Site should adjust obviously unbalanced teams.

[Funtankforward 1]

   I love going in to battle but when three people from one team drops out, the site should recalibrate and re-assign players regarding teams. It is stupid to play a game with 11 on one team and 7 on the other, In setting up a battle, the user should be able to favor recalibration of the teams.

[BlitzPanzer12345 241]

Errrrrrrr...........

thiz is not counter strike 

thiz is Tanki

there iz a reward which no one would like to mizz

[MarineMan2 1,164]

Moved to Ideas and Suggestions.

[D3c0y 0]

I agree something needs to be done.  I really like this game, however my main frustration is the ease of which it is for teams to be unbalanced.  I realise people don't want to be automatically swapped to the other team mid-game and lose their rewards, so maybe some way to only allow new players to join the losing team would be the way forward?  At the moment new players are only forced to join the team with fewer players - but this doesn't take into account the rank of players or current score.  

 

I still regularly see all players from the losing team abandon an unfairly matched battle, and high-ranked players join the winning team for their crystal fix.

 

Your thoughts?

[Promissory 569]

There is already something like this. It's called auto-balance, so people can onlh join the team with less players.

[emrakul 7,801]

Errrrrrrr...........

thiz is not counter strike 

thiz is Tanki

there iz a reward which no one would like to mizz

[ivanthesecond 0]

There is already something like this. It's called auto-balance, so people can onlh join the team with less players.

Which doesn't help when it is 1 or 2 vs 5 or 6.. no one wants to join the team being pummeled.  Well, I do but that's because CTF and CP points are raised when there are more players on the opposite team, so a capture counts for more XP.

 

I've suggested before that teams should be shuffled and rebalanced between rounds.  Sort by rank, value of tank used, or score in last round (something has to indicate player skill - does tanki keep any long-term stats in the background?) and then redistribute alternating teams.  This way at least teams will be a closer match at the start of the round.  Of course, others can quit or join, but it starts close to fair.

[Promissory 569]

That is not possible. At least50% of people leaves at the end of a battle anyways...

[Baby_Sam 614]

This is too complicated. I started a similar suggestion yesterday where I ask for early leave with rewards (from the fewer side or even the bigger side since the game is ruined for everyone until it gets balanced again) and allowing players to switch sides (keeping rewards obviousl).

[r_DidYouKnowThat0 1,662]

Forcing people to switch sides is yet another one of the most ridiculous ideas in my opinion

It makes the games FAKE the way I see it. What's the point of trying hard to win, when you'll get shoved to the other losing side when they leave?

If you win and dominate, then you earned that victory.

 

I get it, losing sucks, which was exactly why I suggested that the distribution of rewards be more fair, which Tanki did do.

 

I mean, think about it. WHY did the team members of that team drop out? Sure it may be because they had to leave or do something in real life, but more than likely, there is something wrong with their own team (e.g. Mults, noobs, losing, etc.)

 

If you don't like the game you're playing, maybe it is YOU who should leave instead of trying to dictate how others should be playing their games. I mean seriously, consider others will you? This idea is notoriously selfish, and ridiculous. Life does not revolve around you, something you and everyone should think about when suggesting an idea to the game.

 

Being outnumbered is a thing that happens whether you like it or not. You'll just have to defend the flag until either friends or other assistance arrives. See, use that friend list of yours.

 

It'll bring about even more problems as well such as tearing about REAL teams, etc. When people play with their friends, or when people host clan trainings, etc. etc. It refers back to how I said it'll make games pretty much fake.

 

You should at least make this idea be able to be toggled on or off. It's horrendous. My opinion.

 

Perhaps you should re-think it over. . . And try to make up points to counter my reasons above. If you can't, then don't go crying and whining. Simply try to make an idea better, and if you can't, move on. Though I don't expect much from a person who uses an Alternative account to post things on the Forums, a mask to hide behind.

[Baby_Sam 614]

Forcing people to switch sides is yet another one of the most ridiculous ideas in my opinion

It makes the games FAKE the way I see it. What's the point of trying hard to win, when you'll get shoved to the other losing side when they leave?

If you win and dominate, then you earned that victory.

While I do not support the idea which you did not stop at showing its faults but you continued to redicule the person who put if forward, I find the way you said what you said is offensive. Let me ask you: Did you think about that person when you went after his person, not only the idea he put forward?

 

Let me ask you another question and see how you answer it. I was scrolling down the battles when I came across a battle when more than 5 minutes to go and one side had 7 players and the other side had 0 players. It might have been like that for a while. I watched that game. 3 hung around until the spoil distributions but 4 just left. What do you think the remaining team should do? Have a break, have a Kit Kat?

[r_DidYouKnowThat0 1,662]

Yes, I called it ridiculous. Next, I explained why saying that the way I see it, it makes the games FAKE.

You can read the next two sentences.

 

And for your information I do think about the person, and his/her idea I am criticizing. Though when I read the idea, is he really putting effort into making the idea  good one? The way I see it, the answer would be no. The point of view he is using is simply his own (team's). Does he look at the winning team, and how they feel?

In addition to that, it irks (Yes, "irk" is a word) me that he/she uses an alternative account to post such ideas. I wonder why they don't use their main accounts, not just "they don't have to." It is increasingly tempting for me to know especially when trolls and people who insult/assume blindly alike use the same methods, which implies that they don't think when posting. But there may be some exceptions. Hence the idea. Do you see me using any alternative accounts?

No, because I back my things up and is confident about what I type. If I am shown wrong, then I learn from my mistakes, unlike a others I can think of.

 

There's a flaw in your observation. How much points did you observe that each player had? Next time you should accompany a screenshot to be more convincing, but oh well.

Five minutes is not a long time, and this is like one of those problems that others had talked about. They did suggest that the battle should end, especially when not much may happen in 5 mins (turn-overs, etc.), but that may be another story.

But either way, they can easily wait it out, only 5 minutes. And if they had only little points, then they could just leave. It was their choice to stay for the reward. That's the thing about TO, you can choose.

Which directly leads to the next point. The four chose to leave.

 

The remaining team can just wait out the timer, leave, or wait for more people to join the opposing team.

They should not however, be forced to leave the winning team, the team they CHOSE to be on, the team they WORKED with, and helped win, just to go to the losing team and be split apart from their team mates.

 

So it's not a question of what they should do, but what they should NOT do, which is being forced to go to the other team.

[DaveZm 22]

There is already something like this. It's called auto-balance, so people can onlh join the team with less players.

Soo why there is 3 players Blue and 8 Players Red ?????

[OKDad70 862]

The topic suggestion is very bad. Think how often you would be upset for being forced to the other team, especially when you are the one giving up crystals! No, very bad idea. Do NOT start automatically changing anything during battles. Everyone can think about what he is doing and make his own decision. There are friends. There are intentional teams. Forced team-swaps would be very frustrating. 

 

A possibility: pay a crystal penalty if leaving a battle. This penalty would have to ONLY apply to exiting and answering yes to the confirmation. Thus avoiding penalty for fatal error or server problem. 

 

Also, there should be a karma-type system keeping track. Very small penalty, say 10 crystals, for leaving a battle on rare occasions. This will keep it inconsequential for necessity. However, if a player leaves battles often, the crystal penalty would escalate. Thus regularly contributing to the unbalance of a match would start getting costly. 

 

Of course, there is the problem of simply poor play by one team versus the other, which proves similarly frustrating. Nothing can be done about that. Sometimes the players are all good, but their styles are incompatible with the mode, say snipers sitting away from control points, which stay the opposite color despite effective sniping. Or, overly defensive flag battles where the slow accumulation of flags by the more aggressive opposition inevitably overwhelms. 

 

Nothing can be done about that, and that is one of the reasons people start leaving. It would be quite unfair to force a player or two over to the other team based on numbers. 

 

Finally, consider, there is already a disincentive to leaving battles early. Playing earns you crystals, even if your team is losing, even with zero flags now. Leaving early gives up whatever your share of the battle fund would have been. Not a strong incentive when things are going particularly poorly. So, perhaps a bit more loss of crystals, ones you already had, would help tankers stick out the lopsided battles. 

 

I've done it. When battles get badly uneven, no one will join the losing side. In extreme cases I've found myself alone, being spawn-killed in a second or two. Still, seldom have I abandoned. I'll get a few crystals, and they still have something to do while they wait for theirs. Not fun, but it is sporting (at least for the loser--It would be polite for the winning team to back off and let the solo target at least try to take a defensive position or get a shot off once in a while), and usually worth it just for sportsmanship. 

[OKDad70 862]

An option, perhaps in the garage, that might be useful would be to switch to the smaller side if it is also the losing side. The option should keep the player's score intact, but being on the losing team would necessarily reduce that player's end-game reward. Still, it is an option that would occasionally be warranted. I would support that as long as it was completely voluntary. 

[Baby_Sam 614]

Finally, consider, there is already a disincentive to leaving battles early. Playing earns you crystals, even if your team is losing, even with zero flags now. Leaving early gives up whatever your share of the battle fund would have been. Not a strong incentive when things are going particularly poorly. So, perhaps a bit more loss of crystals, ones you already had, would help tankers stick out the lopsided battles. 

 

I've done it. When battles get badly uneven, no one will join the losing side. In extreme cases I've found myself alone, being spawn-killed in a second or two. Still, seldom have I abandoned. I'll get a few crystals, and they still have something to do while they wait for theirs. Not fun, but it is sporting (at least for the loser--It would be polite for the winning team to back off and let the solo target at least try to take a defensive position or get a shot off once in a while), and usually worth it just for sportsmanship. 

I do not want to take every paragraph and suggest solutions for everything, but I will just say that the game is so in favor of the winning team that if you are on the losing side and there is low probabilty of winning you should leave immediately regardless of how much (you think) your reward would be because the winning team will take say 80% of your rewards, so if you destroy 5 tanks, they will get reward for 4 of them and you will get reward for 1. I would rather go elsewhere and take all my rewards. You see an incentive in earning rewards for the winning team when you are on the losing side? You shouldn't.

 

I think where there is an imbalance, it should be optional for any player to leave the battle immediately without any penalty because it is a waste of time for everyone, and I do not see any value in using the servers to waste people's time.

[D3c0y 0]

Great discussion.

This really is a tough one due to the dynamics of the scoring system.

 

Personally, I always join the losing team to be sporting, and I know a lot of other tankers do - hey, it makes you a better player!

 

Unfortunately we're humans, with free will and you cannot control how sporting a person may be...

 

So, ultimately I have no good suggestion except - is there a way to provide some incentive for joining the losing team and sticking it out?

 

Another option (this is all theoretical and my musings only) would be not a Crystal / XP reward, but an additional status that shows how much a player helps out - this in itself would become valuable and rewarding on the social level of the game.

If I saw a high-ranking tanker with High "Helper Achievements", they would have my respect, promote teamwork etc...

If I saw a high-ranking tanker with poor (or negative??) "helper achievements"  I know I'd stay clear as they would be known as a selfish player.

 

Something else to add to the mix....

have fun!

[Baby_Sam 614]

So, ultimately I have no good suggestion except - is there a way to provide some incentive for joining the losing team and sticking it out?

 

Another option (this is all theoretical and my musings only) would be not a Crystal / XP reward, but an additional status that shows how much a player helps out - this in itself would become valuable and rewarding on the social level of the game.

If I saw a high-ranking tanker with High "Helper Achievements", they would have my respect, promote teamwork etc...

If I saw a high-ranking tanker with poor (or negative??) "helper achievements"  I know I'd stay clear as they would be known as a selfish player.

 

Something else to add to the mix....

have fun!

That is the big question. The way the game goes now, the longer you fight a losing battle, the more you get screwed. It is like you are in a nuclear war and your country is being destroyed. The faster you surrender, the better. Surrender here means leaving the battle (to save the country).

 

The reward system of this game uses crystals, so other status may not be more attractive to most people. You may be a better player and have other people's respect, but in the end, you still can't upgrade your tank because you need crystals for that.

 

It is good to join losing teams every once in a while, but the rewarding system forces you not to make it a habit. You are playing the same 15 minutes the same way, would you rather get 50 crystals or 500 crystals?

 

Somebody somewhere suggested to make the reward based on the score. Although I could not follow the logic there, I took it to meen that if the total sum of everyone's score is 5000 and the battle fund is 2500, you get half your score in crystals. While this looks fair, it makes CTF and CP useless because there is no incentive whatsoever to help the team capture flags and points. We shouldn't go all the way in favor of the winners or make winning irrelevant. There should be something in between.