Improved Fund Distribution and Battle Balance

[PuncherTank 37]

Hello,

Here we go again!

In this post I'd like to address the following issues:

• A new fund distribution system that rewards players for the effort and time they spend in battles in a fairer way.
• A new feature that can help make battles more balanced (Feat Rank system, see below).

First, let's discuss the fund distribution system.

 

One of the major reasons players avoid playing on large maps is that it's more difficult and risky to play on a large map than it is on a small one. Large maps require more planning and cooperation to win, which makes it very hard for single players to win. You can spend hours playing hard in Lost Temple CTF, but unless you have several strong players on your team to support you, you cannot win on your own and all your efforts and hours of play can result in a little reward. You'd be better off spending your time on Polygon CP where you can single-handedly capture the point, or at least you need a fewer good players on your side which is not very hard to find.

This makes large maps unpopular and usually avoided by most players. There's also another reason I discussed in this topic; in short, small maps being more profitable due to the easiness of finding and destroying many tanks causing the fund to grow faster than it does on large maps.

 

[uPDATE 8/21/2015 - start reading here...]
Another reason the current fund mechanism is unfair is that you get the same reward for destroying or dealing damage to an enemy regardless of how strong or weak it is. For example, the reward you get for killing a wasp (with no protection) is the same you get for killing a fully MU'ed mammoth with full protection (double armor + 50% paint protection and then he uses repair supply!) You may kill the wasp in on shot while it may take 10 or more shots to kill the mammoth, and you get the same reward regardless! This is just faulty logic!

The reward should be dependent on "how much damage" the player has dealt to enemies rather than "how many enemies" he destroyed. This would be especially helpful in DM, where the score should become a count of the amount of damage dealt to other tanks rather than the count of tanks destroyed. A much fairer system than the current DM mechanism, which allows unfair "kill stealing".

So, my suggestion is a better- and fairer-rewarding fund growth and distribution system that takes into account the effort each player has made, measured by the amount of damage he has dealt to enemy tanks.

The new fund system will have two parts:

• Individual Fund Stash (IFS): Each player in the battle will have his/her own Fund Stash that grows according to the amount of damage the player has dealt to enemies. It also grows with each capture or flag return done by the player. This fund can be claimed by the player in one of the following two cases: when the player leaves the battle before it ends, or when the battle ends. The IFS may only be visible to the respective player.
• Battle Fund Pool (BFP): This is a collective Fund Pool that grows according to action in the battle, e.g. damaged tanks and capturing/returning flags. In team battles, the winning team will take the whole Battle Fund Pool, which will be distributed among them based on each player's score. The BFP should be visible to all players in the battle.

The mechanism of fund growth will work in a different way than the current one. The funds (IFS & BFP) will not grow every time an enemy is destroyed, but rather they grow each time the player has dealt a specific amount of damage to enemies, which is called the Claim Threshold.

Claim Threshold (CT): A rank-specific number that indicates the amount of damage the player has to deal to enemies in order to be rewarded for it. The following are some suggested CT values for different rank ranges.

• Recruit -> Staff Sergeant: 120
• Master Sergeant -> Sergeant Major: 150
• WO1 -> WO5: 200
• Third Lieutenant -> Major: 280
• Lieutenant Colonel -> Lieutenant General: 350
• General -> Commander: 400
• Generalissimo: 500

The system will keep a Damage Counter for each player to record the amount of damage the player has dealt. Every time the Damage Counter reaches the Claim Threshold both the IFS and BFP will increase according to the formulas explained below and the Damage Counter will be reset. If there is any amount in the Damage Counter in excess of the Claim Threshold (remainder) it will be carried over (see example below to understand it better).

Example: Suppose a Generalissimo has shot an enemy tank, dealt 200 points in damage and the enemy is destroyed, now the Damage Counter registers 200 and fund will not grow at this point (Claim Threshold is 500). Then he deals damage of 210 points increasing the Damage Counter to 410 and still no fund increase. Now, the player makes another shot and deals 168 points in damage raising his Damage Counter to 578 points. At this point the Claim Threshold has been reached and the system now calculates and increases both the IFS and BFP. The Damage Counter will reset with a value of 78 (the remainder), so on and so forth...

 

Below I'll explain the suggested formulas for fund growth and distribution, which make use of a variable I called the Complexity Coefficient (CC). In short, it's a specific value for each map (between 0.5 and 3.0) that indicates the complexity (size and difficulty) of the map and it's intended to make fund growth for large maps more efficient. You can read more about it here. The following two formulas will be used to calculate the amount of crystals that will be added to each of the IFS and BFP every time a player reaches his Claim Threshold:

Individual Fund Stash formula:
[Complexity Coefficient * Total number of current players on the team with the least players * 0.9]

Battle Fund Pool formula:
[Complexity Coefficient * Total number of current players on the team with the least players * 0.1]

Example: let's say Lost Temple (CTF) has a Complexity Coefficient of 2.2 and you are playing in a full Lost Temple (CTF) battle (16 vs. 16). Every time you reach the Claim Threshold the funds will increase by the following amounts:

• Individual Fund Stash: 31.68 (2.2 * 16 * 0.9)
• Battle Fund Pool: 3.52 (2.2 * 16 * 0.1)

Now, suppose at the end of the battle each of the 32 players reached their respective Claim Threshold 50 times. We can calculate the following:

• Individual Fund Stash (for each of the 32 players; winners and losers): 1,584 (2.2 * 16 * 0.9 * 50).
• Battle Fund Pool: 5,632 (2.2 * 16 * 0.1 * 50 * 32).

[uPDATE 8/21/2015 - you can stop reading here!]
Notes:

• Only the winners will share the Battle Fund Pool, the losers will get nothing from this fund pool regardless of the score, whether it is 100:99 or 100:0. Each of the losers will only receive a reward for their efforts (1,584 crystals for each in the example above).
• In CTF and CP modes, both the IFS and BFP will grow with each flag/point capture or return. I didn't include a formula for that, but similar to the damage formulas, a greater portion of the reward should go to the IFS of the player(s) who did the capture/return.
• In TDM and DM modes, the Complexity Coefficient for each map should be slighter higher than it is for CTF and CP modes to balance the profitability of different modes, because in DM and TDM all players will try harder to avoid getting shot resulting in increased difficulty to damage enemies.
• Also, in TDM and DM, there won't be any crystals added to the IFS and BFP as a result of captures/returns. To make up for this and make TDM and DM modes as efficient as CTF and CP in terms of fund growth, the CC value for TDM and DM should be higher than that for CTF and CP modes of the same map. In other words, more crystals will be added to both the IFS and BFP whenever a player reaches the Claim Threshold in TDM and DM modes.
• You can leave the battle any time and claim your individual fund without having to wait until the battle ends.

Even though this system may result in a somewhat smaller reward for the winners it will be a much fairer system where you can rest assured that your efforts will be adequately rewarded even if you find yourself in an imbalanced battle. This will be especially supportive to long battles and large maps. You'll be able to play a 3-hour battle without fearing raiders joining in the last 30 minutes to "steal" most of the reward you worked so hard for. With this system you'll get 90% of the reward for your effort, while the remaining 10% goes up for grabs.

 

-----------------------

Q: This doesn't seem to be very encouraging to win a battle, can you think of an additional incentive for players to win battles?

A: Yes, glad you asked! You may want to win for glory! This leads me to my second suggestion, the Feat Rank system.

This is simply a system for ranking players according to their accumulative battle winning rate (other parameters can be included in the calculation, but it should mainly depend on win rate).

Each Feat Rank level will have their nicknames in a distinct color, and a corresponding logo may be displayed alongside. This can be in the game and forum.

Below is a suggestion for the different levels in the Feat Rank system. The win rate for each level is represented as a percentage besides each:

1. Lion: 96%+ (dark blue, lion logo)
2. Tiger: 91%-95% (light blue, tiger logo)
3. Elephant: 86%-90% (dark green, elephant logo)
4. Bear: 81%-85% (light green, bear logo)
5. Leopard: 76%-80% (dark brown, leopard logo)
6. Cheetah: 71%-75% (light brown, cheetah logo)
7. Shark: 66%-70% (dark red, shark logo)
8. Wolf: 61%-65% (light red, wolf logo)
9. Cobra: 51%-60% (dark orange, cobra logo)
10. Hawk: 41%-50% (light orange, hawk logo)
11. Deer: 31%-40% (dark yellow, deer logo)
12. Ostrich: 30% and below (light yellow, ostrich logo)

 

Notes:

• The Feat Rank (nickname color and logo) should be visible on the battle list. So that if you are an Ostrich and you see a battle full of Lions and Tigers you don't want to go in there, unless of course you want to get defeathered, skinned, eviscerated and deboned!
• A limit option can be added to battles so that only players of certain Feat Ranks can join.

---------------------------------------------------------
Why do I bother writing all this nonsense! :lol:

---------------------------------------------------------

[dilsharox 2,395]

nice work but this is too complaicating

[sahlahmed 2]

Nice but higher ranks like , get more battle fund not low ranks 

[Maf 32,317]

So much text ._.

I'll read it later  :)

[jazz20 1,181]

So much text ._.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

For the IFS, I'd suggest that the player not see this amount. Seeing what they can get can influence their effort in battle and whether or not they stay in it for the long run. Only after they have left or have finished the battle do they receive note of the amount they get.

 

Also, losers should not be restricted from receiving any of the BFP just because they didn't come out on top. That would equate to the losing team not trying as hard if they know all they get is their individual keep. In DM and TDM, the losing team could get the 20% they put in distributed by place in the end result accordingly, on top of their individual earnings. For CTF and CP. The losing team may have captured a flag and returned their own several times from the enemy's grasp. They most likely had a Control point at least once and removed the enemy from one several times. They should receive a portion of the pool, distributed accordingly, as well.

[PuncherTank 37]

Seeing what they can get can influence their effort in battle and whether or not they stay in it for the long run.

 

Valid point, but you'll still be able to get a rough idea of how much you've earned by checking your stats.

 

As for the losers getting a share of the BFP, that can be considered, but the pool will have to be a bit bigger in this case. The formula could be 80%(IFS):20%(BFP) instead of 90%:10% for CTF and CP. Similarly, if losers are to get a share of the pool in TDM and DM, the formula could be tweaked a little bit. If the idea is adopted, such details can be optimized upon testing.

[Destroyer8-k 9]

Quite complicated.Great math there! I feel it should be implemented.Especially,the feat rank system.I don't like the idea of battle fund pool that much.Because the winning team already gets too much crystals when compared to the losing team.http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=253798&hl=%2Bdistribution&do=findComment&comment=4505618-See this.

 

IFS is a very good idea preventing the loss of crystals.Great idea overall except BFP probably.

 

Tanki online should take this idea into consideration.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Bump.

bcuz topics like this need to rule this section.

[PuncherTank 37]

Another reason to implement this idea is to discourage druggers' raids, which leave many players frustrated at this game. Raids aren't fun! Maybe they're only fun to druggers/clans but most players would not enjoy it.

I usually don't engage in drug wars and would leave once the battle turns into a drug war, but the other day I made an exception and fought in a drug war till the end. The following is a snapshot of the final score:

 

What happened there is that the blue team were winning the battle after several hours of play. The score was about 689 (blue):150+ (red), but then most players on the red side left and a clan joined the red team in hopes of taking over and "stealing" the big reward that other players worked hard and long for. The red team clan was dominating and they kept quickly capturing flags one after another, which could've easily enabled them to finish and win the battle before server restart. It was because of me and a couple other generalissimos who joined the blue side after the raid and decided to fight till the end that the blue team was victorious. After the raid the score went from 689 (blue):150+ (red) to 691 (blue):595 (red). We managed to foil the raid by stalling the battle until server restart, which obviously saved the blue team from what would've been a frustrating loss. You can guess what our strategy was by looking at that fat tank holding the enemy flag...oo wait that's actually me! :D

If there was an Individual Fund Stash then those players on the blue side who spent hours playing hard could simply claim their own fund which they've worked for and leave once the battle is raided, leaving only a small portion of the reward in the Battle Fund Pool for raiders.

Note: I've updated the original post above (look at the bottom for the update).

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

WOW you are just full of great ideas. Well done. Now how in the world do we get Tanki to read this and use some of these ideas?

[r_GaIaxy2 8,611]

If there was an Individual Fund Stash then those players on the blue side who spent hours playing hard could simply claim their own fund which they've worked for and leave once the battle is raided, leaving only a small portion of the reward in the Battle Fund Pool for raiders.

Great idea. If they brought back the auto-finish system then that could help stop all these raids as well. 

 

The only problem is that players would join a battle and when the battle turned, they would all take their fund and leave, therefore making a fightback worthless

[Lord-of-the-Snipers 1,620]

You lost me with the maths (not your fault, I just don 't like maths :rolleyes: )

 

But the basic ideas behind your plan are very good!

 

- Larger Maps must indeed be promoted. Playing plenty of Polygon CP 's myself

  for the higher rewards and though the fast paced action there can be nice,

  I really miss the complexicity of fighting in a larger Maps like Kungur.

 

  Your Complexity Coeffefficient IMO is a great way to tackle this Large Map syndrome.

  It will not help in TO Flash though, because Large Maps often means lag and bugs.

  But I can definitely see this work in TO Unity.

 

- an Individual Fund that will always be yours, whether you win or loose. +

  The only addition I would like is that if a player leaves prematurely for whatever reason

  he/she has to pay a small percentage (10% / 20%)

  to the Individual Fund Stash of the team he 's playing in.

  This will especially reward the players of a loosing team that are staying till the end.

 

- a Battle Fund Pool to distribute amongst the winners of the battle. +

 

Good work! And it has the potential to solve a huge part of the problem of unbalanced battles

we have nowadays.

And it will make an end to raiding, which can now leave a team that fought well with virtually

nothing at the end of the battle.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I will look at this later when I have more time but these are my initial thoughts.

 

Could you compare a real example with your suggestion? 31 crystals for 1 kill in a 16v16 seems a lot in your above IFS example and I think reward payouts would be bigger in general. Tanki would be concerned about how much faster players progress without buying crystals and the game can't exist without buyers. But I guess your formulas can be tweaked to achieve a fair balance for players and tanki. This is interesting.

 

Also, when it comes to buying, the advantage players can get when buying compared to that of non-buyers is huge at the moment.  Imagine if we were only allowed to buy add-ons that gave no specific advantage in battle. eg, buy a flag or emblem for you country that can overlay your paint. Crystals earned in the game could buy modifications and paints etc.

[PuncherTank 37]

@AbsoluteZero

I explained more about the Complexity Coefficient fund multiplier and why some maps have higher values than others in this topic. 31 crystals per kill may sound a bit high, but how many kills can you make in 1 minute on Lost Temple CTF as opposed to 1 minute on Polygon CP? As I said before the current fund system is flawed and it favors certain small maps where you can easily earn 3 or 4 times the reward you'd earn on a large map for the same time spent.

Also, in my suggestions for Unity TO I suggested that TO adopt a different monetization model that depends on selling premium accounts rather than crystals/supplies. If this is implemented they can afford to allow free players to earn more crystals in battles. It would be a win-win for everyone!

 

The numbers in my post are intended for demonstration and may not be ideal. The developers will have to come up with well-balanced formulas.

[PuncherTank 37]

I have updated my original post to make things even more complicated! :D

The suggestion now is that the fund grows according to the amount of damage each player has dealt to enemies rather than the count of enemies he has destroyed. This would be a much fairer system especially in DM mode where many players "steal" others' kills. Each player's score should be a count of damage dealt rather than a count of enemies killed.

 

With the updated suggestion you'll get a bigger reward for destroying a strong enemy than you'll get for destroying a weak one.

 

Read the original post if you'd like to learn more (I've included start/end UPDATE markers in red so you don't have to read the whole post again).

[maxvak 0]

Great idea, but what if the teams are uneven (Battle pool fund) then it isn't exactly fair on that one person. Set the winners of the BFP as the team with the highest average

[I.Devastation 2,053]

To anyone who read all this, you have my respect...

In all seriousness this is way too complicated.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

I've always felt that players on each team with similar scores should get similar rewards - the score is based on effort - and if your team sucks but you put forth the effort then the current fund distribution scheme throws down a heavy penalty - essentially giving you nothing.

 

If your team performs poorly as a team then each person's reward should be based on effort - no effort = no reward = great effort (score) = high reward - regardless of the team winning or losing.

 

This would encourage people to stay in battle longer.

 

(Wow - an almost 700,000 BF - how long did that take to reach that level?)

[creeperskelly 1,281]

 

 

You can guess what our strategy was by looking at that fat tank holding the enemy flag...oo wait that's actually me!

 

Sort of like a castle (if you had another one there - perhaps an Isida - it would be perfect). :)

[PuncherTank 37]

@maxvak - As I said before, 90% of the reward for a player's effort will go into his own IFS, while only the remaining 10% will go into the BFP. So, compared to the fund in each player's IFS the share they would get from the BFP won't be that big anyway. But, still other options can be considered for distributing the BFP.

 

 

This would encourage people to stay in battle longer.

 

Indeed, it will also encourage players to try unfamiliar and large maps and long battles when they know for sure their efforts will be sufficiently rewarded without having to worry about "will I be lucky to have strong teammates?", "why risk losing hours of play to raiders?"...

 

 

(Wow - an almost 700,000 BF - how long did that take to reach that level?)

 

Long enough to have cramps! And I wasn't even there half the time. It was double fund day, but still the battle was probably created early in the day and lasted till restart.

 

And another note; the suggestion that the fund should grow according to damage players deal to enemies would work fairly when the game doesn't primarily depend of selling power to generate revenue. The ridiculous "cheap" 100% boost to damage dealt (double power supply) means druggers would be getting twice the reward non-druggers would get for the same "effort".

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Ah, double funds. Still, that's an impressive fund even with regular funds. I was imagining someone would literally have to play from restart to restart to do that (of course it would be rather amusing to have several people using the same account - such as friends taking turns, etc. to keep the "player" in the round all day).

 

Yes, it's ridiculous that when you kill a Mammoth M3 "Castle" (one that's drugged up with the best paint) that you'd get as much of a score/XP as killing a flimsy Wasp.

 

This is why in DM I don't waste time trying to take out larger hulls.

[Loackie 269]

I really only skimmed it, but if what I read was right, this seems like a brilliant idea.

[The-Operator219 1,929]

All this AND the shafts who sit around at base waiting for a wasp or hornet in team battles.

It makes me want to crush bricks in my fists.

[Finesse 968]

Kindda complicated but an excellent idea!