults will be solved when tanki gets

A proper automated match making system and make it the primary system. the current battle creation

system should be a secondary one. 

 

I would expect that tanki unity would have an automated match making system like the one in WT and WOT 

Hence ur idea won't be relevant in tanki unity ,  as for the current tanki well it would be a nice idea

But most probably not going to be implemented!.

[NewbieCake 3,067]

Sorry for downvote - meant as an upvote.

[manish17 1,085]

good idea