Player panttss has been banned for a MONTH. Reason: Attempt of hacking. Reported to Tech Support for BLOCK

Trying again publicly... I posted a somewhat length suggestion on how to fix it here: http://en.tankiforum...17#entry4944633 but it got rather quickly buried in all those emotionally heated responses. Things cooled down now, and there is a better chance of it being discussed. Again, the proposal is documented here: http://en.tankiforum...17#entry4944633 What do players think? What do TANKI ONLINE staff think? Mind you, I sent Semyon a PM with this but no response so far...

Semyon, I sent you a link to a post buried deep into this thread (I was not allowed to open another one on this with a *constructive* suggestion) but I haven't received the slightest feedback yet. I have to say, I am with other seasoned IT people on here that Tanki Online's ITSM has lots of room for improvement.

Hi all, I posted this in a new thread which was closed, so I merge the original suggestion and a follow-up into this thread: ---------- ORIGINAL POST ---------- Hi Tankis, Honestly, I do not like how this patch has been implemented at all. While I strongly support the notion of ailing the very frequent imbalanced battles, the way it has been addressed is simply the wrong way. So here's my suggestion: The game now essentially has two victory conditions, whichever arrives first: A -Highest scores at the end of a time period, and B -Reaching a configured score (the victory score) Consequently, instead of making condition B static, it should be presented in the match setup screen as a valid option, next to the mandatory time period setting (so as to prevent battles not finishing because of no one ever reaching the required score). To address imbalanced matches I suggest the following: 1. Implement this compulsory constraint only on time-period-configured battles WITHOUT victory scores configured (remember, time periods would be mandatory, and victory scores optional as per above). 2. Keep (and perhaps adjust as required) the current values for this rule to strike, but make it trigger only on differences in victory scores, rather than absolute values. 3. Strictly interpreting this rule means that nobody wins since the match was imbalanced and has been stopped prematurely with neither winning condition being satisfied to award crystals - so no one would get them. While this may sound harsh, it might encourage people to stay in battles. 4.Alternatively, battle funds would be awarded as they are already awarded in the current implementation. What do you think? ---------- ORIGINAL POST ---------- Follow up to a reply is this: I was perhaps a bit ambiguous in my word choice. Let's assume for now that the two victory conditions would be implemented as I suggested, replacing the premature match stop rule. That would give the following configuration options: A - Set a time limit for the battle, either 15, 30 or 60 minutes (just as it is now). B - Optionally, set a victory condition that, once reached, would end the battle before the time limit triggers. For example: B.1 - 20/40/60/80 kills for DM on small/medium/large/xlarge maps. B.2 - 100/200/300/400 aggregated kills for the team(!) for TDM on small/medium/large/xlarge maps B.3 - CP similar, B.4 - CTF ditto. The exact values for B.1 - B.4 would need to be worked out, but the Tanki team can simulate them properly before rolling out. So, battles can end the way they ended already - though before the latest imbalance patch - no changes compared to that. But, the second, optional, victory condition potentially limits the battle duration in that it triggers as soon as the configured condition is met. Battle funds would be less, of course, but then the game would be shorter, too, allowing you to play more battles in roughly the same amount of time. (A fact that many players in the original patch thread do not realise in their negative comments!) Considering this, we would still have imbalanced matches show up in the game as they do now, which are very annoying - they introduce many negative aspects to the game. While Rule B above - if configured, as it is assumed to be optional - already alleviates imbalanced matches to some extent, they would still show up in battles that are configured only according to rule A (i.e. as they are still to this point in time). To alleviate this, Tanki Online can implement a rule as I tried to describe earlier in that an imbalance condition is not interpreted as an absolute value as it is currently done, but as a RELATIVE value, perhaps as follows, for different map sizes: 1. For CTF matches, a gap of 5/10/15/20 captures between team blue and team red 2. For CP matches, a gap of w/x/y/z points between team blue and team red 3. For TDM matches, a gap of 20/40/60/80 kills between team blue and team read 4. For DM matches, when 1/2/4/6 players are in the 90th percentile of the total kills in that battle These four imbalance controls would be enforced only in matches that do not have an additional victory condition B configured as described earlier. What do you think?