Valid Battle option for restricting certain equipment

[Guest]

I've had such an idea since a while now but wanted to edit some photos from inside the game to show it, never get the time.

[I-Hate-Druggers 192]

I can't believe this is not started

[Aunty_Entity 245]

I cannot put into words just how important this is.  Is there any movement at all on any of these requests?  As much as they may be deemed unimportant by devs, they are now absolutely mission critical.  They cannot be that difficult to deploy, most of the framework would be there, just a matter of applying it.

 

So, is there any action whatsoever or does Aunty have to retire?

 

Regards,

 

Aunty

[DontTouchMyRaf 16]

There should be an option to disable magnum when creating a game. For example, if you want to play a Noise map without being constantly bombarded by Magnum's who just sit at their base with double damage and spawn kill you, you can disable magnum when creating the game. You should be able to do this for other weapons too, but the only reason i'm targeting Magnum is because it's by far the most annoying turret and it has singlehandedly ruined maps, like Silence and Noise. It's the only weapon which is parabolic in nature, which just goes against the design of literally every other turret. What were the developers thinking when they made this weapon? Who thought it would be a good idea to make a turret that can attack you across that entire ****ing map in the safety of their own base? What were you thinking? It's just ruined gameplay on numerous maps.

Edited September 18, 2017 by DontTouchMyRaf

[Maf 32,300]

 

Topic merged

[Maf 32,300]

I cannot put into words just how important this is.  Is there any movement at all on any of these requests?  As much as they may be deemed unimportant by devs, they are now absolutely mission critical.  They cannot be that difficult to deploy, most of the framework would be there, just a matter of applying it

This is one of my favourite ideas, but unfortunately all I can do it report it to developers (along with other good ideas), which I have already done at least twice.

[Viking4s 10,791]

I cannot put into words just how important this is.  Is there any movement at all on any of these requests?  As much as they may be deemed unimportant by devs, they are now absolutely mission critical.  They cannot be that difficult to deploy, most of the framework would be there, just a matter of applying it.

 

So, is there any action whatsoever or does Aunty have to retire?

Regards,

Aunty

After 20 months on the forum and looking at the I&S, plus add the great plan shown by hazel, I can affirm with confidence that nothing like this will be developed and certainly not in the short term. Every update turns the game more into something formatted and tight, definitely not towards more freedom or more customization.

Anyway all this I&S section is to keep you busy and pipe your frustration into hope.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Viking4s

[Aunty_Entity 245]

This is one of my favourite ideas, but unfortunately all I can do it report it to developers (along with other good ideas), which I have already done at least twice.

Sigh... well, I guess like a lot of devs, they decide if we make it, they will use it.  Aunty's now officially into semi retirement.  This, combined with the truly horrible battles at legend... I'm only doing a mission a day for now to keep things ticking over, and going to my low rank account until I can't put up with what I can't get changed there.

 

Aunty - Semi-retired - Entity

[Maf 32,300]

Sigh... well, I guess like a lot of devs, they decide if we make it, they will use it.  Aunty's now officially into semi retirement.  This, combined with the truly horrible battles at legend... I'm only doing a mission a day for now to keep things ticking over, and going to my low rank account until I can't put up with what I can't get changed there.

 

Aunty - Semi-retired - Entity

I hope to see you back when MM comes out. It should make things better  ^_^

[DeathByBoss 104]

It would make pro battles for other turrets unpopular. As it is 90 % of pro battles are xp battles.

Actually to be fair, now its more like 40% XP/BP, 40%Space parkour, and 20% actual battles. :huh:

[Maf 32,300]

 

Topic merged

[TheAncientMariner 57]

Sigh... well, I guess like a lot of devs, they decide if we make it, they will use it.  Aunty's now officially into semi retirement.  This, combined with the truly horrible battles at legend... I'm only doing a mission a day for now to keep things ticking over, and going to my low rank account until I can't put up with what I can't get changed there.

 

Aunty - Semi-retired - Entity

Hazel said no to this idea.

He said if pro battles are made more customizable, then players will exploit them even more, and then devs will remove exp and crystals from pro battles, just like private battles.

[Aunty_Entity 245]

Hazel said no to this idea.

He said if pro battles are made more customizable, then players will exploit them even more, and then devs will remove exp and crystals from pro battles, just like private battles.

Shrug, Aunty is dead in the water now, no missions, they're nigh on impossible.  It's hard going at 2nd Lt, so I don't think that will be viable for to much longer either.  Somethings got to give somewhere, so far its just users.... when there's not enough to support the game, then they'll change it or close it.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Aunty_Entity

[wolverine848 13,097]

Shrug, Aunty is dead in the water now, no missions, they're nigh on impossible.  It's hard going at 2nd Lt, so I don't think that will be viable for to much longer either.  Somethings got to give somewhere, so far its just users.... when there's not enough to support the game, then they'll change it or close it.

Aunty - every day or so we luck out and find a good battle while on a good team.

 

My suggestion is to get all 3 missions done in this instance (if possible) and just claim 1.

Next day if battle sux (as they are want to do) just claim one more.

And so on.

 

This keeps the mission chain going and provides some buffer between the frustrations.

Play this way for a while until they roll out MatchMaking. Depending on how good/bad it is you may want to continue.

 

To put it in perspective... look at Tanki X.

I have a mission to collect 30 flags.

Problem is - we don't get to pick our battle types. It's random between TDM and CTF.

I seem to get TDM >>> CTF.  And when I do get CTF either the other team is way better (6-0) or it's close 1-1 or 0-0 (mines... mines...)

In 3 weeks now I've collected 17/30.  Gonna take F-O-R-E-V-E-R.

[Aunty_Entity 245]

Aunty - every day or so we luck out and find a good battle while on a good team.

 

Good luck with that, I haven't seen a decent battle since.... at legend.  So no, I'm done.  Aunty is in retirement...  Only got the 2nd lt still kicking at the moment, and if things don't improve that'll go too.

[Insendium 10]

There should be an option to exclude specific hulls/turrets from pro battles.  There is always that one person that sticks with dictator/thunder combo when other players are trying to have a wasp/fire battle.  Or the ones that ruin a rfg with wasp when you want everyone to have mammoth.  If we could exclude specific combos, pro-battles would be a lot more fun.

[Maf 32,300]

There should be an option to exclude specific hulls/turrets from pro battles.  There is always that one person that sticks with dictator/thunder combo when other players are trying to have a wasp/fire battle.  Or the ones that ruin a rfg with wasp when you want everyone to have mammoth.  If we could exclude specific combos, pro-battles would be a lot more fun.

Topic merged

[dragonite7 20]

We all know Artillery completely destroyed Noise's viability as a fun battle. Artilleries join the red team and bombard the blue team, leaving them helpess, so the number of Noises has declined. I used to see many per server. Not anymore. Maps like Wave have also been affected by this, Wave's geography gives artillery a massive advantage by not needing to fire in a straight line, and being able to attack most of the map from their base. 

 

Lets not even get into Striker being used in deck 9 red team, the higher ground they have when defending makes it way harder for the blue team to capture flags, while all red team needs is a slight distraction from the blue team to capture a flag.

 

My point is, if we could ban 1 turret in battle creation, we could balance the teams more, and make some maps viable to play again. By putting a maximum of 1 or 2 to the number of turrets that can be banned, we ensure that people do not ban many guns to only allow for turrets that are at a disadvantage against their own. Furthermore, whiole this would make maps more viable to play again, it could also increase the strategy in other maps. People would have to look at the turrets they have available for a certain battle, and judge where they want to play.

 

This change would also not lead to massive unbalances, because there are many short, middle and long range turrets, so only banning one or two would only reduce certain ridiculous advantages while not breaking the system. Furthermore, the maps themselves are not generally unbalanced, thus, removing unfair advantages provided by certain characteristics of some turrets would never be able to create another unbalance in the 2 teams of a map. 

[Maf 32,300]

 

Topic merged

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

I agree, there should be an option to block a turret, or two at the most, and one hull.

 

Imagine Noise without Magnum andor Isida; Monte Carlo without Rail andor Shaft; Gold events without Dictators...

Edited December 2, 2017 by r_Issimo2

[WoundedWarrior 302]

When you are making a pro battle you should have the option to restrict certain equipment, so anyone wearing that equipment may not join. Sometimes I hate playing with one weapon and it seems like no matter where I go, there is always one waiting around the corner for me.

[Maf 32,300]

 

Topic merged

[Shibecaisu 534]

For example, you are making a gold box battle, and you don't want people to use dictator, you can just ban the equipment from the specific battle you are creating.

 

This can also apply to turrets, hulls, protection module (i.e. spider) and supplies.

 

Hence, people will not be able to join with the specific equipment, like how you cannot use mammoth in xp bp, or something. :3

[Maf 32,300]

For example, you are making a gold box battle, and you don't want people to use dictator, you can just ban the equipment from the specific battle you are creating.

 

Topic merged

[Tanker-Arthur 2,971]

We all know Artillery completely destroyed Noise's viability as a fun battle. Artilleries join the red team and bombard the blue team, leaving them helpess, so the number of Noises has declined. I used to see many per server. Not anymore. Maps like Wave have also been affected by this, Wave's geography gives artillery a massive advantage by not needing to fire in a straight line, and being able to attack most of the map from their base. 

 

Lets not even get into Striker being used in deck 9 red team, the higher ground they have when defending makes it way harder for the blue team to capture flags, while all red team needs is a slight distraction from the blue team to capture a flag.

 

My point is, if we could ban 1 turret in battle creation, we could balance the teams more, and make some maps viable to play again. By putting a maximum of 1 or 2 to the number of turrets that can be banned, we ensure that people do not ban many guns to only allow for turrets that are at a disadvantage against their own. Furthermore, whiole this would make maps more viable to play again, it could also increase the strategy in other maps. People would have to look at the turrets they have available for a certain battle, and judge where they want to play.

 

This change would also not lead to massive unbalances, because there are many short, middle and long range turrets, so only banning one or two would only reduce certain ridiculous advantages while not breaking the system. Furthermore, the maps themselves are not generally unbalanced, thus, removing unfair advantages provided by certain characteristics of some turrets would never be able to create another unbalance in the 2 teams of a map.

 

I am with you.