Reduce power of garage supplies

[Gabe2607 499]

This is precisely why I didn't put a number on it and used the word "healthy" instead.  But we're already talking averages aren't we.

 

 

My time here for my EV account is not dictated by the number of supplies made freely available to me but it is a factor. I can change my style and play less offensively or tactically if I so wish but not to the point where I become a hinderance to my teammates who might be several ranks above me.

 

Compare EV to . Our hours here are not too dissimilar but why have I got 5 times his rate?

Remember, we're already talking averages so don't fall into that trap.

 

There's no propaganda here just a controlled way of playing.

A free player will have access to a minimum part of the drugs available to Buyers and Gismo+. How is that Healthy?

 

1) Why comparing EV with I_already_won? Not sure I get this... To say that he/she could have been using more? Yes or no, still his/her choice, right?

2) We need to keep focusing on the comparison between you and you, because it is exactly the point.

 

You make a new account (EV) having all the experience coming from the older account (AbsoluteZero). So you actually are incredibly more efficient than a new player would be, and gain way more crystals than a new player would do. Still... EV could have only 1/3 of the drugs AZ actually use, playing very little (9.3 times less than me, which would bring the ratio drugs per minute to the floor). Do you remember I wrote I could drug for a month and then drugs would be over?

 

PS.: fantastic K/D by the way. I wish I could see EV in action (not for dispute, but for curiosity).

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Oh- I see where the problem lies. you are talking about team battles and I'm thinking of DM:

Non-druggers reap the benefits of druggers' supply use, especially if you're on the winning side.

 

Your side's battlefund allocation is distributed evenly and is directly proportional to a player's effort.  Druggers are not stealing anything from you. It's more like you are leeching from them.

 

To clarify, if you're on the winning side and you put a tiny effort in compared to the drugger on top, you both get rewarded at the same rate.

 

I don't know how you could have thought otherwise. I even provided screenshots. Were they too small for you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

what this really proves is how long I've been playing tanki :P...I am not as big a noob as you might think.

Are you certain about that now?

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

I had thought the system for DMs applied to CTFs as well. No need to act like the world's about to end. -_- It's also because I learned that the distribution worked a certain way when I started this game, and at that time I was not active in the forum or reading news.

 

That doesn't change my point.  :mellow: You would have got a bigger share of a smaller pie if the drugger hadn't joined, and often the difference in shares is bigger than the difference in pies.

 

What I'm trying to say is that druggers, don't think you are making your team so much more crystals, unless you join at the end of a long battle with high battle fund and cap that last point. Maybe it's fine to drug but definitely not valid to say your team appreciates it. <_<

[Phoenix.Raised 5,992]

You would have got a bigger share of a smaller pie if the drugger hadn't joined, and often the difference in shares is bigger than the difference in pies.

Wait, wait. Are you calling me a drugger?

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

That doesn't change my point.

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

Steal in this sense means a loss of potential profit that would've been awarded. It obviously doesn't mean they hacked your account and transferred crystals. Waiting for 2000mc to come in with the actual definition of stealing :ph34r:  so I thought ahead a bit.... ;)\

 

Oh well, keep on telling yourselves your team always loves it when you drug for them....

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

Wait, wait. Are you calling me a drugger?

Goodness no. What an obscene connotation. Would "strategic users of provided tank enhancers" help? ;)

[Phoenix.Raised 5,992]

Goodness no. What an obscene connotation. Would "strategic users of provided tank enhancers" help? ;)

Erm, "consumer of Tanki Online garage supplies" sounds more suitable. But OK, carry on with...whatever you were doing before :p

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

1. If a drugger joins a losing team and turns the battle around by himself, his/her team member get about equal the fund as if he/she had never joined.

 

2. If a drugger joins a losing team and satisfies him/herself with spawn-killing the enemies but not capping much flags, then his/her teammates LOSE crystals.

 

it really depends on the final result (flag/point difference) and the difference in score between the druggers and non-druggers. A wise drugger can usually achieve at least 3 times the score of a non-drugger, given the same amount of time.

 

Simulation for case 2 from above

 

Result in theory:

The nondruggers in the loosing team get less crystals

All players in the winnin team get more crystals

 

Reason:

non druggers in the loosing team get less from their teams share of the fund created by the winning team, as drugging members of the loosing team absorb more of that.   (who got that on first read? I wouldn't have :P)

 

 

 

red team on the left, blue team on the right.

 

 

 

 

practically:

The drugger scores by kills.. and killed tanks can not kill you.. so you have more active time.. and may score a little more maybe? The enemy team will have less total score.. but your drugger will have more.. overall fund maybe the same? Overall the most impact is the flag result.. and if the drugger can make a change there (killing enemies, they cap less flags) then - even if you still loose - you might end up with more then without a drugger.

 

whatever..

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

:Lol: Really you didn't need charts to explain it...:P But 2000mc is always looking for mathematical, unassailable proof, so I assume he needs that. :)

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

I wanted to know if I was right about my understanding of the mechanisms and my predicted results.. so I simulated it.

Posting the result made sense afterwards :p

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I wanted to know if I was right about my understanding of the mechanisms and my predicted results.. so I simulated it.

Posting the result made sense afterwards :P

You've just gone with 1 crystal per point which is an over simplification and the game doesn't work that way so your scenarios are unrealistic. Who is to say that the drugger on the second simulation did not alter the overall result. The first simulation could have been a bigger loss than the second which thanks to the drugger might have resulted in a much bigger share going to the losing side. The difference could be +20% overall for each player on the losing side.

 

But if you're going to go with a same loss in both simulations then the drugger was wasting his supplies trying to help a noob and selfish team who celebrate losing and enjoy defending their loss. Any sensible drugger would have either left the battle or stopped using. Why help out a bunch of selfish individuals who are unable and unwilling to make an effort?

 

 

Result in theory:

The nondruggers in the loosing team get less crystals

All players in the winnin team get more crystals

Maybe in your 1 crystal per point fictitious scenarios where the overall outcome did not change.

 

Generally, a drugger on your side is a good thing for non-druggers because they help your side win or reduce your opponents winning margin. Further, while this drugger is doing his drugging thing, what are the rest of the team doing? Watching and camping? Why don't they use the opportunity to either score more points and go for the win? Some non-druggers seem to simply enjoy losing!

 

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

2000mc

 

You clearly have difficulty understanding logical statements. Any unbiased bystander would assume that you needed the maths, the proof.  If you do not correct them beforehand it is the fault of the party who did not make that clear rather than the party that interpreted your actions and words.  

 

You hate mults and saboteurs, do you not? Mults and Druggers in a battle give the same feeling to non-druggers.  You only hate mults more because you haven't stooped to planting mults while you've achieved a position from which you can drug comfortably.

 

In all the lopsided battles I see it is FIRST because of druggers. Then people leave the losing side, unable to fight back, and it turns into an issue more of team size.  You might say "they still have a fighting chance if they're skilled" but it's the same with mults. If your team has three mults and it's a (10)7 v 10, you can manage by staying back on defense with good skill and coordination (drugging is outside of the picture atm.) If their team has three large druggers and it's a 10 v 10, you can ONLY manage through exemplary coordination and skill.  It's nearly impossible, in fact, it practically is.

 

Of course drugging is encouraged by the game while multing goes against the rules. You make capital of that distinction.  But let us go beyond the rules and look at the in-game similarities:

 

-Both are only fair if everyone's/both sides are doing it equally.

-Both cause immense frustration and pain

-Both give an advantage (drugging gives more as multing really only helps your team a bit)

-Both upset players' sense of fair play and "fun."

 

So why is multing illegal and drugging isn't? The answer is TO made it that way. Why? Because multing loses money for them while drugs bring in lots of profit. You might think: "Also, if everyone's drugging the game is fun. If everyone's multing (which most can't do as they only have 1 high account) then the games are never full and never fun. I might add that in standard battles NOT everyone's doing it or can afford it, it is only a select few.

 

You have no right to be so frustrated with mults and so happy with drugging. The massive line you drew there is really only blinding yourself. It is the same type of attitude, just gone about it different ways.  "In games, players should play by the rules. Drugging is by the rules, etc."

 

But think: Is it the violation of the rule that bothers you more, or the action itself, even if it wasn't against the rules?

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

You've just gone with 1 crystal per point which is an over simplification and the game doesn't work that way

No, that's perfectly fine

 

 

To my last information a Generlissio increases the fund by 0,96 crystals for each point scored. Legends increase the fund a little more.. and the lower the rank, the less crystals are added per point scored by the scoring player. Feel free to see a screenshot in your own post to have a quick check: sum of point: 7879, crystals 7218 => 0,916cr/point.

 

I doubt that you blame me that rounding 0,96 to 1 is an oversimplification. I'm also pretty sure that you understand that the factor [1cr/point] that is multipled on all crystals based figures on the sheet will change nothing regarding the distribution, if I changed it from 1 to 0,9 or 0,912455 or to any other number.

 

 

Did I miss your point? Then please rephrase

 

 

 

[telling that this scenario is unrealistic and a lot of other implications have to be taken into account]

I've listed most of the things you complain about already in my original posting:

 

 

Simulation for case 2 from above  <- refering the scenario I simulated

 

Result in theory:  <- I pointed out its in theory

 [...] = all the things you complain about]

 

 

practically:  <- I pointed out there is another view that might hit reality better

The drugger scores by kills.. and killed tanks can not kill you.. so you have more active time.. and may score a little more maybe? The enemy team will have less total score.. but your drugger will have more.. overall fund maybe the same? Overall the most impact is the flag result.. and if the drugger can make a change there (killing enemies, they cap less flags) then - even if you still loose - you might end up with more then without a drugger.

^-- it contains the most things you stated as well

So summed up:

yes, it is a specific scenario, but it is a part of the game mechanic. The true scenarios considering all implication can hardly be simulated. So I used the method of understanding the mechanic piece by piece and to put that understanding in context and into a wider scenario later on.

This is what I've done in the [theory] part (basic principle), and later in the [practically] part (set into a wider context).

 

 

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

I made another one, this time both teams get a single drugging player each.

 

1. The power of the druggers cancel each other out more or less (you know, "we talk about averages" :P) and so it is more realistic that battle result in flags and so the overall fund distribution stays the same.
   
   Then I thought about the overall fund and points, if there is one drugger per team:
2. Point/minute slow down for non-druggers:
   If your teams druggers kills someone, this kill is not available for your teams non druggers any more until the enemy has respawned again. Also if a player is killed by a drugger earlier, he can not cause that much damage as he would have. A Drugger sucks up damage of multiple nonDruggers enemies in this DAs and HKs; while he takes out several of them helping his own score.
   This all togehter slows down the point/minute for nonDruggers (If I join a drugging battle and do not drug, I score almost not at all). In this example the slow_down is set in a way, that the overall score per team stays the same.. which is not perfectly realistic. I just had to start somewhere
   The crystal distribution in the end showed, that in this scenario the crystals of the nonDruggers seem to be reduced _almost_exactly_ and _almost_only_  by the amount of this slow down affect, if _both_ teams have a drugger.
3. I ran now a 3rd set of sims, where the point/minute slow down was off. There the 1drugger per team were almost neutral for the crystals and point results of the non druggers - other effects were +/-2% (neglectable).
    

 

 

 

additional findings that suprised me:

• The points/minute slow down effect of druggers results in a loss of crystals of exactly that amount.
  -16% points/minute by nondruggers => -16% crystals per battle received by nondruggers.
  If I turn off the SlowDown, the change in fund is less then 2% for non-Druggers.
  But having no slowDown at all is unrealistic too - we do have a limited number of tanks and a serious spawn time that simply limits the earnings and max points scored.
• Please note that the crystals/xp ratio stays the same in both cases, for each player! This ratio, which is very precious for tankers below M3, is unharmed. Non-Drugger do not loose cr/xp but they just loose xp/time and cr/time due to the point-increase-slowdown effect of a drugger.

 

 

 

 

So up to now it seems to me:

- loosing the game and having the single drugger of the battle in your team is possible with large enough teams (in 9vs9 a single enemy drugger can be controlled if the team is good). It will worsen the crystal share of each looser on one hand

- but on the other hand increase the loosers teams fund share.. so you might end up with what you had without the drugger.

- having a drugger in both teams slows down the points/minute and cr/minute growth for non druggers, while the cr/xp ratio is not harmed

 

ps:

This excel table is pretty versatile and adapts quickly. If you've any proposals feel free to tell them.

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

Nope

In your case it's different (nothing wrong) but please realize that in most cases it's really the same or even worse feeling. They are both exploiting game mechanics in their own way, even though one was designated "correct" by Tanki Online. In addition, you didn't answer:

 

Is it the violation of the rule that bothers you more, or the action itself, even if it wasn't against the rules?

 

 

In other words, are you pissed at mults because they're breaking the rules, or because they're multing, whether it's against the rules or not?

[Lankero 595]

"Druggers are exploiting the game mechanics" :lol: Next joke please 

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

besides the IT definition of "An Exploit", the verb exploit is commonly known outside the IT sector as well.

cambridge dictionary, exploit:
"To use something in the way it helps you"
"We need to make sure that we exploit our resources as fully as possible"

you're right, it's truely funny :)

[CrimsonComet 15]

                                                                         SOLUTION

~ Double Damage multiplier reduced from 100% to 25% | Change Supply name to "Overclocked weaponry"

~ Double Armor multiplier reduced from 100% to 25% | Change Supply name to "Reinforced plating"

~ First Aid - Heals you for 60% of your maximum HP

~ Mine - Damage lowered by 25%

Anyone agrees ?

[Total_SkiIl 1,983]

                                                                         SOLUTION

~ Double Damage multiplier reduced from 100% to 25% | Change Supply name to "Overclocked weaponry"

~ Double Armor multiplier reduced from 100% to 25% | Change Supply name to "Reinforced plating"

~ First Aid - Heals you for 60% of your maximum HP

~ Mine - Damage lowered by 25%

Anyone agrees ?

why not just make them 0% right? or maybe 1% will be better!!

 

if mission chains  atleast increased rewards by like %50 (supplies rewards) then there wont be any need to reduce power

 

[Lankero 595]

besides the IT definition of "An Exploit", the verb exploit is commonly known outside the IT sector as well.

 

cambridge dictionary, exploit:

"To use something in the way it helps you"

"We need to make sure that we exploit our resources as fully as possible"

 

you're right, it's truely funny :)

Well yeah that's the true definition, but I assume meant it in a more negative way, I hope you get what I mean. 

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

"Druggers are exploiting the game mechanics" :lol: Next joke please 

Well yeah that's the true definition, but I assume meant it in a more negative way, I hope you get what I mean. 

No I didn't. I meant it in exactly the way BlackWasp said. You guys have been saying all along that drugs are given to free players to be used, and that it's folly not to use them to compete and then whine about it. You said that it's a part of the game available to everyone.

 

So now you're taking all of that back? :blink:

 

P.S. It was to make a point. You still haven't answered my question... -_-

[CrimsonComet 15]

why not just make them 0% right? or maybe 1% will be better!!

 

if mission chains regardless of week give 100 supplies of each (or atleast increased rewards by like %50) then there wont be any need to reduce power

 

There is a big need to reduce power. Your tank's damage & durability should be mainly defined by your equipment not the amount of drugs you have. Supplies are supposed to be a small buff to give you an edge in battle. Not make you an indestructible machine that also happens to have ridiculous firepower.

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

                                                                         SOLUTION

~ Double Damage multiplier reduced from 100% to 25% | Change Supply name to "Overclocked weaponry"

~ Double Armor multiplier reduced from 100% to 25% | Change Supply name to "Reinforced plating"

~ First Aid - Heals you for 60% of your maximum HP

~ Mine - Damage lowered by 25%

Anyone agrees ?

I disagree, sorry. I'm not in favor of reducing supplies' power, ESPECIALLY supplies that dropped naturally.

 

How about:

 

1. RK is instantaneous. No 4 seconds of invincibility.

2. All cooldown times are doubled.

:)

[Total_SkiIl 1,983]

I disagree, sorry. I'm not in favor of reducing supplies' power, ESPECIALLY supplies that dropped naturally.

 

How about:

 

1. RK is instantaneous. No 4 seconds of invincibility.

2. All cooldown times are doubled.

:)

Why not more ways to get supplies in some large quantities so that non-druggers TOO can stand up in combat?