Periodic Map Influencing

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

It has been said time and time again. The same group of maps are played day by day. There is no action to promote a great variety of maps being played but all the action focused on turrets and hulls. We are suggesting that this should change. Maps that are played occasionally or are dead should be eligible for a period of increased funds/gold box value in order to encourage players to expand their knowledge of the games battlefields. Between three to five cards would be included. At least one popular map would be included in the mix so players have one of their favorite maps to fall back on. These events should last at least 4 days in order for the players to adjust to the maps, even a week would be best. The events could be spaced no longer than a month apart.

Whats it going to hurt? Increased funds and gold box is becoming more and more frequent and the playerbase's knowledge of maps is becoming increasingly limited, regardless of the gradual introduction to maps through the ranks.

Here is an example of a roster for the event:
Cross (decently popular)
Chernobyl (dead)
Solikamsk (nice edits, dead)
Pass (interesting new edits, dead)
Future (of the almighty profnaz, dead)

Post your opinion as a comment or vote in the poll.

[rampagerhino 67]

I think it's a good idea, i know if they gave some maps an increased fund i would play them all the time. I only play on a few maps, bigger maps like Serpuhov and Silence and almost never on rarer maps because they just don't get the support or players interest. It's a real shame, because when i was a smaller rank i would always play on my favorite maps like Gravity, Stadium, Madness etc. Now you NEVER find any battles for those maps  :(

[jazz20 1,181]

This is exactly what I asked for earlier. To promote unused maps, like one day a week, one map at random would be chosen to have a slightly larger gold box / higher fund, but nobody would know unless we looked for it. The fund could be like x1.75 and gold boxes be something like 1750 crystals. 

[RustyNail 1,538]

I can answer for myself and say that I play 90% the same map for certain reasons.

Basically two three.

 

One, I have lost a great percentage of my interest in Tanki and THUS I have decreased the time I spend playing (so I visit my favourite map and then I log off before I try another map). For example I like Chernobyl but seldom do I go there, for the reason just explained.

 

Two, most of the recent updates have enslaved the game in very narrow limits so that in order to explore more maps I would have to spend serious money - which I certainly won't - to purchace the turrets most suitable for every map. For example I like Future but I can't play there as a railgunner. I would need to buy twins or firebird or hammer, but they have become very expensive due to the large amount of new paints available at the garage (let along the ever increasing need for drugs that is yet another fee for a regular tanki player)

 

Three, the way that battles are displayed when a player logs in is not in favour of variety. It narrows the number of battles to be checked...

 

Having explained this, I think your suggestion becomes kinda irrelevant. Changing the existing maps can only temporary increase the number of regular maps, after a small while people will again turn towards the most "profitable" or obvious maps.

[Maf 32,312]

I think it's a good idea, i know if they gave some maps an increased fund i would play them all the time. I only play on a few maps, bigger maps like Serpuhov and Silence and almost never on rarer maps because they just don't get the support or players interest. It's a real shame, because when i was a smaller rank i would always play on my favorite maps like Gravity, Stadium, Madness etc. Now you NEVER find any battles for those maps  :(

Stadium and Madness are relatively common...

 

But I do agree - many good maps are being ignored.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

This is exactly what I asked for earlier. To promote unused maps, like one day a week, one map at random would be chosen to have a slightly larger gold box / higher fund, but nobody would know unless we looked for it.

Mind your wording; this aims to promote variety as your mentioning does as well, but a bit more efficient. One day is not long enough for the average player who may only play 60 minutes or less per day. If they join that promoted map for that time, a quarter or half of it would be spent getting used to the layout. I think leaving the map unknown would just discourage people from searching, and they would play the norm.

 

One, I have lost a great percentage of my interest in Tanki and THUS I have decreased the time I spend playing

Thats why an extended period of the map promotion gives you time to play on what you like, then experiment with others. And with the possibility to earn twice as much compared to your norms, why would you ignore that?

 

Two, most of the recent updates have enslaved the game in very narrow limits so that in order to explore more maps I would have to spend serious money - which I certainly won't - to purchace the turrets most suitable for every map. For example I like Future but I can't play there as a railgunner.

...What updates directly limit your exploration of maps? I would argue that Future has enough cover for Rail and that it is possible to use it there.

 

Three, the way that battles are displayed when a player logs in is not in favour of variety. It narrows the number of battles to be checked...

So the problem is in the way the maps are displayed? How else do you list the battles to promote variety? Limit the amount of battles created for a certain map?

 

Having explained this, I think your suggestion becomes kinda irrelevant. Changing the existing maps can only temporary increase the number of regular maps, after a small while people will again turn towards the most "profitable" or obvious maps.

Your suggestions become irrelevant when you stop being ignorant.

 

Sorry

 

Regardless of the playerbase's taste, yes they will go back to what they previously played on. But you never know, some of the lesser played maps may stick. I'd argue some of those maps are as good if not better than the popular maps, gameplay wise. The playerbase just doesn't know it.

 

Changed Noise to Cross in the example.

[RustyNail 1,538]

...

 

Thats why an extended period of the map promotion gives you time to play on what you like, then experiment with others. And with the possibility to earn twice as much compared to your norms, why would you ignore that? (1)

 

...What updates directly limit your exploration of maps? I would argue that Future has enough cover for Rail and that it is possible to use it there. (2)

 

So the problem is in the way the maps are displayed? How else do you list the battles to promote variety? Limit the amount of battles created for a certain map? (3)

 

Your suggestions become irrelevant when you stop being ignorant. (4)

 

Changed Noise to Cross in the example.

 

1. I believe that making some maps more "profitable" than others is against the players' taste and thus against the game's best interest

Some maps are played because players like them (i.e. Serpuhov for me) while others are played just because they give more crystals (Polygon CP). Your proposal is ok - in fact really good - when refering to the second kind of battles. But what if some players don't like the promoted maps and do like the ones disfavoured? Then they really won't like the change.

For me, it certainly won't work because I play what I like and if I can't play that, I get frustrated and come here and complain LOL

 

3. I think that listing the battles according to ranks and number of players that participate, generates a random listing in regard to the (names of the) maps and thus makes more easily accesible a larger variety of maps. It only makes sense in a psychological point of view.

 

4. I really don't understand what you mean here. Could you be more spesific?

 

2. I left it for last because it's difficult for me to explain this statement because of seeing every map in a subjective way. For example I agree with you that Future offers cover for a railgunner, but to me it simply doesn't work. When I play Future, I need another gun (except when I 'm on a 3 vs 3 or less battle). I think that every combination of map/mode requires some combos more than others. It's easy to see this when we talk about hulls (how many play ping pong in a wasp? not many, sure...) but it also counts for turrets as well.

 

All in all, I think that too many rules and changes are bad for the game. They create chaos and make players nervous. Sometimes I don't comment rather uncomfort aspects of the game - such as the update that sends you directly to one certain server - from fear of creating another demand for a new change that will probably lead to new complains... besides, there's a popular saying "if it works don't mess with it" that Tanki has disregarded ...

[snipe3000 678]

Mistake in the poll you asked can this be improved?

 

And choices are

 

Yes (If so how?): Which means yes it can be improved

No, it is Flawed Flawless

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

1.

At least you got to the point here. I see what you mean, change is too much for the playerbase. Regardless of going against its taste, they play too few of maps on the current roster. "What if they don't like the promoted maps?" Whatever. They don't have to like the promoted maps and go back to their norm, they should be able to find enough people to play the popular map. That is just fine, they loose out on more profit because they refuse vary their play. 

 

3.

Ok, now tell me how, if that system was in the game, psychologically, is going to make people play other maps than what they're used to. It would help them find that SIlence even faster.

 

 

For me, it certainly won't work because I play what I like and if I can't play that, I get frustrated and come here and complain LOL

 

4.

You defined it earlier in your post.

 

2

So its not an issue with updates, Okay.  Probably your most solid argument, honestly. I get that players don't have the equipment for the maps. But thats on them if they can't beef up to the challenge with what they have or buy up on something else.

 

All in all, I think that too many rules and changes are bad for the game. They create chaos and make players nervous. Sometimes I don't comment rather uncomfort aspects of the game - such as the update that sends you directly to one certain server - from fear of creating another demand for a new change that will probably lead to new complains... besides, there's a popular saying "if it works don't mess with it" that Tanki has disregarded ...

All this is asking for is a week long change in what players play on. Its really not that bad. Its not the end of the world. What is wrong with it directing you to battles of your rank?  Sure, you have to go with what is there, but thats trying to help you. So how does that saying not apply to maps? They have gone by that saying and disregarded the map situation. At least one third of the maps on the roster are not played at my rank, which must be true for other ranks. 70 maps with a decent percentage of which not played. Is that a problem to them? Nope, and that needs to change.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

 

The way that option is phrased is intended for those that completely oppose the suggestion. Them saying "No, there is no way to improve this to be put in the game."

[xX_CID_Xx 1,484]

I mean in terms of promoting new maps: most ranks from to plays XP. 
Mostly: Sandbox, Bridges, Molotov, Kungur, Duel, and Polygon - CP.... I mean why they want to promote for other maps if player chooses makes for XP?

Ok to maybe promote maps they could added like 1 kill = 20 experience on that map  :wacko: maybe
PS: I am nub in english, so titles you give to topics I can't understand :P

[Yisroel.Rabin 16,224]

I agree. But I must correct you on something, with the low ranks, Future is a very popular map.

 

Good idea.

[snipe3000 678]

 

Then could you please add "No it is completely flawed".

[dilsharox 2,395]

good idea but thee are other maps except the ones u mentioned which should be considered

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

 

I get what you are trying to say, increased experience on those maps. That isn't a thing in the game, not a common promotion that the development team uses and probably wont ever be as there are the new Score multiplier passes. 

 

with the low ranks, Future is a very popular map.

That is what I've heard, but then even more of a bonus for them. The promo may aid to either the higher ranks or lowers, depending on the list. That is another part of the issue, Some maps that are very popular in the lower ranks are not popular in the high ranks and vice versa. The promotion would aim to mix that up for all ranks so there is a nice blend and not a mix match of maps going through the ranks.

 

 "No it is completely flawed".

Updated. Also changed "I don't know" to "Its good as is"

 

good idea but thee are other maps except the ones u mentioned which should be considered

Indeed, that is inferred that different rounds of maps would cycle through the promotion. The ones I mentioned were just an example.

[dilsharox 2,395]

I get what you are trying to say, increased experience on those maps. That isn't a thing in the game, not a common promotion that the development team uses and probably wont ever be as there are the new Score multiplier passes. 

 

That is what I've heard, but then even more of a bonus for them. The promo may aid to either the higher ranks or lowers, depending on the list. That is another part of the issue, Some maps that are very popular in the lower ranks are not popular in the high ranks and vice versa. The promotion would aim to mix that up for all ranks so there is a nice blend and not a mix match of maps going through the ranks.

 

Updated. Also changed "I don't know" to "Its good as is"

 

Indeed, that is inferred that different rounds of maps would cycle through the promotion. The ones I mentioned were just an example.

& canyon & deck-9 was removed for being unpopular sheesh....

was there another reason for that cuz i dont think TO as been entirely truthful about the reason

[xX_CID_Xx 1,484]

So as of my reading and understanding you (we) want Dev's to promote/make us to play on other maps then "famous" maps around?
 

[ThouShallNot 963]

How about the bigger the map, the bigger the fund, for small maps the fund would remain like it's always been.

[magnaboy2 656]

& canyon & deck-9 was removed for being unpopular sheesh....

was there another reason for that cuz i dont think TO as been entirely truthful about the reason

Canyon and deck-9 were super popular ;-;

TO lies to us XD

[dilsharox 2,395]

Canyon and deck-9 were super popular ;-;

TO lies to us XD

ikr

was it due to fly hackers

[T.O.T.A.L.W.A.R 581]

At last someone made a topic for this idea i actually suggested a similar idea at ideas for vlog topic you can find it here.

 

Here is my full text :

 

 

Another idea came to me , encouraging the use of the less used maps by explaining the best strategy to play

In those often neglected maps or by creating the a section in the vlog like map of the week where they explain

The best strategy to play there , drop more gold and gain more xp for playing in this particular map for this particular week.

 

Overall +1

[magnaboy2 656]

ikr

was it due to fly hackers

I didn't see any fly hackers in deck-9 nor Canyon?

[dilsharox 2,395]

I didn't see any fly hackers in deck-9 nor Canyon?

me either then y did they remove it?

it wasnt laggy

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

Another idea came to me , encouraging the use of the less used maps by explaining the best strategy to play

In those often neglected maps or by creating the a section in the vlog like map of the week where they explain

The best strategy to play there , drop more gold and gain more xp for playing in this particular map for this particular week.

Very good proposal. Slightly more XP, more gold, more crystals + a guide; all that weekly or 2weekly alternating.

Would be a great benefit to see other aspects of the game!

[magnaboy2 656]

me either then y did they remove it?

it wasnt laggy

Maybe too popular :x

Not like silence and polygon now,but you get it xD