How has it created other problems? Don't place more than 7 mines at any one time. Why do you need to? And can you back up what you say? What problem exactly does it create, and why can that problem not be solved? I've checked your forum profile and you have not made any ideas yourself so far, yet I notice you also comment on things you do not like in the game. I do not believe you to be anythng but negative, without putting any thought into your responses. See your post below. You complain, just as you do here, without making any effort to suggest how the game can be improved. I'd prefer people to comment who can be constructive, rather than just negative. The fact is, as you saw below, the game has some issues that need resolving, and the mines being spammed around the flag is one of them, hence my suggestion. Do you not agree that this should not be allowed to happen?

Also the idea is valid ? You won't begin getting it declined by calling it pants lol

Well sorry to hear you think so. I would, however, believe you if you were to make a valid point rather than simply call an idea "pants". I don't find this very convincing and will end the conversation there unless you choose to do as I suggested.

How so? The game currently allows players to spam mines around the only control point/flag. This needs to change, which is my idea, and certianly not a bad one.

That's not such an easy conclusion, how did you arrive to that?

1) The game shouldn't rely on double armor in my opinion. F2P should be the focus while at the same time making items attractive enough that people want to buy them for real money. Taking this stance, I find it to be against my viewpoint to rely on DA supplies. Thus, a medium hull can handle a max of 2 mines which doesn't solve the problem I am talking about, although neither does 3. 2) I don't have an issue to sidestep. There is a solution to this and I don't feel I should be responsible for every single detail, I suggested an idea and I am not paid to do so. Therefore, you should have a think yourself about possible solutions before being so quick to doubt my idea, as it is for everyone's best interests. If you did, then allow me to suggest something; a possible solution could be that my idea applies per life, and so you may only place a maximum of 7 mines for example, but when you die those 7 mines are not destroyed (who needs to save 30 mines?...), and then you simply start again. We could even introduce two numbers into the mines supplies box, one telling you how many mines you have in total in the whole map, and the other telling the player how many mines they have placed that particular "life". There are plenty of ways and means. 3) My mistake, I meant the saboteur drone. 4) I see, but my (one of my) idea(s) is to detonate all nearby mines at once. But as I write this, I am more against this idea than with it as firstly it would take away the point of mines I feel. Having them all destroyed at once is a bit lame for the people who took the time to place them, especially if a hull like wasp gets killed by 2 mines but it destroys 4 of your mines, then you kinda wasted 2 mines. But one other idea that does come to mind; make mines detonate when destroyed tanks go over them. This way at least the mines could be cleared quicker allowing the attacking team to create a route to the flag. I will try to begin collecting the best idea into the original post once others give me some more feedback/ideas which they think is the best solution.

So a possible solution could simply be to assign a max of 7 people to each point and then if this is exceeded then a 2nd defense point is created so that the mines cannot be concentrated around one point. Alternatively, we could also make it so that the point "moves" each time a flag is delivered. But I find the above idea more practical than this.

I agree with you here. ALthough I generally try to remain faithful to the topic I post; this relates to the problem I am discussing. Just liek in siege, where a team of 12 only has a single point to defend, if the team sizes are "large enough" (currently undefined), then there should be two, not one, point for the offending team to bring flags to. Both for CTF and siege.

I'd settle for maybe 7 mines at any one time? Or possibly slightly increase the flag's mine radius, and then introduce 10-15 mine limits? I just don't find the (albeit rare) situations where the flag is totally blocked by a flood of mines to be good for gameplay. I know usually this doesn't happen in most games.

1) Not to the extent that players can survive 3-4 mines or more in the extreme cases to which I am referring. 2) This can be resolved. 3) This would be an exception, but once you place the mines using miner, you then do revert to removing mines if you place any further mines. 4) But is this actually the game mechanics? Because if a tank is going over mines that are close together it makes sense that the mines detonate. It might not be the case.

Glad to be of service lol

This post isn't related to trickster or Crisis, althought I agree.

What if you team doesn't have any mammoth players? :/

25 mines per player? On a team of 10 for example that would leave 250 mines which doesn't seem like it is less than the amount of mines you sometimes see. Or would you disagree?

This might be very biased as I only play as wasp, as such I am posting with the expectation of being proven wrong. I find, especially with the saboteur drone, that the game relies too much on mines. I would appreciate everyone else's feedback especially if you do not use wasp. For example, when I try to cap, there are often at least 10 mines blocking the root to the flag, sometimes even more. I don't feel this should be allowed to happen as it completely ruins the gameplay. Nobody can cap when all roots to the flag are blocked by 20 mines.. Edit 1 - Corrected spelling of "would". - Proposed solution: We could either increase the radius that mines may be placed at the flag by 4-5 times, and/or ensure that players can only place up to 5 mines at any one time, and if a player tries to place a 6th mine, then their 1st mine is automatically detonated (which would damage enemy players who are near it). FInally, another solution could be that all mines that are close (Idk exactly how far a tanki meter is..) to each other are detonated if one mine is detonated. Ie, if there are 20 mines all together, and a player detonates one, then all 20 will detonate. I would suggest not making a huge explosion as this would cause lag, but all enemies near any mines that detonate would receive damage as with current mines. Also, the team who placed the mines would get, albeit minimal, knockback, just as wasp's bomb has knockback. Edit 2 Actually did correct the spelling of would.. Edit 3 Approximately 19:27, 18/05/2021

With Wasp at least, the hitbox seems to be too "square". For example, I sometimes the "corner" of my tank gets stuck on the floor as if I'd hit a wall and my aim is knocked off if my tank rocks too far forwards. I do not know how to make a video of this but if anyone is experiencing sth similar and knows how to post a video then please do. It doesnt happen every time, but it is definitely not a single occasion either. It has happened to me approx 2-3 times a week.

...... Ideally

Ahh okay, understood... I have wondered this for ages (I do not know all the drones). I don't know if you hear this 10000 times a day, but it doesn't make for fair gameplay when combined with hopper's ability to jump (however, I would say with the speed you get that even with other hulls like wasp it would be unfair) that you are able to use it with speed. I mean who needs 70% extra speed + double speed + one of light hulls = insane speed? Nobody really needs that to win a game.

CTF and rugby is just ridiculous with hopper. The problem is the speed and the added agility it has. Just one minute ago our team won thanks to a hopper than went 3x faster than almost fully upgraded wasp. Yes they had speed boost, but that isn't even double speed anymore. So what's with the other factor? Why are they going a minimum of 3x faster than the games "fastest" hull? Basically I wanted to complain, as I would rather lose than win with so little skill. What's everyone elses thoughts?

Yes of course, it's only related to the player's XP. But this is only valid for assists and kills.

I think the idea speaks for itself. I say we should get X xp points for the first 2 kills, then for the 4-6th kills we should get double XP, and anything after this should be 3x the normal XP. Edit 1: The double and triple XP should only apply for the XP gained through assists and direct kills. it would not apply to capturing the flag for example. Also, the player's score for the game would not be affected either, so that the game remains fair. Edit 2: Also, I believe that the bonus should be based on the hull you choose. See the following table: Hull | 1-2 | 3-6 | 7+ | ----------------------------------------------- Wasp | 1x | 2x | 3x ----------------------------------------------- Hornet | 1x | 2x | 2.8x ----------------------------------------------- Viking | 1x | 1.9x | 2.4x ----------------------------------------------- etc etc ....

Yes, I think that 500 crystals for answering the questionaire would be sufficient. And as for confusing the devs, obviously the responses would be analysed by someone who is qualified to deal with data.. sadly I'm only in my first year of a Statistics degree otherwise I would do so for free. But in this case of course people doing the analysis would be educated to do so, and thus it would not confuse anyone (hopefully). I hope you don't mind, but I disagree with your initial point. The purpose of the early analysis is manyfold; you can use it to assess the correlation between how an update is viewed and dips in sales for example. Ie, if we know that 70% of regular buyers who voted yes to an update purchase the new item, we could easily estimate the revenue it would generate etc. Also, the same could be done to estimate the number of people expected to stop returning to the game. I won't go into too much detail, but I feel that roughly the times I stated would be enough for the devs to get a good impression of how their updates are being perceived. The polls should also be in a non intrusive place (to stop people randomly pressing any random response), but also clear enough for the user to choose to respond with maybe a 500 crystal reward. Also, for someone who knows what they are doing, it wouldn't actually take more than 10 minutes to get an estimate for the probability of X or more people liking the idea, so I don't believe it would hinder the speed of updates. In fact, it would help devs decide which are worth implementing. The data gathering would maybe take half an hour to design and upload the questionaire, and to come to a good conclusion would take maybe an hour or two for someone who knows their stats. Honestly, idk why they don't invest more in stats graduates (unless I'm wrong). It's the new standard for companies, and I know for a fact that game studios hire analysts to understand customers. This actually makes sense (though it doesnt mean I am correct to say so); many people are not happy with the updates, so some data analysis and player insights would certainly help to get on top of this problem.

I agree, I think every update would make more sense since there may be weeks without an update and weeks where there are 10 updates. In statistics there is a test you may conduct for the proportion. So if I decide I want to be 95% certain that the proportion is positive (in this case that more people say yes than say no), then we can use the responses to calculate statistically whether the responses are positive or negative, to a given probability. For this I recommend three stages, one short term (where I assume less reliable data since people have not yet had the opportunity to actually experience the update, as well as fewer responses). Then, one medium term; ie after maybe a month of the update, and one longer term, say after 6 months. I would say that the player be asked to respond to an in-game questionaire (think along the lines of youtube questionaires), so that at each stage the number of responses is random, but I doubt there would be only 2 responses for example. This would give the devs a way to track how players are perceiving the changes over time, as well as a lot of data to work with in order to model players' mindsets. If all the updates are viewed positively in the first month, but 6 months later they are all viewed negatively, it would be a cause for concern for example.

Thanks, I appreciate the aknowledgement!