Thanks for the summary and time links to youtube! With regard to the Kick system, Hazel said that "players will kick players that are playing good". Kick2 ensures this would not happen. I know he mentioned kick2 in stream and he said it wouldn't work because, "You're trying to appeal to two different approaches. You're trying to make sure that players who want to be able to kick people will be able to kick people and the players who do not want to be kicked will not be kicked. And it's not going to work, seriously! To re-cap, If a player who does not want to be kicked is playing poorly, good or even great compared to that of the players around him, he will mathematically not be able to receive enough votes to be kicked. It's only when they are playing at a level that is indistinguishable to that of a mult will they be able to receive enough votes to be booted. kick2 topic It was designed to counter abuse. I'm not wanting a response to this now because the topic is closed. I just thought I'd say this for the record and for the 500 players that like the topic. Thanks.

Hi, I found a slight error on Hunter m3 MU page step 13, delay time. (20ч38m) should be (20h 38m) Thanks in advance for the fix. az

Hi - thanks, I'm not sure what language this is. I played around with autohotkey a year or two ago to help me with a shortcut and progressed from there. I read the online manual when I get stuck, which is like most of the time. I don't pretend to know the half of it as I can only grasp the fundamentals but I do know enough to carry out basic tasks. I write it all in notepad. As for other languages, I know nada I'm afraid.

I have checked it with your spreadsheets and the results are nearly always the same but sometimes out here and there by a crystal or two due to rounding. I haven't checked how you did it but I applied the sales percentages on mu's or speedups at the end of each step. I also haven't yet checked to see if ahk rounds up or down at those points. I haven't manually checked anything but one or two snags did crop up because of slight inconsistencies in the translation from RU to EN but @Galaxy promptly sorted those for me in a flash. The general method I chose was to download the html from each url and because everything is so uniformly consistent on each page, I could just use a subroutine to sequentially read, match and extract the information needed (used regexmatch) to make simple text based tables which I then stored as .ini files in a local folder. There is a checkbox option to check the modified date of each item's page before doing any calculation and if the date on the page differs from the one stored locally, it will refresh the local table. Doing that adds a couple of seconds to each new item change so unchecking it makes the process a whole lot faster and the result is spat out as soon as the calculate button is pressed. One of the parts that was a bit tricky was the steps 0-50 which is actually 51 steps. So if a player selects steps 1 to 10, he's actually already bought the first step 0 and in theory we only go to step 49 when adding the numbers. ie, going from 49-50 should just add 49's numbers. I was tempted to discard the zero but I kept it. A large percentage of the script was dedicated to displaying and controlling the gui, graphical user interface - changing what steps are available in a drop down box for instance or disabling/enabling controls to minimise the chance of errors resulting from user input. I'll tweak it further this week if I'm not too tired after work and hopefully have a text file available next weekend.

I've made a working copy of this in AutoHotKey because I have too much spare time. B) Not tested it fully yet but I think it works okay. It grabs all of it's information from wiki then stores the tables locally. Includes an option to check for updates or use local tables. As long as the formatting style is preserved on the wiki pages, adding a new turret, hull to them or even a quad module, should be detected without the need to alter the script. I'm not a programmer or anything and I bet there are more efficient ways to do what I've done. There is still a little tweaking to do on the script but if anyone is interested, I'll make the text file available once I'm happy with it in a wee while.

I think this is right and very commendable of you. :mellow: Supply use has always been a legal feature of this game whereas advocating cheating or ruining other players' games just because their opponent has better equipment or uses more supplies is not conducive to a happy gaming environment. I'm looking forward to the next experiment. I'm personally hoping for a cap of some kind. :)

No amount of supplies can counter mults or mult-like players in my opinion. These types of players and the inability of tanki to effectively combat them to my liking have really turned me off this game of late. I was thinking about topping up my supplies this week while the Iron Days sales are on but I personally feel it would be a waste at the moment and can't bring myself to do it. Would it surprise you to learn that some players advocate the use of mults just because others use supplies? It seems to be a vicious circle. I'm hoping positive solutions are found soon.

There is no need to complicate it imo. SCD's are fine as they are and there is no need for them to change. If limiting the number of supplies is what players want then a battle creation option governing overall supply usage is as simple as it gets. Complicating it switches players off. Too much change too quickly makes people find alternatives and end up playing elsewhere. An additional 'governor' timer indicator would be required telling a player how many supplies he has on hand. It works on all levels and no need to remember what the limitations are.

Is it possible you misread it. I keep an eye on those numbers and they never hit 75k. This was plotted from the numbers on game page too. Notice that the /graphic.swf numbers are slightly elevated to what we see on that front page. We saw just shy of 75k at Christmas and just over 80k during Halloween. As for the experiment, I didn't try it but it's good to see tanki trying a different approach. I wouldn't want to see further game options for both systems and would prefer to see a simple, easy-to-understand cap introduced instead, limiting supply usage per minute.

Top players in this list are the most efficient ones at acquiring the most crystals for the least experience. If everyone continued playing in a similar way then those efficient players who maximised their opportunities will indeed lose out more than those who concentrated on supplies instead. Not just that, k/d is less of a factor too. Camping players now don't get as much benefit, in terms of rating, from the hard work of others as they previously did. Previously, hard working players got crystals at the expense of their k/d which affected their present rating. Now that will be less of an issue for them. I agree that premium is unfair but I can't see Hazel changing premium returns to x1.5, (same as experience), for fear that less people will purchase them.

This is indeed the thing to do since Hazel made the changes giving less emphasis to k/d. Good advice to low/mid rankers.

No, it's not. You know full well that for some players to stay on top longer, all they have to do is play less. If they want to preserve it, they'd not play at all and I didn't suggest that. Got it? Well do it then. Make it clear - what you worried about?

well you know I never used the word preserve so... but we'll see eh won't we? With regard to premium, I'm all for fairness but I don't see anyone making a case for those lesser ranks who are penalised simply because of their level. Speaking of which, I wonder why you haven't included the rank of each player on page one. It's impossible for someone at rank level 10 to be in the top part of the list so why not reflect that too. It won't take that much glory from you and rank level is obviously part of the calculation. Also, the lesser ranks' battefunds are already handicapped compared to that of the higher ranks as they grow a lot slower making it difficult to achieve a decent cry/ep ratio without help. Maybe that should be fixed too while we're at it.

Below is a graph of a player here showing the daily +/- values of the crys/ep ratio. eg, on the 18th the daily crys/ep ratio was 17.6 higher than the overall crys/ep ratio figure the first spike is for a 40k rank up and the other is for a super-mission. These gave significant boosts to their overall rating. If these are no longer going to be counted then the top players will start showing signs of decline, probably playing less and less to minimise the blow of a constantly decreasing rating. Of course it will take many months for anyone to see any real significant changes. It will be a good thing if only battle funds are only counted from now on, ie, no gold boxes, missions, legend rankups or friend related, (invited users), boosts. Maybe someone here, a helper or a dev can confirm these?

And the bollocks just got a load more. Just another failed update imo. Or maybe ^ this guy just gets destroyed more than Kasim because he hasn't learned to turn his turret yet. As a result, he gets more rating points for being more noobish!

Well it's only early on but I can already see that the new formula benefits higher ranked players and a lot more emphasis given to the efficient farming of crystals over experience. Biases now introduced to give a lesser rating to tough, hard-to-kill lower ranked players.

That explains this then.

lol - that will make some players cross! :ph34r:

What? I didn't say he had a "hidden agenda" and who is to say I'm getting excited? Why are you causing trouble? I'm not trying to start anything but if you've been triggered by something I've wrote, please share what's bothering you? Just because you started this topic doesn't mean that you can only have your opinion in it. There is no contradiction in what I wrote and I certainly didn't denigrate anyone. If players want to play "dull/boring/no fun" as you put it, then they're perfectly entitled to do so. I'm just stating simply that most players with medium ratings could achieve a better "rating" just by altering their playing styles. If you're calling me arrogant because of that then I don't see what you're seeing. I don't mind stats being available just as they're being described correctly. Cedric talks about "crappy players" albeit talking about players with a rating of just 1 in the faq's and the v-log describes this rating as a "toughness metric". The inference being, the higher your rating the better you are and if your rating is higher than another player then you're more skilful than they are. If the formula is biased in favour of one thing or another then it is meaningless. In the profile code, it's described as "Efficiency", and while I don't totally agree with this, it's probably as close to the correct description for this rating system as you'll get. Well you've been extremely hostile in your last post. I must have touched a nerve or something. I can assure you, I didn't mean to provoke you but you seem provoked. If you have to change a formula to prevent something and you're introducing a bias in favour of something else then that is a slippery slope. If tanki doesn't want players with little experience to get a top rating then they should not allow them to be able to crush everyone that enter their line of sight. But here you are talking about "Skill". As I keep saying, it's not a skill rating or a toughness rating, there are too many variables to consider. If it's a toughness metric, why do so many people run to preserve their k/d's when the going gets tough? The best Hazel could do is leave it as it is. If darkfart is upsetting him then simply only give ratings to Marshal level and above. Most players have been found out by then and their k/d's are down to a normal level.

So what if they buy or don't buy? The players in this game play in the style they want. Some people have money to spend so they spend it and there should be no stigma attached doing so. There are some relatively good deals in the shop so why not spend money on tanki? There are too many variables in this game for any rating system to mean anything. Anyone with a rating above 9k imo is someone who has taken advantage of either buying, supplies or a particular playing style that maximises efficiency, the latter being the dullest and most mundane tanki existence. Anyone in the 5k-8k range to me are having fun and experiencing tanki to the fullest. These players are not afraid to get stuck in and are prepared to sacrifice k/d for the satisfaction of winning an exciting battle. These are not bad players and most of them would exceed 10k if they chose to have a boring tanki career instead. Personally, I hope the revised formula that Hazel is preparing does not give more emphasis to experience. Why should someone be seen to have a better rating simply because he's played longer? The formula as it stands is ok. Changing it because a buyer made it look bad would be changing it for the wrong reasons. The problem is not the rating, the problem is with allowing players to buy invincibility from the shop. Therein lies the problem.

You want to change the letter ® for Rating in the Experience Bar to an (E) for Efficiency while you're at it. This should not be known as Rating because it causes too much hostility when players brag or boast. There are too many factors in this game for this to be considered a Rating as such. A player with a good Efficiency score basically says he's been efficient whereas if you say a player is Rated better than someone else, then heated arguments are the outcome.

I keep records B)

I had the pleasure to meet @darkfart in Serp a while back when playing an alt. He bought a titan/smoky kit early on and used supplies on those who didn't have any. Nobody could get near him including me. But maybe it's not the formula that is bollocks. Maybe you should not allow new accounts to become so invincible early on via the shop.

Being on the winning team isn't enough. Your overall k/d is 1.62 but today it's only been 1.28 so far which while very good and positive, is one such factor as to why your 5 points down from last night's figure. If you're wanting to maintain your rating then a good start would be to equal or better your overall k/d on any given day. The future is only going to get bleaker because the last time you got close 1.62 k/d was on the 13th of January! Tip: try not self destruct and seek out isida players when needed.

This rating doesn't mean a whole lot and it is quite apparent to me already that this rating has nothing to do with skill or efficiency for that matter. Attacking players who are picked off are penalised while camping players who have a restricted style of play are seen to have a better rating. It's far from a perfect system.