Why Are Large Maps Unpopular?

[PuncherTank 37]

Hello,

Here's another approach to the lack of diversity problem.

Ask yourself this simple question: why are Polygon CP battles very popular while you almost never see a Lost Temple CP battle? Why is Silence CTF popular why Berlin CTF isn't?

Well, if you play for 1 hour on Polygon CP and then 1 hour on Lost Temple CP you'll get a pretty good idea of the reason:

In 1 hour on a full Polygon CP the fund can easily surpass 15,000, while on a full Lost Temple it would hardly reach 5,000. So, would you rather play for 1 hour and get 1,200 or play for 1 hour and get 250? It's a no-brainer.

The current battle fund system is flawed. It encourages players to play on small maps and avoid large ones. This is because the system is mainly dependent on the number of tanks destroyed rather than the time/effort spent.

Things should actually be the other way round, i.e. the fund should be greater in a 1-hour Lost Temple match compared to a 1-hour Polygon match. Because, it's harder and takes more skill and time to kill an enemy on a large map like Lost Temple, while on Polygon a single freeze/firebird can easily kill the whole enemy team in seconds, especially in CP where everyone is around the point.

The same applies to other maps and modes. For example, on Silence CTF it's easier and quicker to destroy many enemy tanks as compared to Berlin CTF, so the fund grows mush faster within the same period of time making Silence a more "profitable" map.

The fund is currently raised by a certain amount of crystals each time an enemy tank is destroyed depending on the total number of players in the battle and regardless of the map.

So, I'd like to suggest a new battle fund system that takes into account the size of the map and its difficulty.

The new formula will be dependent on the number of players in the battle, in addition to a coefficient I'll call the Complexity Coefficient (CC). Each map will have a specific value for the Complexity Coefficient that ranges from 0.5 to 3.0 depending on the size and difficulty of the map.

In team battles, the formula for calculating the amount of crystals to be added to the fund each time an enemy tank is destroyed is as follows:

[Complexity Coefficient * Total number of players on the team with the least players]

For example, let's assign tentative CC values to the following maps:

• Sandbox: 0.6
• Polygon: 0.8
• Silence: 1.0
• Esplanade: 1.4
• Lost Temple: 2.2
• Berlin: 3.0
• Dusseldorf: 1.9 (although this is a large map it's a bit easier than others.)

Based on these CC values and the formula above we can calculate the amount of crystals that will be added to the battle fund per kill for each map as follows (assuming both teams are full):

• Sandbox: 2.4 (0.6 * 4)
• Polygon 6.4 (0.8 * 8)
• Silence: 10 (1.0 * 10)
• Esplanade: 16.8 (1.4 * 12)
• Lost Temple: 35.2 (2.2 * 16)
• Berlin: 54 (3.0 * 18)
• Dusseldorf: 38 (1.9 * 20)

Total fund value can be rounded at the end of the battle.

Now, before someone jumps to say Berlin will be the most popular map because the fund will be huge, remember what I said before; it's harder and takes more time to kill a tank on a large map than it is on a small one - on Berlin you'd be lucky to kill 2 or 3 tanks in a minute as compared to Polygon where you can easily kill 20 in a minute. So, playing 1 hour on Berlin with this new formula may result in a larger fund than what you'd get in 1 hour on Polygon, but the difference should not be that huge. This would make more sense and will definitely encourage diversity and promote larger maps.

Don't tell me you don't like this, Hazel-Rah! <_<

 

UPDATE:

 

Notes:

• CC values can be flexible, so that developers can change them anytime as required to encourage diversity. Increasing the CC of a certain map should make it more profitable and thus more appealing, and vice versa; if a map is too common developers can lower its CC to encourage players to play other maps.
• Different modes should have different CC values, for example DM and TDM modes should have a higher CC than CTF and CP modes for the same map. This is to make up for the fund increases caused by flag/point captures. Also in DM and TDM it's harder to kill an enemy because everyone is trying to avoid getting shot while in CTF and CP players usually don't care how many times they've been killed leading to more kills and thus faster growing fund than in DM and TDM.

[jazz20 1,181]

Wow didn't know the fund growth was so much smaller in larger maps.....or slower.

[PetertheGeniusGamer 74]

Strange

 

Dusseldorf is home to the biggest battle funds.

[PuncherTank 37]

Strange

 

Dusseldorf is home to the biggest battle funds.

 

Yes, the fund grows faster due to the large number of players, but then it will be divided between a large number of players. Again, 1 hour play in Polygon CP would be more profitable, that's why I see so many Polygon CP battles at my rank but no Dusseldorf ones (except rarely).

[Maf 32,306]

That's a very interesting idea. Being a fan of variety myself, I've always loved to play on larger maps and this would be great incentive to encourage players to create battles on such maps.

 

However I would say that the fund is only a small part of what's forcing players to stay on smaller maps. It seems that many are just not comfortable exploring unknown terrain and they would rather stick with the simple and familiar, rather than "waste time" struggling to find the flag on a map like Berlin. More than just fund is needed to make large maps popular. 

 

Edit: Could a mod please correct the error in the title: Maps instead of Map?

:3

[C-O-O-L-G-U-Y 131]

Large maps lag and are boring becuase a team might have 5 or more defending so it's very hard to get the flag. Also these battles tanks a very long time usually. If you make a Berlin battle it will take maybe 20 minutes just so that people start joining. Players get bored and leave

[ThouShallNot 963]

Large maps lag and are boring becuase a team might have 5 or more defending so it's very hard to get the flag. Also these battles tanks a very long time usually. If you make a Berlin battle it will take maybe 20 minutes just so that people start joining. Players get bored and leave

Also because these maps tend to have low fps and high ping.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Large maps lag and are boring becuase a team might have 5 or more defending so it's very hard to get the flag. Also these battles tanks a very long time usually. If you make a Berlin battle it will take maybe 20 minutes just so that people start joining. Players get bored and leave

So that's your excuse as to why medium to small maps are popular? Why must every battle be fast paced? Do you not know what a challenge is? Large maps are unpopular because the playerbase is unwilling to expand on the 70 maps and back down from the challenge.

 

However I would say that the fund is only a small part of what's forcing players to stay on smaller maps. It seems that many are just not comfortable exploring unknown terrain and they would rather stick with the simple and familiar, rather than "waste time" struggling to find the flag on a map like Berlin. More than just fund is needed to make large maps popular. 

I'll quote over what I mentioned in a different topic that discussed this issue, to put what you're saying into perspective. *cough* Increased funds/golds periodically on unpopular maps *cough*

Crystal drops, size of map, and most of all, what the players discover at their ranks. I will play off of that in this comment.

 

As you rank up, you unlock different maps you can play. So as players get introduced to these new maps, they either check them out or continue playing what they know; most common. Those that do check out the map and try to start a game don't get a good turn out and have to settle with what everyone else is playing. This is why there are the popular maps, the maps you can say are played occasionally, and the maps that are dead. I would call this "herd mentality" type of situation. Players have to go along with what everyone else is playing in order to get the game in.

 

Surpukhov is unlocked at recruit. If they like it then, people will stick with it. Island is unlocked at Warrant Officer 4, since its small and simple, people will stick to it. Notice, just about all the other maps unlocked in the warrant officer ranks (except for maybe Stadium) are not very popular.

This, along with your point about the fund system, is why smaller maps are popular and large are sorted out.

[PuncherTank 37]

@MAFIOZA121 - Yes, there are other "psychological" reasons that make players stick to a few maps, but this may at least give them a little push to go for large maps.

This system is flexible. So, if players still won't leave their old habits, then make it miserably inefficient for them to play on small maps by lowering the Complexity Coefficient to below 0.5 so that Polygon/Silence/Sandbox/etc. players will have to play for 5 hours to make 1,000! At the same time, increasing the Complexity Coefficient for certain large maps to over 3.0 can make them irresistible appealing.

The best way to have comprehensive diversity in maps is by implementing a fully-automated matchmaker system to repalce the current user-controlled battle creation syustem, which I suggested here. However, because such system may work unfavorably to many buyers (druggers, clans, dominance seekers, etc.) developers will have to think carefully about it. I still believe, though, that it will deal with many negative issues in this game and improve the experience for most players.

For laggers who complain about increased lags in large maps; don't play in large maps! Actually it's better for everyone else if you don't play there!

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

Berlin, Dusseldorf, Lost Temple... So much maps with fatal errors for those with ban connection...

 

And like you said, funds grow way faster in Polygon.

 

The only reason I play Lost Temple once in a while is for fun.

 

BTW, I disagree the 0.8 for Polygon. Same for the 0.6 in Sandbox. These maps will be less popular. The value for these maps should be 1, like Silence. For the other values, I agree with it. Eve if the Berlin value is a bit huge ^^

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

Large maps lag and are boring becuase a team might have 5 or more defending so it's very hard to get the flag. Also these battles tanks a very long time usually. If you make a Berlin battle it will take maybe 20 minutes just so that people start joining. Players get bored and leave

True, same for Lost Temple. When a team is strong, all the enemy team leave and you are 5 or 6 vs 12 players, where is fun?

[PuncherTank 37]

BTW, I disagree the 0.8 for Polygon. Same for the 0.6 in Sandbox. These maps will be less popular.

 

That's the point!

[PuncherTank 37]

True, same for Lost Temple. When a team is strong, all the enemy team leave and you are 5 or 6 vs 12 players, where is fun?

When there's a bigger reward at stake more players will fight till the end rather than leave. Also, more players will be willing to join in place of those who leave. The reason why such battles usually die early lacking players is because most players are circling the freaking Sandbox or piling up in Polygon's square, which's become like the Times Square of TO.

 

The fatal error thing is indeed a serious problem that needs more tweaking.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

BTW, I disagree the 0.8 for Polygon. Same for the 0.6 in Sandbox. These maps will be less popular. The value for these maps should be 1, like Silence. For the other values, I agree with it. Eve if the Berlin value is a bit huge ^^

The whole basis of this topic is to increase the popularity of large maps, as its unbalanced. Smaller maps on the spectrum are popular and the larger maps are dead. Why are the values of the popular maps such an issue to you? This isn't trying to oust the popular maps necessarily, its trying to give all the other large maps a chance. Players who refuse to play a slower paced game in a larger map wont be any less short of a match.

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

So, in order to make large maps popular, we need to make small maps less popular?

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

People who start playing the larger maps have to come from somewhere...They're not magically going to appear to play the large ones to keep your prestigious popular ones a float....

[POWERFULLSOUL 78]

I don't play in big map bcoz of low fps ... But I like ur idea.. Playing in same map is boring nowadays...

[killen0 397]

dunno wat u talkin abt. im stupid in diz stuff -.-

i rarely play in big maps -.-

i end up bulling my team mates n enemies -.-

[swede1 1,726]

 

Hello

Hi Puncher,

First off, where have you been hiding all this time, you are relatively unknown until recently.

Your ideas are interesting, as Vikingsrall pointed out these ideas have been brought to the Devs attention before.

I think the main problem is that the entire game would have to be rewritten to accommodate any of these ideas, they may correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding all maps in all servers run on one parameter, through the client, if they change the parameter it effects all resources, be it funds, spawn times, physics, etc...

There is a separate client for Starlladder Star series players to use with a dedicated server, where they can alter these parameters to suit the battle.

Maybe, just maybe, if we continue to pound the issues continually in might sink in and find its way into the possible future "Unity" version I hear they are working on.

So keep on posting, there is a massive amount of info in the archives too, though very difficult to dig through, as the forum was built in the same fashion as the game :mellow:

[swede1 1,726]

That's the point!

I disargee on this point, small maps will still be popular.

I feel your stats should start at 1.5 of current funds, and go up from there, even those popular maps don't pay out enough right now.

Till the ecconomic structure is re-evaluated, players won't play larger maps even if the funds to time ratio is balanced.

[i200000 717]

Hmmm...Before the Unity dream-world, please work on a new mode to make that big maps free from lags...

I played  some months ago with the Tanki Alternative Editor and I've seen lot of bugs...If you exchange the inapt elements like some of the land-walls...

 

Today I will pick 3GB memory into my PC, but for 3 years I played with 1,5 GB, and it wasn't free from lags :)

I think the  reason is the lag.

[dilsharox 2,395]

the main reason for this is the ability to cap flags cuz in a large map like berlin it wont be easy to cap a flag & short range turrets with medium hulls arent that effective

[xXx.RazoR.xXx 543]

there are many players like me,with computers not adequate to play this kind of maps..funds are still too low,I play only pro battles on small/medium maps because of the reason I mentioned before..after the crystalls were removed,PRO battles suffered loss in fund growing..before they (devs) removed crystals (and I am fan of that,although lower ranked players still don't get it,that was proablly the best update for them,as far as the funds are concerned) before you could simply turn off crystals droping and funds were way better then now..example,pre-removing of the crystals update,fund increase for killing a generalissimo was 13-14 crystals,nowdays it's 8-9..your formula would kill income for the free players with inadequate computers..that's the reason I pressed "downvote" on your topic..don't get me wrong,please,but,if devs ever implement this,many players could might ass well give up the game

[magnaboy2 656]

Isn't hornet the "most used hull apparently"? Then why don't people play in big maps where they can capture flags easily with fast hulls by outmaneuvring( ← don't know how to write that xD) medium and heavy hulls? Even if their computer gives bad fps(Yea I've been trough this time also :lol: ) I still don't see the problem

[xXx.RazoR.xXx 543]

So, if players still won't leave their old habits, then make it miserably inefficient for them to play on small maps by lowering the Complexity Coefficient to below 0.5 so that Polygon/Silence/Sandbox/etc

 

For laggers who complain about increased lags in large maps; don't play in large maps! Actually it's better for everyone else if you don't play there!

 

text in yellow is your,OP

 

so,propose solution for "laggers who complain about incresed lag in large maps"..how the heck do you think that "laggers" will earn if yours "brilliant idea" ever gets implemented?..before you propose selfish ideas like this,please,remember that not anyone can have means to play in every possible situation..beacuse you love/can play battles on big maps,everyone else should be forced too?..elaborate!