Need a Surrender Option for CTF!

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Another idea would be to enable a new supply called a "White Flag" for CTF only.

 

Basically if a player feels they can no longer win the "White Flag" is enabled - this means the opposing team can no longer blow up the tank, the player can no longer get pickups (even Gold Box), cannot pickup or capture flags.

 

Their tank would have a "White Flag" in place of where the regular flag would be displayed.

 

If enough players on a team enabled "White Flag" then the round is over.

 

It could look something like this:

 

 

With a supply that looks something like this:

 

[Nirmaleer 324]

[danilo8667 234]

I have better idea.Teams would be able to decide how many crystals will each team be available to get.That would be possible by adding new chat command available for all.It would be something like /endbattle 1000/3000 (it would end battle with red team getting 1k of crystals to spare among them from battle fund and blue team getting 3k crystals.

[Opex-Rah 5,388]

Seems like proposed system is not that good, lets think of something else.

 

I suggest to monitor players score. If Team A overall score incresing much faster then Team B overall then we might concider this as imbalance. We do not consider time left or flags or whatever. If Team B no longer gain points as they used to, they might already surrendered or there is not enough players in the team.

 

One can imagine the tug of war with players score.

 

From this point we track this situation as imbalanced and if it persist we will initiate Domination victory. Means, give losing team certain time to recover or battle will be ended.

 

Does it looks better?

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Perhaps the overall scoring is a better way to look at it.

 

When the losing team gives up the score from the winning team capping a flag doesn't seem to increase much.

 

However....from what I have seen in overwhelming matches the actual scores increase the most when the team with most players is simply spawn camping.

 

Last night there was a jerk named MAKS-ROBOT on RIO-CTF who was running up the score simply by drugging and spawn camping - we all discussed simply pressing "Pause" to keep him from earning the high score because once we were  popped we could not respawn and thus the drugger would not increase his score. Most of us went along with it and the match simply became "cap flag, return, cap flag" which resulted in no score increases for the other team.

 

It would seem Tanki would have some incentive to stop this from happening as it causes unnecessary crystals to be handed out. Basically it is a form of cheating to earn crystals this way.

 

Also a score based system would stop people from having friends join the other team to artificially inflate the battle fund.

 

Players should earn crystals from fighting - not from spawn camping with drugs. That's the worst form of cheating.

 

When I am on a team of 10 and the other team has 3 I simply park my tank - I don't see the point of capping more flags, and, if the other team is not fighting back it seems poor sportsmanship to simply sit there and pop them just to run up the score (and run up the battle fund).

[Opex-Rah 5,388]

You don't get it. I do not mean battle score, I mean actual player score. The one you see when you press TAB. In this case spawn killing will immediately result in domination victory due to 0 score gain by losing team.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

I understood what you meant.

 

There are instances when overall scores on Team A are better than Team B, but, Team A still loses because they did not capture enough flags.

 

Team A could be drugging for XP but not capturing flags which would result in larger player scores for Team A - you would not want to consider domination alone in such a scenario.

 

Thus, you have to look at flags first - then scores, second.

[soul-eater101 0]

i like it

[Lord-of-the-Snipers 1,620]

Seems like proposed system is not that good, lets think of something else.

 

I suggest to monitor players score. If Team A overall score incresing much faster then Team B overall then we might concider this as imbalance. We do not consider time left or flags or whatever. If Team B no longer gain points as they used to, they might already surrendered or there is not enough players in the team.

 

One can imagine the tug of war with players score.

 

From this point we track this situation as imbalanced and if it persist we will initiate Domination victory. Means, give losing team certain time to recover or battle will be ended.

 

Does it looks better?

Yes! Definitely.

 

This solution would be much easier in how it works. And therefore easier to implement.

 

It would also be the solution when a team is clearly winning but for whatever reason players of the winning team start to leave.

This would also mean that the winning team no longer gains points as they used too: so the battle domination would start.

 

If the unbalance stays and the battle ends than the former winning teammembers who did stay

would get a fair share for their hard work.

 

This could be it! :)

[creeperskelly 1,281]

This is why battle score alone doesn't always tell the tale:

 

[RustyNail 1,538]

You don't get it. I do not mean battle score, I mean actual player score. The one you see when you press TAB. In this case spawn killing will immediately result in domination victory due to 0 score gain by losing team.

I think this is more preferable than counting the flag balance.

The real dead end is when one team has lost (initially flags or kills but because of this follows the loss of) players and from that moment they can't handle the battle, which means they - whoever has stayed behind - are being destroyed without killing any opponent.

Thus, the personal score (kills) of the team stays unchanging (while the opponents' grows rapidly).

That's what we are talking about.

So, this is a condition that requires an auto surrender.

 

EDIT:

However, apart from any auto surrender setting and timer, I think it's worth thinking a boost in armor (for the losing team and for a brief period after respawn or distance from flag, when only few players left) as a balance recovery measure when spawn camping is active.

In some occasions this may give the losing team stamina and a chance for a comeback. While, when comeback won't happen, no real harm will occure to the battle or either team.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Flag balance has to be considered first as my post above shows the losing team actually having higher scores than the winning team based on both team/individual score and flag cap.

 

Scores alone don't tell the whole story and neither does flag total.

 

It would have to involve: flag total first [CAP(x)>CAP(y)], numbers of players second [TEAM(x)>=Z*TEAM(y)], and then total team score (or highest player scores) as a third condition to be met [sCORE(x) increasing significantly faster than SCORE(y)]

 

Also you might encounter a situation where a round ends, one entire team quits, then the remaining team might have many player while the other team has 0. Would the domination setting be invoked immediately and cause the round to end, or, would there be buffers of a certain time after a round begins and before it ends where domination would only occur towards the middle or near the end of time?

[Kevred 1,586]

Love the idea.

 

When I log into Tanki, most of the time every battle is dominated by one team. Playing on the winning side is boring and playing on the loosing side is frustrating. IMO the problem is that battles start as soon as they're created, instead of starting when there's an equal amount of players. In fact, when the battle restarts the winning team soon dominates again, even if both teams have the same amount of players.

 

This proves that the real problem is having more skilled players in one team than the other, which brings us to a classic suggestion: A skill rating system, like the ELO one.

[epickiller546 241]

Love the idea.

 

When I log into Tanki, most of the time every battle is dominated by one team. Playing on the winning side is boring and playing on the loosing side is frustrating. IMO the problem is that battles start as soon as they're created, instead of starting when there's an equal amount of players. In fact, when the battle restarts the winning team soon dominates again, even if both teams have the same amount of players.

 

This proves that the real problem is having more skilled players in one team than the other, which brings us to a classic suggestion: A skill rating system, like the ELO one.

Yeah use it for the raiting system. I think that would work :)

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Love the idea.

 

When I log into Tanki, most of the time every battle is dominated by one team. Playing on the winning side is boring and playing on the loosing side is frustrating. IMO the problem is that battles start as soon as they're created, instead of starting when there's an equal amount of players. In fact, when the battle restarts the winning team soon dominates again, even if both teams have the same amount of players.

 

This proves that the real problem is having more skilled players in one team than the other, which brings us to a classic suggestion: A skill rating system, like the ELO one.

That's a good idea - battles should start when equal numbers of players are on both teams.

 

This prevents as you mention the same team dominating many rounds in a row simply by being there first.

[Opex-Rah 5,388]

This is why battle score alone doesn't always tell the tale:

 

Flag balance has to be considered first as my post above shows the losing team actually having higher scores than the winning team based on both team/individual score and flag cap.

 

Scores alone don't tell the whole story and neither does flag total.

But your post doesn't shows imbalance.

 

We need to terminate rounds where one of the team gave up fighting. Your post shows that both teams decided to keep fighting. There is no point to stop this kind of battle whatsoever.

[DiSoRderLY 141]

Seems like proposed system is not that good, lets think of something else.

 

I suggest to monitor players score. If Team A overall score incresing much faster then Team B overall then we might concider this as imbalance. We do not consider time left or flags or whatever. If Team B no longer gain points as they used to, they might already surrendered or there is not enough players in the team.

 

One can imagine the tug of war with players score.

 

From this point we track this situation as imbalanced and if it persist we will initiate Domination victory. Means, give losing team certain time to recover or battle will be ended.

 

Does it looks better?

This sounds an aweful lot like this idea... http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=217642

 

Although that idea kicks specific players instead of an whole team, which to me sounds a lot better!

[chitta123 18]

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=235607&st=

 

vOTE IT !

[RustyNail 1,538]

This sounds an aweful lot like this idea... http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=217642

 

Although that idea kicks specific players instead of an whole team, which to me sounds a lot better!

Although I like the idea of Kick 2 (and I support it), I fail to see the similarity you mentioned. One is about kicking out a couple of players so that the battle can go on, the other is about ending typically a battle in which one team has already quitted.

[DiSoRderLY 141]

Although I like the idea of Kick 2 (and I support it), I fail to see the similarity you mentioned. One is about kicking out a couple of players so that the battle can go on, the other is about ending typically a battle in which one team has already quitted.

Looking at it from my battle perspective, I'm either giving it my all or I simply leave. For me there is no middle ground!

 

It the majority of your team descides to surrender, then to me it would feel like being kicked. I rather have those who surrendered (read: deserted) kicked!

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Sometimes your team gives up because the other team is drugging.

 

In short battles it is pointless to counter the drugging because the reward doesn't cover the cost of drugging.

 

I see this often - a team stops playing because one or two jerks on the other team is constantly pressing 1-2-3-4-5.

 

Why fight that? Better to wait for the jerk to quit and move on.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

But your post doesn't shows imbalance.

 

We need to terminate rounds where one of the team gave up fighting. Your post shows that both teams decided to keep fighting. There is no point to stop this kind of battle whatsoever.

I was simply pointing out that flag totals must be counted in addition to team or player scores - you mentioned in an earlier post:

 

 

If Team A overall score increasing much faster then Team B overall then we might consider this as imbalance. We do not consider time left or flags or whatever

 

Actually I have a simple solution for surrender: simply monitor how many players on a losing team are in "Pause" mode and if a certain percentage are in "Pause" mode it signifies the intent to surrender.

 

This is generally what we do when we give up now rather than leave the battle.

[DiSoRderLY 141]

Sometimes your team gives up because the other team is drugging.

 

In short battles it is pointless to counter the drugging because the reward doesn't cover the cost of drugging.

 

I see this often - a team stops playing because one or two jerks on the other team is constantly pressing 1-2-3-4-5.

 

Why fight that? Better to wait for the jerk to quit and move on.

Why fight that? Because it's FUN! If I want a drug free game I go PRO, ofherwise I expect the use of supplies and deal with that accordingly (but not necessarily...)

[creeperskelly 1,281]

How is it "fun" when it costs more to play then you win?

 

Spending 300 on supplies per flag cap makes no sense when the payout is about 500 overall.

 

By not fighting back it deprives the jerks of income since battle fund won't go up if nobody fights.

 

In essence, by everyone pausing, the morons spend their drugs and get nothing in return.

[kayitsiz 621]

Seems like proposed system is not that good, lets think of something else.

 

I suggest to monitor players score. If Team A overall score incresing much faster then Team B overall then we might concider this as imbalance. We do not consider time left or flags or whatever. If Team B no longer gain points as they used to, they might already surrendered or there is not enough players in the team.

 

One can imagine the tug of war with players score.

 

From this point we track this situation as imbalanced and if it persist we will initiate Domination victory. Means, give losing team certain time to recover or battle will be ended.

 

Does it looks better?

Yes! Definite games shouldn't get longer. This is better for all players.