Reduce power of garage supplies

[GorcsevIvan 55]

Guys, it is not that bad unless you play CTF in miserable maps and get meager rewards. I have never bought crystals, and I have earned nearly 1 million crystals so far. By the way, I have never drugged, not for gold boxes, and not for anything else.

I think activating a DA or SB only when going for a gold box is wise and even a RK can help getting that if you really try to catch it in the crowd.

[RustyNail 1,538]

And I suppose a fair game would be when both teams win? :huh:

 

A fair game is one that both teams enjoy the battle, no player exists that has a ridiculous D/L ratio (something like 45/4) and distribution of funds is a little bit more for the loser (than what it is today). That would mean that - in a way - both teams win. Is that wrong?

Raiding has always been a part of the game.

 

Child abuse, murders and trafficing have always been a part of life. Should this be a reason to let it be for ever?

 

I don't see how you could land up on losing side every single time.

 

The truth is that I don't land up on losing side every time, but I do most of the times because I always choose the losing side to join (and sometimes I manage a come back for the loosing team). Because, honestly, I despise slaughtering the opponent. I find it sadistic.

 

If you do play PRO battles every month, you shouldn't be concerned about raiding.

 

I play Pro battles very rarely. In fact I use Pro pass almost entirely for my clan's training. Most of the battles I participate are standard ones. So, I witness a raiding at least once a day. Too often for my taste.

 

 

[GorcsevIvan 55]

 

And I suppose a fair game would be when both teams win? :huh:

 

A fair game is one that both teams enjoy the battle, no player exists that has a ridiculous D/L ratio (something like 45/4) and distribution of funds is a little bit more for the loser (than what it is today). That would mean that - in a way - both teams win. Is that wrong?

I am not sure if your suggestion is good or wrong. I rather think it is wrong.

But I agree that there should be a motivation for players staying in, or joining to a loosing team.

 

I think it was a very good decision to change the crystal sharing structure when they started to reward the players proportionally to their score. Sharing the reward between the teams is a different cup of tea.

What about giving some free supplies to the loosing team, but only at the end.

Then:

• winning raiders would not get any
• the losers would have more chance to win next time
• players would stay in the battle, so that get the rewarding supplies

   

• BUT, some would stay in and do nothing only for the supplies - so, this must be prevented.

[RustyNail 1,538]

 

I am not sure if your suggestion is good or wrong. I rather think it is wrong.

But I agree that there should be a motivation for players staying in, or joining to a loosing team.

 

I think it was a very good decision to change the crystal sharing structure when they started to reward the players proportionally to their score. Sharing the reward between the teams is a different cup of tea.

What about giving some free supplies to the loosing team, but only at the end.

Then:

• winning raiders would not get any
• the losers would have more chance to win next time
• players would stay in the battle, so that get the rewarding supplies

   

• BUT, some would stay in and do nothing only for the supplies - so, this must be prevented.

 

What's wrong with what I said about fair game? Which of the elements mentioned do you think is not good?

 

And why should losing team gets more supplies instead of crystals?

Why should winning team (and especially first scorer) get so many crystals? Why not a smoother distribution of funds between winners and losers?

In order to prevent people from entering a battle and do nothing just for some crystals, this distribution pattern would not apply to bottom scorers, like with a D/L / score ratio of 1/7 or less...

[GorcsevIvan 55]

What's wrong with what I said about fair game? Which of the elements mentioned do you think is not good?

 

And why should losing team gets more supplies instead of crystals?

Why should winning team (and especially first scorer) get so many crystals? Why not a smoother distribution of funds between winners and losers?

In order to prevent people from entering a battle and do nothing just for some crystals, this distribution pattern would not apply to bottom scorers, like with a D/L / score ratio of 1/7 or less...

I did not say more supplies, I thought of beside the currently given crystals, the loosing team members AT THE END would get some supplies.

 

Which wrong? I would not like to get less crystals than the losers. There would be battles, especially big fund battles, that would be deliberately lost by a team just for the fund.  You cannot prevent raiders. You can make it harder for them with the additional supplies added to the others.

Actually this idea fits perfectly the current TO plan to get the players addicted to the supplies. Constant drug users, i.e. buyers would need to use more. The others would get used to use more, so maybe they will buy.

 

D/L: I think the D/L is exceptionally important in the TDM. And only there. I don't like seeing guys with high killing rate, and similar death. You can get the highest crystal reward in a TDM even if you were killed more than you killed.

I have already suggested to modify the crystal share of a TDM within a team in the way, that 10x[your destroys] would be deducted from your score. This formula would ensure that even an Isida would get its reward for the healing which is included in its score. But also you should be careful saving your life for better final score.

But who cares about the D/L if a tank e.g. captured several flags. CP is similar.

[Baby_Sam 614]

I think activating a DA or SB only when going for a gold box is wise and even a RK can help getting that if you really try to catch it in the crowd.

I won't be named a gold hunter and displayed on the vlog anytime soon, but I've caught 24 gold boxes like that including a 6000 one last night. I am happy, the people who drug to get it are happy (hopefully) and the world is wonderful :P

[beaku 2,656]

I simply don't believe that losers can be given any more crystals. I still remember the time when losers didn't even get 10% of the battle fund. It has been changed now. Losing team now gets upto 40% of the fund. Given anymore, and there just won't be any difference between losing and winning.

[Baby_Sam 614]

I simply don't believe that losers can be given any more crystals. I still remember the time when losers didn't even get 10% of the battle fund. It has been changed now. Losing team now gets upto 40% of the fund. Given anymore, and there just won't be any difference between losing and winning.

Normally, if you lose say in CP 999:998, you get half the rewards the winners get (given you scored similarly). That's kind of cruel.

I know long ago, if you lost 1:0, you don't get jack regardless of your score.

 

Though, this miserable reward distribution is what's causing lopsided battles and leaving some battles with nobody on the losing side. I am sure you like that.

[bravo30 136]

solution=pro battles

solution2= leave this game and find another one after all , if this game closes, it will  not  hurt you .

[beaku 2,656]

Normally, if you lose say in CP 999:998, you get half the rewards the winners get (given you scored similarly). That's kind of cruel.

I know long ago, if you lost 1:0, you don't get jack regardless of your score.

 

Though, this miserable reward distribution is what's causing lopsided battles and leaving some battles with nobody on the losing side. I am sure you like that.

Similarly, when I am on winning side, and don't get as much crystals as I expected, it causes annoyance. I mean, I once won a 18k battle fund round when our team score was 20 against their 11. Even after getting first postion in my team, I just got 1.5 K crystals... That's awfully less. Anyway, we are getting a bit off topic here :ph34r:

[Brubook 1,161]

solution=pro battles

solution2= leave this game and find another one after all , if this game closes, it will  not  hurt you .

This proves that the mother of "geniuses" is always pregnant!!!!

[RustyNail 1,538]

I did not say more supplies, I thought of beside the currently given crystals, the loosing team members AT THE END would get some supplies.

 

I know what you said, it's not what I said though. Why losers get supplies instead of a little more of the funds?

 

Which wrong? I would not like to get less crystals than the losers. There would be battles, especially big fund battles, that would be deliberately lost by a team just for the fund. 

 

I answered that too... If the D/L ratio is very low (as well as the score) then no more funds for this player.

 

You cannot prevent raiders. You can make it harder for them with the additional supplies added to the others.

Actually this idea fits perfectly the current TO plan to get the players addicted to the supplies. Constant drug users, i.e. buyers would need to use more. The others would get used to use more, so maybe they will buy.

 

That's what I most certainly don't like. Anything that makes the players getting used to use more drugs is BAD in my opinion. And here's where I disagree with Tanki.

 

D/L: I think the D/L is exceptionally important in the TDM. And only there. I don't like seeing guys with high killing rate, and similar death. You can get the highest crystal reward in a TDM even if you were killed more than you killed.

I have already suggested to modify the crystal share of a TDM within a team in the way, that 10x[your destroys] would be deducted from your score. This formula would ensure that even an Isida would get its reward for the healing which is included in its score. But also you should be careful saving your life for better final score.

But who cares about the D/L if a tank e.g. captured several flags. CP is similar.

[RustyNail 1,538]

I simply don't believe that losers can be given any more crystals. I still remember the time when losers didn't even get 10% of the battle fund. It has been changed now. Losing team now gets upto 40% of the fund. Given anymore, and there just won't be any difference between losing and winning.

Loser's share is from 20% to 40% (according to Devs), not always 40%.

Do you think for example this is a fair distribution according to score?

 

http://prntscr.com/72dhs8

 

The top scorer of the red team (losers) has bigger score than the top scorer of the blue team (winners) and yet he gets less than half of the blue player.

 

Total score is 8337

Total Funds is 5961 crystals.

 

Red team made 37,2% of the score and gets only 18,7% of the funds. (Capturing 3 flags, if instead it  had captured 0 flags, funds would be even less)

Blue team made 62,7% of the score and gets 81,2% of the funds.

 

Isn't this a bit unfair for a hard battle? What would be the argument against giving an extra 3 or 4% of funds to this red team?

 

Oh, I see... greater motivation for trying to score more.. to win. It makes sense, but still 3% (more) is not that big a deal.... Anyway, it's just a thought.

[Rohrmeister 1,536]

Score is not everything. The losing team can score way higher because of many kills.. but the winners got the one and only flag.

As the game(mode) is about flag, i feel it is ok that they get a higher share (in this choosen example).

 

I would preffer a system, that gives 40% to the loosers and 60% to the winners.. and the "height of the win" (how far are you ahead of your enemy team) can bring additional 5% (so then a share of 35%-65%). This would keep the players in the battles (at least in the 15min battles), because it does not pay off to leave after half the game.

 

The linear distribution inside the teams is perfect.

 

I really hope that the daily missions come soon, as this will dry out the free-drug-stockpilers over time. I think this is a very good idea to handle parts of the issue, and I am very nosy how the game would change a few weeks after this is introduced.

[beaku 2,656]

Oh, I see... greater motivation for trying to score more.. to win. It makes sense, but still 3% (more) is not that big a deal.... Anyway, it's just a thought.

You got it right ;)

IMO, giving more funds to losers will demotivate the winners. Battle situations like 6-6 with 7 flag limit won't be intense and fun. I mean, what would be the point of trying so hard just to get 100, maybe 200 crystals more.

[fufususumumu1 240]

What's wrong with what I said about fair game? Which of the elements mentioned do you think is not good?

 

And why should losing team gets more supplies instead of crystals?

Why should winning team (and especially first scorer) get so many crystals? Why not a smoother distribution of funds between winners and losers?

In order to prevent people from entering a battle and do nothing just for some crystals, this distribution pattern would not apply to bottom scorers, like with a D/L / score ratio of 1/7 or less...

coming up with algorithms like this is very hard, because we dont know about the condition of the game. but theoretically it would be rather useful.

[fufususumumu1 240]

Normally, if you lose say in CP 999:998, you get half the rewards the winners get (given you scored similarly). That's kind of cruel.

I know long ago, if you lost 1:0, you don't get jack regardless of your score.

 

Though, this miserable reward distribution is what's causing lopsided battles and leaving some battles with nobody on the losing side. I am sure you like that.

at my level it isn't half as bad. but probably i wouldnt know enough because i am a WO5 noob.

Normally, if you lose say in CP 999:998, you get half the rewards the winners get (given you scored similarly). That's kind of cruel.

I know long ago, if you lost 1:0, you don't get jack regardless of your score.

 

Though, this miserable reward distribution is what's causing lopsided battles and leaving some battles with nobody on the losing side. I am sure you like that.

 

solution=pro battles

solution2= leave this game and find another one after all , if this game closes, it will  not  hurt you .

this is exactly what people said before reading the first page. read it, and then come back and give your opinion

[fufususumumu1 240]

Loser's share is from 20% to 40% (according to Devs), not always 40%.

Do you think for example this is a fair distribution according to score?

 

http://prntscr.com/72dhs8

 

The top scorer of the red team (losers) has bigger score than the top scorer of the blue team (winners) and yet he gets less than half of the blue player.

 

Total score is 8337

Total Funds is 5961 crystals.

 

Red team made 37,2% of the score and gets only 18,7% of the funds. (Capturing 3 flags, if instead it  had captured 0 flags, funds would be even less)

Blue team made 62,7% of the score and gets 81,2% of the funds.

i dont know if im missing something, but the battle fund actually seems to be more favourable to the red side, because you actually got little bit more than the ratio 3:10. you might be working very hard, but your team probably didn't (or non druggers). so it get measured based on your success, not your hard work, if there was some way to do that. if you had gotten more, it probably would have seemed unfair to the other side as they captured more than 3 times the number of flags your team captured, AND the highest scorer got almost as much as yours. think about it, if you got more crystals based on your score, then it wouldnt be team effort wouldnt it?

i think the team of yours is to blame for not being able to cooperate so that they would prevent the opposing team from capturing more flags, so that they could win the game. if your team worked harder (or drugged a little more, thanks to tanki admins), you probably would have won with a much higher amount of crystals

[Baby_Sam 614]

i dont know if im missing something, but the battle fund actually seems to be more favourable to the red side, because you actually got little bit more than the ratio 3:10. you might be working very hard, but your team probably didn't (or non druggers). so it get measured based on your success, not your hard work, if there was some way to do that. if you had gotten more, it probably would have seemed unfair to the other side as they captured more than 3 times the number of flags your team captured, AND the highest scorer got almost as much as yours. think about it, if you got more crystals based on your score, then it wouldnt be team effort wouldnt it?

i think the team of yours is to blame for not being able to cooperate so that they would prevent the opposing team from capturing more flags, so that they could win the game. if your team worked harder (or drugged a little more, thanks to tanki admins), you probably would have won with a much higher amount of crystals

Actually, fairness is to have everyone get the crystals they contributed. You capture more flags, you are supposed to contribute more crystals and therefore get more crystals. The way it is though is that you might have captured 10 flags and the other side captured 3 flags but they contributed 10000 crystals to the battle fund and you contributed 2000 crystals to the fund and you end up getting 8000. That is where things are screwed up.

[RustyNail 1,538]

coming up with algorithms like this is very hard, because we dont know about the condition of the game. but theoretically it would be rather useful.

That's not an  answer, but you know what, never mind. Don't care to go on with this debate with you. Have a nice day.

[racer22_online 206]

Excellent list from GorcsevIvan:

1. Do not buy several turrets and hulls. I think max. 2 can be maintained. But you can use different account by account.
2. Login to the game every day to collect the daily bonus.
3. Never buy supplies and use them very cautiously in a low key.
4. Do not micro upgrade your hull and turret beside the first step(s). Don't waste your cry on them.
5. Having reached a rank where you can buy the next upgrade stop playing with that account, and switch to another. Wait for the next discount, and buy the upgrade then.
   At the moment I have 2 accounts on hold, and probably only one of them will buy an M1 turret only, due to the low, 25% sale. The other will continue waiting for a 50% discount.
6. Check the product kits you might find one perfectly fitting in your tank development plan. Buy it only then, especially when a sale further reduce its price.
7. I have one more additional rule for myself: 95% I play in the winning team. I choose my battles this way, because I believe I cannot afford gaining XP without the crystal reward of the winners. And I do. In a clear and over powered situation I leave the loosing team (with careful battle choosing this is not frequent). Rarely I loose but then it must be a big fight.

Rule #4 and #7 means that instead of using supplies you have to be skillful and too much (uncontrolled) drugging in the enemy team prevents you playing several battles. (These battles are usually abandoned by the loosing anyway.)

 To remain on topic: Nerfing drugs would definitely help reducing the abandoned battles. On the other hand I thin it is not enough. Those players joining to a loosing team (and staying till the end) should be rewarded in some way.

 

Back to me:

and sorry for not doing the 'quoting' properly.

I have 6 free to play accounts, each dedicated to one turret and hull combination - and plan my spending to upgrade as each rank allows. Tanki have this nicely balanced for a skilled player never to need to pay (at least in my experience).

As you say this allows maximum choice of battles, allows you to join friends at different ranks and allows for 'delays' to hit the 'discount dates'.

My Son (12) has 3 accounts inc. one buying account (for hulls, turrets and paint) - obvioulsy his skills are not expected to be as good as mine (yet!)  But as a team we are (mostly) awesome and always join the losing side (we use no drugs apart from the odd mine and at gold box time (these are WO accounts)).  By the way it's no fun if we join the winning side because the opposition will quit and it's easier to get 2 tanks into the losing side (but we choose carefully).  Same goes for the drug raiding teams we see (say once in 10 battles) - 'raiders' mostly HAVE to join the losing side to be together (2 or 3 tanks). (Ever see 4 drugged Izzy's working together? :0)  I did last night, very hard to stop them without 2 good shafts (which we did not have!)

 

I.e. even as Tanki is right now it's still easy to have a good time.  All this discussion is about trying to make things a bit better and my opinion is that nerfing the heavy drug users particularly on the leading side will help.

 

We all know that the way most teams end up together is not controlled - although I do suspect that the more 'ruthless' take care to join only the leading side - I do this myself when I need more crystals.  Sadly such ruthlessness causes the losing side to quit and the game is no fun.

I get most pleasure from joining losing sides that I think still have a chance - look at the point score for each player and their rank - it's easy to see which players are working hard.  Too many 'lay-a-bouts' on the losing side or too many druggers on one side = best leave that game and find a better battle - or change to a lower account and try to turn a game around = good fun - works more times than not and better still the opposition tend not to quit - I do not use garage supplies unless I join a full 'drug war' apart from the odd mine or if I want to persecute a drugger.  I never use garage drugs apart from the odd mine if I'm on the leading side (using garage drugs while on the leading side is 'unsporting behaviour' in my book).

 

By the way - K/D ratio is a very bad way to compare performance.  How can you compare a 'camping' Mammy Shaft with a flag catching Wasp? = no contest in K/D - flag catching Wasp is doing well to get K/D better than 1.

I find the 'points score' is the best indicator of perfomance - (as a Wasp) my K/D ratio may be rubbish compared to a Mammy/Shaft but if my points score in CTF is better, then I count this as a win to me.

 

This is why I have asked TO to provide the stats for each player as a point score per hour played (rolling for the last 3 months) to be the top line indiator of performance at each rank.

If some sort of reduction could be applied for over-use of garage drugs per hour then this could be a good measure.

 

I find the Tanki point scoring and crystal share out works well for me (provided my team either wins or gets at least one flag or loses by only a few flags).  Being drugged out of existence by the winning team is what causes most harm, and this quickly drives players to quit and move to other battles (I do find on the RU servers losing teams will hang in longer and we have some good times trying to persecute those druggers!)

 

A repeat of what I've said before - if the scoreboard showed how many crystals were 'used' (= total cost of garage drugs used) by each player - then if we see the winning team used them massively then it's a 'hollow victory' for them.  Plus we know which players we should not 'friend'! (I would like to add them to an 'enemy' list!)  Plus if we see a player has 'spent' more in crystals than they 'gained' - then this confirms them as a drug spending low life!  However, I accept Tanki will never agree to this as long as they see buying garage drugs to be essential for TO existence.

 

Tanki will only respond to user demand reducing the use of garage drugs if they see large numbers of dissenters complaining over and over and maybe even quitting the game for a month!  All of us really want Tanki to continue being successful, they have a great team and a great game - if only they can see the difference between an 'interesting sport' and a 'mindless shoot 'em up'.  As I say, I'm happy to pay Tanki - but I will never buy performance enhancers = not fair = unsporting.

However, I don't mind helping younger kids and those with disabilities play the game (by buying enhancements), ultimately Pro Mode should be the answer to those of us wanting a 'sport'.  Again its sad that Tanki do not talk to us about trying harder to make Pro Mode more popular.

 - and by the way I still want an option in Pro Mode where I can still use mines even when 'no supplies' have been selected.  Providing a setup box to allow the smart cooldown rate to be adjusted per battle setup could do this.  Or simple have the option where the smart cooldown rate gets longer the further ahead the leading team goes (please try this).

 

All these good ideas and no comment from Tanki!  Or maybe they ARE thinking about them but it just takes several months to get them into the plan?  I liked the action of 500 crystals for Pro Mode - keep this up and make Pro Mode more popular and accessible so we can find 'suitable' Pro Mode battles more often.

 

I believe the idea of the smart cooldown time extending ONLY for the leading team - will go a long way to auto-balance the game play and I believe this will be very popular.  (Because the longer the battle goes on the more opportunity for a balanced side will become - and the winning side still gets the best rewards - as it should be.)

[fufususumumu1 240]

Actually, fairness is to have everyone get the crystals they contributed. You capture more flags, you are supposed to contribute more crystals and therefore get more crystals. The way it is though is that you might have captured 10 flags and the other side captured 3 flags but they contributed 10000 crystals to the battle fund and you contributed 2000 crystals to the fund and you end up getting 8000. That is where things are screwed up.

. this is what i think about it: the game is based on ctf= capturing flags= more flags= more crystals.

however if your team focuses on destroying other teammates than capturing the flag, they are only going to contribute to the TOTAL fund/ their score, but wont improve the share they get by much because the game depends on capturing flags.

this is the main reason why i play tdm's, because that at least is a bit more fair, as you dont have to worry about flag capturing.

you do have a point :) , and probably i do too, but this is really not going to affect the admins decision at all, because they care  only if it has any monetary benefit. and THATS what's really screwed up. 

 

 

That's not an  answer, but you know what, never mind. Don't care to go on with this debate with you. Have a nice day.

lol wut? :D since when were we having a debate?

[Timboy03 4]

Really good report. I hate the druggers and the "I drugg I win" and "I don't drugg I loose" That's BS we should have a equall chance of winning and not "I drugg I win"

 

Best report EVVVEEEERRR!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fufususumumu1 240]

if people are going to get nerfed after they win, why would they want to win? i think what would happen here is that the more smart players will play up to the point where they get very close to winning, but lose instead so that they get a large number of crystals, and also cause the opposing to get nerfed so it will be so much easier for them to play and 'win'! 

[r_priyangshu0 270]

if people are going to get nerfed after they win, why would they want to win? i think what would happen here is that the more smart players will play up to the point where they get very close to winning, but lose instead so that they get a large number of crystals, and also cause the opposing to get nerfed so it will be so much easier for them to play and 'win'!

LOL, they would still get more by winning, why would you want less crystals just because you can?

It's not like the losing team will get more than the winning team. The idea is to increase the fund of losing team in ratio to the margin of winning.

 

In close matches, you can't really call who  will win. It is more of a tie. Yesterday, I played a Polygon CP, I lagged much, my team was winning, I suppose some raiders came and tried to turn things in their favour, but on the very last moment, my team managed to capture the point and keep it. And we 'won' 76:77.