M0 and M1 weapons purchases are essentially your entry barrier costs to get in the game. Think of them as a tax before you can actually start competing.

Threaten them incessantly until they give into your demands.

photoshopping

People usually make snide remarks or clearly define their hatred to an individual(s) due to that individual(s) need for omnipresent attention in any form. For an example of this, please refer to the OP of this thread. - Your welcome -

IRC: when it was the only form of RTC on the public domain of the internet. I bet over 99% of you will have to look up both of those acronyms.

It doesn't really matter what tank you mount it on. I personally think shaft is probably best mounted on a mammoth because of the high HP and survival factor but you can mount it on anything you want.

I actually toyed with the drugging aspect of your comment. I thought maybe having a 10 or 20% reduction in flag score if you used drugs while carrying the flag or possible 5 - 8% reduction per drug used. (Drug pickups would not be counted) I personally think that players that can grab a flag while not under the influence shoud score a higher amount. Then you might have to argue on which units are drugs, and whether or not Heals would be counted as part of the drugging. I don't think this would discourage drugging enough to damage the game because sometimes it is just a necessity, but it may slightly curtail it in certain circumstances, for example when one team is overpowering another team.

No, there is no reserve concept in my comment. It would function exactly as it does now. Someone drops off, and a spot in the battle opens. This would allow the the impatient to be able to join a game immediately vs. waiting for a game to start.

You probably won't need a filter. If the games drop off upon completion it won't be an overly long list for you to scroll through.

For the record I want to note how you say that being skilled and using your brain to win games is "lazy". So what you are suggesting is that killing the enemy is paramount to capturing a flag? Because if that is the case I am one of the laziest dudes around. I will always forego a kill and drawing attention to myself in favor of getting to a flag. Again, I just don't get your point. Of course maybe I would if I stood still camping all day long, but my finger gets tired holding the space button bar for so long.

Skitee, Unfortunately I can see very little point in your argument. At this point it seems the argument is, if you shoot at people and don't kill them it is lazy, and if you battle passively by camping all day that is an interesting way to play. To defend it you say that you don't see much point in running up the middle and shooting at people. I don't think anyone sees the point of running up the middle and shooting at people. Spending that much time in respawn won't earn you very many points. Under my proposed system you will earn significantly more points if you can stay alive and keep pressure on the enemy. It is simple math my friend, if you make contact with an enemy with your projectile more often, you get rewarded. Skill is skill, you don't diminish it in any way by leveraging my scoring system at any level. If someone wants to run up the middle and die, they won't get to many shots off now will they??? Sounds like under my scoring system they are diminishing their scoring opportunities now aren't they? So there is absolutely no truth in the fact that leveraging this scoring system diminishes and / or levels off skill. You have been debunked based on your own example. All you are doing is changing the aspect of how you score and leveling off some of the massive point gains by high levels, just like the recently adjusted scoring system now leveled off the massive point gains from lower levels. Application of a little common sense will get you to the conclusion (and point) that you really want to make. The truth is, this type of system drastically reduces the amount of points you can gain from camping, and you don't like it for that very reason. Nothing lazy about it, you will just have to step into the open more often to score and be at the top of the list for the fund pay out. That is all.

So was Gold Farming, Can you honestly tell me the game is not improved with its elimination? You have to ask yourself, is an improved scoring system that levels off extreme gains for lower or higher ranks really that bad for the game?

RE #4 It could be, but I wouldn't have it as an overloaded value and that would be hard to implement. If anything it would be NTE (Not to exceed) 10 pts. RE #5 My preferred method would be by the M value of Weapons, Hull and Paint cost combo. Each one with a scoring value as that is usually the primary determinant for team strength in what I would deem as "pick-up" games. As for your question of Rank vs. # of players, I would tend to say Rank but honestly, whatever is easiest to implement at this point.

I have not eliminated KS'ing as part of the structure, just reduced its impact. KS would still exist in the form of bonuses for kills. I just inverted their value. As for your laziness argument, 1. There is nothing lazy about the overall scoring system due to the bonus structures and pay outs. 2. A HP based system encourages battling and not passive defending and KS scoring. I am not sure how that is lazy at all. 3. Not sure how not finishing off a kill is a major problem. I don't finish off kills now for reasons (Usually to soften up the defense so I can grab a flag without fear of respawn) , and I finish off kills for reasons (usually because they are shooting back at me). It is indifferent to the gameplay because ultimately your goal will be to get a flag in a CTF, get the bonuses for kills in a TDM, and it doesn't matter in DM. So I am not sure that your point has any merit. 4. If your preferred method of scoring is KS'ing, then I guess I would not be happy about it either. The structure was created to eliminate camping and encourage battling, which it clearly and definitely does. 5. You have refused to acknowledge the other elements of the system in an effort to single in on one issue to make a poor argument about "laziness" 6. I thought about your isidia argument. I being someone who decided to think out the problem realized that if only full heals were awarded, isidias would become extinct from the battle field or simply become a camping unit healing to score at long range. If I was an Isidia under your scoring system I would sit behind someone in a long-range snipe spot. Wait for them to get hit, to ensure I only had to heal the minimum to score. That doesn't resolve the problem, just changes how it used or not used. Switching out one problem for another is never an effective solution. Please understand the overall structure of the scoring system first before focusing on one small detail and how it impacts you as an individual.

Today (5295+900) .87 = value (Rounded to nearest whole number) Yesterday (5295+900) = Value Two Days ago 5295 * 0.69 = Value (Rounded to nearest whole number) Nothing complicated here.

I have always taken issue with how tanki manages their games in their forum. I personally believe that games should have two things to make them significantly more fun. 1. A fair playing field to start. 2. A clear and definitive end. Currently in Tanki, games are initiated by a player. Once that games is activated the timer or game starts AND when games are over they regenerate by switching teams colors. This creates a major issues IMO. 1. Waiting for games to start on even ground are based upon someones ethical standard 2. It encourages lower ranks or overpowered sides to start scoring flag grabs early on. 3. In time games, it creates games where the side that flag grabbed before the sides filled out to sit on their flags and defend (boring) 4. Upon the end of a game, inevitably some players leave always created a shift in the balance of power, and #1 on this list starts all over again. Overall it is a vicious cycle and can really make finding an interesting match painful. My proposal on how to solve this issue. (again, feel free to make your own proposal, complain about mine, or offer added content) 1. Once a game is initiated have the game start only upon the filling out of both teams. 2. Don't allow for players to move their tank until the game starts. Very simple concept here, sometimes you will have each team camp on the other flag in hopes that they can get an early score. 3. Should someone leave a game, still allow for a substitute player (s) to ensure as much fairness as possible. 4. Upon completion of the game, Close the game. If someone wants a rematch, then they can open up another game. Why do I think this will work? 1. Well for one thing it will decrease the amount of game instances in the lobby, which might actually help increase overall network performance. 2. Encourages more competitive games by eradicating early flag grabs 3. Gives players that want instant action the ability to get in a game as a substitute. 4. Gets the log jam of Silence games off the top of the available games boards in the lobby.

There has been a lot of talk about the fairness or unfairness of the existing scoring system so I though I would just lay out my thoughts on it and let people either make their own proposals, whine about mine, or add to the discussion. Your choice on what role you want to fill. My Proposed Scoring system: The fairest scoring system is one that accounts for skill and encourages players to play with like ranks (with other players of the same level/rank). It should also benefit buyers because let's face it, they pay the bills. 1. Incremental Scoring for damage dealt: Points should be awarded based on damage/healing dealt. 1 pt for every 10 HP or something to that effect, doesn't really matter. If you drop 100 HP of damage on someone, someone shouldn't get 100% of the points for a KS. 2. Bonus for Kills: Bonus points should be awarded for a kill. Whatever that bonus is, it should be less than damage dealt so as not to encourage too much KS, Maybe 3 - 5 pts. or possibly something scaled where early ranks you get a point, WO's 2 points, Lietenants 3 pts, majors 4 pts, generals 5 pts. 3. Bonus for killing opponents with your flag: This should be a sizeable bonus. If you kill the guy with your flag it should be worth a sizeable reward (15 / 20 pts). (Only for CTF obv.) 4. Bonus for Retrieving your captured flag: Since it is not always beneficial to retrieve the flag if your area isn't clear, and because people sometimes fight over the ability to retrieve a flag I would probably put it around 10 pts. Killing the guy is probably more important. 5. Bonus for flag capture: This should be the most weighted of all the bonuses. It should span somewhere between 50 - 200 pts depending on the ranks in the game. This would encourage flag capture as a means to gain more crystals, limit defense in timed games, and overall make the game more enjoyable. Above all of this, the crystals fund distribution needs to be rethought. I still think it is a little lopsided in how it is dealt out but that is a different conversation. My only major concern would be people intentionally allowing flag grabs to bonus up. Hopefully that would not be the case but that is a dangerous road to plough if you expect to earn a large chunk of the battlefund and there are not as many opportunities to score incrementally by camping. Hopefully it is balanced, but you never know and that is why feedback would probably be necessary in balancing out the right amount of points per action.

--

RE: #2 I agree that the buying option is just fine. So let's debunk some myths on this point. On the idea of buying XP and somehow it magically helping out players is ridiculous. It only somewhat benefits new game players that buy. Why? 1. They rank up quickly without the benefits of learning any skills 2. They dont have any access to any tier 2 weapons 3. The point scoring system has been altered so that all the benefits of being a lower rank (and having a lower rating) have been cut drastically New players that don't spend money on the game purchasing the XP upgrade will be at a signficant disadvantage. Why? 1. If they spend the 100 cystals to move up 1000 XP their upgrades based on their earning potential will lag behind other players. 100 crystals goes a long way in this game at the beginning. So there is absolutely no value in buying the XP if you don't plan on purchasing. Besides, they can gain just as much XP and probably as many crystals as the people above playing in like-rank games RE: #3 a) By playing with like ranks as you move up, you should not be significantly impacted by this problem. Besides, the idea is to encourage players to buy crystals, not encourage them to rank up and gain as much as players that pay the bills. Life isn't free. b) You can still get portions of the battle fund, just not the largest portion unless you are really as skilled as you say you are. Mid-level players and ranks, should play with the same ranks to resolve this issue. If you want to play with the big boys, then you are probably going to have to either buy or wait until you get there. c) Oh how short-sighted people can be. My guess is that you play shaft or some other weapon that due to it's range has a high KDR. So what you are essentially recommending is that we switch from the isidia problem to the Shaft problem, because all the rest of us that grab flags and attack would be left out to dry on the battle fund. All the buyers would just go out and buy M3 shafts, M3 Mammoths and a 15000 protection paint on long or mid-ranged weapons and you would still get "screwed" out of the battle fund.

I agree. There is nothing worse than a company trying to make money, pay the server bills, pay the developers, etc. that provide us with this game. This is clearly a marketing scheme aimed at making more money!! I recommend that they make this game open source and put this entire company in the unemployment line. Once this happens it can be distributed across thousands of domain names and water down the amount of players that find each site essentially sealing its fate as a MMO game. Don't these corporate criminals understand our free culture movement?

so people that support the game dont deserve to have the same scoring opportunity as people that freeload? That is correct! It is completely unfair that the people that keep this site financially solvent should extrude any type of advantage on non-fiscal contributers. In fact, I believe the next update should levy a tax on everyone that purchases crystals at around 50% of purchased currency. That fund should then be redistributed to those that have yet to buy crystals because that is just fair! You can thank me later for my wonderful idea.

This coming from the kid that whined twice about being offended. LOL!

This game with Varonis and Mister_G has become pretty tiresome. It has sort of gone something like this: (Spoiler, you two are the little kid with the hat and I am the older gentleman in the Suit with the beer)

Everyone's frontin, somehow they all think they're the best Typin in rhymes in their mom's basement on the anonymous Net I came here for a laugh and that's just what I did by managing to piss off the pre-pubescent kids Somehow your offended by words in this game Sadly you only have yourself to blame All hacked off cause you're recycling your rhymes Suburban gangsta without the ability to shine My style comes from a poet like Zeus Crazy ass cat by the name Dr. Seuss He talked about shizzle like the cat in the hat Quatrains with iambic pentameter in his rap

Varonis Perplexing me? Please.. his rhymes have no complexity Unlike his mom, when she's over sexin me Like 3rd grade poems, both your raps just so simple And Varonis, tell your moms I love her butt dimple!