Developer please read, you are creating a monster.

[Guffrus 3]

There is a serious problem with the way that the reward system functions in matches, currently the winning team reap all of the rewards and as such virtually all matches are totally out of balance and unenjoyable for all involved particularly those on the losing side.

 

The only fun game of anything is an even game, this is challenging with variations in player skill and tank selections but it is not a new problem many other games such as chess etc use a ranking system to match players skill.

 

Please take the time to look into the system used in savage 2, while not perfect it does a pretty good job of making teams and with time and tweaking you could create an excellent balancing system, i would like to stress though that automated matching systems are always awful and you should maintain freedom for players to make the games fair themselves.

 

Tools such as voting systems are good in my experience.

 

Team communication and cooridination could be greatly aided with a short cut voice command system and some kind of strategic map players can access perhaps at all times but particularly during respawn would be good, in this time players can take stock look at the bigger picture for a moment and then act accordingly in thier next life etc.

 

But Im getting a little side tracked here, the main point is that you are creating a toxic interaction between players at this time with a reward system which does not promote and reinforce positive, balanced and fair game play.

 

If anyone should be heavily rewarded in a stacked game it is the defenders fighting hard against impossible odds not the farmers fighting 6 vs 1 and powered up on top.

 

Interestingly Heroes of Norrath (?) made by the same people as savage 2 made a horrible community and an awful game atmosphere with this exact same mistake, creating a horrible monster with the reward / scoring system.

 

Learn from history, please do not repeat the same mistakes.

 

 

Guffrus

[beaku 2,656]

The current reward system is good enough. In fact devs had just released an update regarding this a few months back so that losing side gets more crystals.

[Para_CW 19]

Quite a few players have made suggestions along these lines. It makes sense from a number of different perspectives.  If the rewards are distributed more evenly, players will be more willing to join losing battles instead of treating them like the epicenter of an Ebola outbreak.  There would be no need to camp by battles in progress waiting for the moment that the teams are even so that you can join the winning side.  

 

 

It would also reduce the incentive players have to drug constantly in the interest of winning so that that they can get 10x more crystals than the losing side and encourage more polite behavior among team mates.  

 

 

So far the Dev's have ignored all such suggestions.  I suspect it's because they are afraid that players will have less incentive to spend real money because it wouldn't matter as much.

[deadtoyou 2,502]

So far the Dev's have ignored all such suggestions.  I suspect it's because they are afraid that players will have less incentive to spend real money because it wouldn't matter as much.

You're still sore about that, aren't you?

[beaku 2,656]

You can't make it equal can you. Players would then lose their incentive to win. Why win when you get enough crystals on losing also??

[SUP3R_ST4R 1,206]

Too long Forgot to read :P

[Pathfinder 1,690]

I would say that it's quite fair. The aim of playing a match is to win of course, and where's the incentive if fund distribution is balanced? The developers recently released an update that made fund distribution more even, with the removal of crystal boxes.

 

You compared this to chess, where you get a rating, etc. Well, you will find that there are age groups in chess - you play in the age group you are in no matter what your strength. In Tanki, this is equivalent to your rank. You can choose to play in chess tournaments in stronger age groups/rating sections, and on Tanki you can choose to stick with a game where you are the maximum rank, or you can choose to go up against higher rankers. Pick your game right, it is not anyone else's fault that you are on the losing team.

 

Please, name me any other game where the reward for losing is the same as for winning! I'm intrigued because I can't think of any! :)

[Para_CW 19]

You're still sore about that, aren't you?

No.  Not my problem.  I just game the system by avoiding losing teams when possible, never join an uneven battle on the wrong side, bailing out when my team is starting to lose badly and stay on winning teams.  If the dev's want to penalize teams for randomly not having the right mix of tanks, or not having a lot of druggets on their side, so be it.

[Guffrus 3]

Some of you seem to be labouring under the incorrect presupposition that winning is the most important part of a game, it isnt.

 

You cant have a winner without a loser and there is no honour in defeating a weak adversary whom stands no chance of victory.

 

Therefore the most important element of a game is balance and an unknown outcome, because these are the necessary foundations for a meaningful game, one in which you would enjoy your time regardless of the final outcome because the journey was more important than the destination.

 

Guffrus

[Holyman_Tanki 40]

I agree with the last speaker.

 

:D

[dfoofnik 341]

The current reward system is good enough. In fact devs had just released an update regarding this a few months back so that losing side gets more crystals.

Yes, but the "lopsided" battles continue and no one wants to play 7 against 8, M2 captains against M3 LTGENs. Witness these two:

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l640/dfoofnik/UnfairBattle.jpg

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l640/dfoofnik/mismatch.jpg

[Dragon-Judgement 1,529]

Yes, but the "lopsided" battles continue and no one wants to play 7 against 8, M2 captains against M3 LTGENs. Witness these two:

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l640/dfoofnik/UnfairBattle.jpg

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l640/dfoofnik/mismatch.jpg

*Cough* Rank Limits are screwed with.

[deadtoyou 2,502]

Yes, but the "lopsided" battles continue and no one wants to play 7 against 8, M2 captains against M3 LTGENs. Witness these two:

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l640/dfoofnik/UnfairBattle.jpg

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l640/dfoofnik/mismatch.jpg

*Cough* The lower ranks made a choice to play with higher ranks. :blush:

[I.Can.Beat.U 341]

there are no problem in system -_-

[dfoofnik 341]

Yes, but the "lopsided" battles continue and no one wants to play 7 against 8, M2 captains against M3 LTGENs. Witness these two:

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l640/dfoofnik/UnfairBattle.jpg

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l640/dfoofnik/mismatch.jpg

Today there was a 1 point lead in Monte Carlo that went to 22-4 because a bunch of higher ranks started jumping in just as the score was getting even, just to spawn kill. And then they LEFT the battle.

Anyone over Captain that does this should be banned for a week.

[dfoofnik 341]

*Cough* The lower ranks made a choice to play with higher ranks. :blush:

No. The lower ranks were already playing when the higher ranks arrived. The spread for some battles is way too high: between M1-M2 lieutenants and M3 generals is too wide a rank disparity for any battle, like Shermans against Tigers, and especially when the higher ranks are drugging.

Unlike the NFL, we cannot draft good players to a battle to equalize the odds.

We have enough players that you could have battles only from lieutenant to major, and I have seen some with WO and LTs get visited by a Brigadier who happened to be using his (MU-cough) lower-ranked (MU-cough) equipment. The change to an equipment-based range did not improve the disparity between overpowering odds. It only gets worse when dispirited players leave the battle rather than get killed over and over, which is the case on a MAJORITY of battles in some venues.

[deadtoyou 2,502]

No. The lower ranks were already playing when the higher ranks arrived. The spread for some battles is way too high: between M1-M2 lieutenants and M3 generals is too wide a rank disparity for any battle, like Shermans against Tigers, and especially when the higher ranks are drugging.

Unlike the NFL, we cannot draft good players to a battle to equalize the odds.

Dude, the lower ranks knew what ranks could have joined after them, if they don't check that, then it's their problem.

[ringelette 85]

Hmm...maybe DMs could be like rating matches.  You start at 1200 rating and go up if you do well, and go down if you don't.  You don't get any rating if you didn't play the match from start to finish.  Then in CTF and TDM and CP, you can set rank limits and rating limits.  Therefore, you will avoid mults joining your team because their rating is most likely low while good players have better matches.

[dfoofnik 341]

Dude, the lower ranks knew what ranks could have joined after them, if they don't check that, then it's their problem.

Apparently, once you reach 2nd Lieutenant, half your battles can admit major generals.  :o  Do we just not play when we see they can jump in?

I mean, I will fight majors and lieutenants, and when they're there, it's something worthwhile. But then one side gets a 1 point lead and here come the big guns to run up their crystals.

[dfoofnik 341]

Hmm...maybe DMs could be like rating matches.  You start at 1200 rating and go up if you do well, and go down if you don't.  You don't get any rating if you didn't play the match from start to finish.  Then in CTF and TDM and CP, you can set rank limits and rating limits.  Therefore, you will avoid mults joining your team because their rating is most likely low while good players have better matches.

The whole concept of "multiple accounts" is anathema to a fair system. I say you get 1 tank, 1 battle at a time, and if you get a zero in a battle, you can't rejoin the next one. Too much parity for the lifers?

[bobob-bobob 10]

The last few battles I've been in were just stopped with ten minutes to go in a 15 or 30 minute battle . Yes the score was lopsided as was the number of people on each team , but if we are OK with it why stop it ?  If it gets too bad , you can always leave , if you're losing you will not miss the few crystals you'll get anyway . I'm getting my ass handed to me in every battle I've been in today . That's why I'm here .

[deadtoyou 2,502]

Apparently, once you reach 2nd Lieutenant, half your battles can admit major generals.  :o  Do we just not play when we see they can jump in?

I mean, I will fight majors and lieutenants, and when they're there, it's something worthwhile. But then one side gets a 1 point lead and here come the big guns to run up their crystals.

I only play in battles up to Major, and sometimes I do play in higher battles, but I understand that those ranks either drug or have better experience than I do, so I don't complain in topics like this.

[BillyBobJoe345 27]

In response to  Para_CW and beaku:

 

 

Quite a few players have made suggestions along these lines. It makes sense from a number of different perspectives.  If the rewards are distributed more evenly, players will be more willing to join losing battles instead of treating them like the epicenter of an Ebola outbreak.  There would be no need to camp by battles in progress waiting for the moment that the teams are even so that you can join the winning side.  

 

 

It would also reduce the incentive players have to drug constantly in the interest of winning so that that they can get 10x more crystals than the losing side and encourage more polite behavior among team mates.  

 

 

So far the Dev's have ignored all such suggestions.  I suspect it's because they are afraid that players will have less incentive to spend real money because it wouldn't matter as much.

 

The current reward system is good enough. In fact devs had just released an update regarding this a few months back so that losing side gets more crystals.

 

 

If the devs make the crys distribution any more balanced, there will be no benefit or incentive to win. That would be so pointless....it would be as if they weren't teams....tankers won't work together as well if they are not trying to win.

 

Guffrus:

 

 

Some of you seem to be labouring under the incorrect presupposition that winning is the most important part of a game, it isnt.

 

You cant have a winner without a loser and there is no honour in defeating a weak adversary whom stands no chance of victory.

 

Therefore the most important element of a game is balance and an unknown outcome, because these are the necessary foundations for a meaningful game, one in which you would enjoy your time regardless of the final outcome because the journey was more important than the destination.

 

Guffrus

 

 

And to you, mister "Guffrus", your fancy words do nothing (I might as well point out: its "a weak adversary who stands no chance of victory", not "a weak adversary whom stands no chance of victory") to prove your point. As I said previously, you don't want to have a balanced crystals distribution....no one would care about winning. The devs improved the distribution to make it more even, but anything more than that is just plain ridiculous. And as for the battles where the losing team "stands no chance for victory", the new update makes battles where one team is clearly dominating end earlier.

[dfoofnik 341]

The last few battles I've been in were just stopped with ten minutes to go in a 15 or 30 minute battle . Yes the score was lopsided as was the number of people on each team , but if we are OK with it why stop it ?  If it gets too bad , you can always leave , if you're losing you will not miss the few crystals you'll get anyway . I'm getting my ass handed to me in every battle I've been in today . That's why I'm here .

How is this a fair range of ranks? You can imagine what happens to the battle.

http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/dfoofnik/media/another%20ruined%20takeover.jpg.html

I say 7 ranks is enough of a spread, regardless of what equipment they use.

[dfoofnik 341]

>> the new update makes battles where one team is clearly dominating end earlier.

 

Unfortunately it did nothing for the basic disparity that results when players rise in rank and get more powerful weapons.

Can I go back to kick butt among the sergeants and WO's? No. So why the huge range in ranks except to benefit longtime players

at the expense of newbies, and encourage them to BUY more powerful tanks?