Raiders

[dfoofnik 341]

Or just...you know...maybe don't play long battles?  -_-

Check my update:

Silence : three joined at 11:00 into a 15:00 battle in Silence, and effectively ruined it -- one was just in it for sport and left , or maybe they have some perverse concept of "saving" the underdogs (just down 3 to 1), which is not the intent of a parity system of battles.

Serpuhov : two field marshals and two commanders were not part of the original teams, and Blues were already the weaker team before the new players joined around 10:00. I killed 3 but that was all I could do against 4 of them.

(They did get their comeuppance in the next battle, when 4 field marshals and 3 marshals pretty much OPed them. But the lower ranks effectively lost a playable battlefield.)

 

This all goes back to my claim that the battles are too widely available to higher ranks -- they should be no more than 5 or 6 ranks deep or you get vastly MUed M2 against barely M2 lower ranks.

Edited April 25, 2015 by dfoofnik

[dfoofnik 341]

The game is designed so that a normal player will be able to comfortably buy and upgrade 1 gun, 1 hull and 3 paints (low, medium and top-level). If you are trying ti do any more that that, you take the risk of running low on crystals and not being able to purchase upgrades for your equipment as soon as it unlocks.

Yes, unfortunately the system is considerably slanted to crystal buyers (like me) because otherwise you will normally advance in rank prematurely and be dominated by those who bought better weapons sooner. Of course, it all evens out at the top, which is why many crystal buyers will then make a second account and repeat whatever success they had with the first one -- you have to find out (sometimes wastefully) that some hulls and turrets are only useful in a few specific battles, then create one or two combinations that you can use (e.g. twins-hornet and shaft-viking) in different situations. On Monte Carlo, for example, you might score better in certain battles with a Super Hornet than with a Viking Sniper.

[dfoofnik 341]

Hah. Found a Russian battle where they are literally "playing with themselves" -- players on each side keep the score close to draw in new players, who they can kill. I caught players on both sides (same clan) "holding the flags" rather than capturing them. I suspect this is some sort  of clan conspiracy, which would not surprise me in the least.

Edited April 25, 2015 by dfoofnik

[Baby_Sam 614]

Check my update:

Silence : three joined at 11:00 into a 15:00 battle in Silence, and effectively ruined it -- one was just in it for sport and left , or maybe they have some perverse concept of "saving" the underdogs (just down 3 to 1), which is not the intent of a parity system of battles.

Serpuhov : two field marshals and two commanders were not part of the original teams, and Blues were already the weaker team before the new players joined around 10:00. I killed 3 but that was all I could do against 4 of them.

(They did get their comeuppance in the next battle, when 4 field marshals and 3 marshals pretty much OPed them. But the lower ranks effectively lost a playable battlefield.)

 

This all goes back to my claim that the battles are too widely available to higher ranks -- they should be no more than 5 or 6 ranks deep or you get vastly MUed M2 against barely M2 lower ranks.

Congratulations on ranking up.

 

Tanki is not cooperating. When I suggested a solution for this (distributing crystals every minute so no one can steal funds that were generated before they joined the game), it was rejected because it was not the world's best possible and impossible solution.

[emrakul 7,801]

Beware of Raiders on long battles : you can have a big lead and a big fund stolen by Raiders. All you can do is leave.

 

Noise is a prime example of "clan raiding" especially on the Russian servers -- you need to put up insurance of 2 captures per minute of remaining time in order to avoid losing your battle fund -- the original enemies leave and there are 3 or more open spots for the clan to co-opt.

 

Here's a group of Russian raiders on a Russian server (the generalissimos):

http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/dfoofnik/media/RaiderClan.png.html

 

To prevent raiding, you can either let most of your enemies "survive" rather than spawn kill them, or (in some cases) your lowest score team members can "quit" and form a new opposing force that does not consist of MUed thugs. Not that I condone "play acting" where the intent is to inflate the score of one team using shills. I see that a lot, too.

 

UPDATE:

These three US raiders in Silence - the Red team was smart enough to recognize them and leave the battle without giving

them many kills.

http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/dfoofnik/media/USraiders.png.html

When you see commanders against 2 stars, raiding is involved, even where the original players were winning already

http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/dfoofnik/media/USfundraiders.png.html

Raiding... :ph34r:

[dfoofnik 341]

Umph. How are some people getting to general's ranks ( 2star and up) without decent weapons or learning strategy?

I came across two sets at Rio:

\Red team had one MUed tank, who went on his own getting the flag and never thought about defense, and the rest were like Keystone Kops...no organization at all. Everybody trying to attack and almost nobody guarding the flag.

\Blue team all underpowered: two shots from an M3 hammer and they blew up. A thunder shot me 9 times and only got half of my health. One guy killed me with three shots from a railgun.

 

So I had 8 one-shot kills with Shaft, 17 other kills in 8 minutes. The only thing slowing me down was that our flag was taken 14 times the last 7 minutes, until I went back and sat on it. I had to self-destruct three times after my teammates pushed me sideways or got underneath my jumps. I think I might have scored more if I just had two instead of six.

 

Here's the advice: if two guys are going for the flag, watch them go and watch the flag. When they take a flag, ONE member goes to make sure they get back with it, and the second attacker should cover, not go off hunting. I see a lot of players who have no concept of "what happens if they kill our flag carrier?" Most just sit there, some don't even notice it happening.

 

I appreciate you "rooting for me" but coming out to get the flag when I get killed might be a smarter idea.

Edited April 25, 2015 by dfoofnik

[emrakul 7,801]

You are talking about riders as sth bad, they drug to win...

However they are also playing as team, unlike "teams" which you described upper. They have some isidas healing, freezes defending, players who just sit in between both bases, and helping the flag runner. Supplies are just to speed up these things :D

I played last days few battles with team, and we were real team, noone sabotaging to get flag, covering teammates when they have flag etc...

Even without supplies advantage, rank advantage (better equipment) it makes difference. Once I played on low rank acc (2nd lowest rank), we were winning and then got takeovered by guys with similar names, no drugs, no MUs just pure smoky/hunter OP team

[dfoofnik 341]

Well, I have finally confirmed collusion on the Raiders of the Russian servers (Silence) -- the same player each time watched the score run up, then *held* the taken flag to keep the capture total low until they could assemble a team to take over the battle (all likely from the same clan, all seen in the same battles). In the third battle, I watched him hold the flag and knew exactly what was coming.

 

This is so intrinsically thuggery of the lowest level that it confirms my worst suspicions about some of the Russian clans. On one battle, the haul was 9000 crystals, on the other 14000.

The organized tactics are clearly well practiced. (e.g. A big MUed gun escorted by two isidas to the enemy flag)

This is a clear sign to all players on the Russian servers that 60 minute battles on Silence are being propagated for the benefit of a few dishonest players at the expense of honest ones. Clans should fight clans, not steal from other players.

Edited April 25, 2015 by dfoofnik

[dfoofnik 341]

Congratulations on ranking up.

 

Tanki is not cooperating. When I suggested a solution for this (distributing crystals every minute so no one can steal funds that were generated before they joined the game), it was rejected because it was not the world's best possible and impossible solution.

Well, that is a problem all over: if you leave a battle early, you get nothing. So sometimes I have to hang around and watch the carnage, popping out every 5 minutes to avoid a time kick. Hopefully to increase my score and not the raiders' scores.

Yes, crystals should be prorated by time spent in the battle: join later than 1 minute, lose 25%, later than halfway, 50%. That would change the current situation, where people only jump onto winning sides to increase their chance of scoring better. There are several folks who have almost never been in a battle from the start.

Myself, I will join a battle late based on the play of the team, not necessarily the score.

Edited April 26, 2015 by dfoofnik

[Baby_Sam 614]

Well, that is a problem all over: if you leave a battle early, you get nothing. So sometimes I have to hang around and watch the carnage, popping out every 5 minutes to avoid a time kick. Hopefully to increase my score and not the raiders' scores.

Yes, crystals should be prorated by time spent in the battle: join later than 1 minute, lose 25%, later than halfway, 50%. That would change the current situation, where people only jump onto winning sides to increase their chance of scoring better. There are several folks who have almost never been in a battle from the start.

Myself, I will join a battle late based on the play of the team, not necessarily the score.

You can't blame them though. It is instinctive for people to try to avoid being raped. You have to deal with the system you have.

 

Actually, periodic incremental reward distribution is fair for everyone. You can join a losing side and not pay for whatever they did before you were there, like it is the case now, or join a winning side and not steal other people's rewards.

 

Something I am pushing for which some people did not like is that I wanted people to be able to leave the battle at any time and take their rewards. They think it removes the commitment and make people not care whether they win or not. Sure, I would not care if the side I am joining was winning or losing or will be winning or losing before I join or after I leave, but so what? I want people to play as long as they enjoy the battle, not forcing them to play because they are afraid of losing their rewards. Also, as players mature, they will be able to leave a miserable situation and cut their losses even though they are sacrificing some rewards. Sometimes, the pain is not worth the reward.

 

The people who think that way forget that we play here to have fun. It is wrong to force people to have fun. Would you leave a battle that you are enjoying just because you can? Those who do not enjoy the battle should not be there. They should find something else they enjoy and do.

[dfoofnik 341]

You are talking about riders as sth bad, they drug to win...

<snip>

Once I played on low rank acc (2nd lowest rank), we were winning and then got takeovered by guys with similar names, no drugs, no MUs just pure smoky/hunter OP team

Yes, what you describe is what I call "raiding" when there is a battle fund and most of the losing side leaves.

What these players may see as "savvy" and "smart" I personally regard as scurrilous, low, and despicable.

It is practically epidemic on some Russian server battles, to the point that I can predict when it is going to occur to the minute.

One clue is that one of your "teammates" is holding the flag abnormally long...this could be a ploy to keep the losers playing,

or he could be waiting to sell you out to his buddies about to join from another battle.

Edited April 28, 2015 by dfoofnik

[dfoofnik 341]

You can't blame them though. It is instinctive for people to try to avoid being raped. You have to deal with the system you have.

 

Actually, periodic incremental reward distribution is fair for everyone.

 

Something I am pushing for which some people did not like is that I wanted people to be able to leave the battle at any time and take their rewards. They think it removes the commitment and make people not care whether they win or not.

Sure, I would not care if the side I am joining was winning or losing or will be winning or losing before I join or after I leave, but so what? I want people to play as long as they enjoy the battle, not forcing them to play because they are afraid of losing their rewards. Also, as players mature, they will be able to leave a miserable situation and cut their losses even though they are sacrificing some rewards. Sometimes, the pain is not worth the reward.

 

.

The problem with incremental rewards is, like you say, people will bail out if the going gets tough, just because they can make more crystals elsewhere. Why stay on a losing side when you've made your reward? That kind of defeats the "team battle" concept, as flawed as it may be.

 

Well, if the pain gets to be too much, you can still keep your score, just not your rewards. You only have to play every 5 minutes, although you can't pick whether you will pop up and get killed or pop up and improve your score. (That happened to me on Massacre when everybody else left...I just waited for someone new to join and went along with them until I got killed.)

[Baby_Sam 614]

The problem with incremental rewards is, like you say, people will bail out if the going gets tough, just because they can make more crystals elsewhere. Why stay on a losing side when you've made your reward? That kind of defeats the "team battle" concept, as flawed as it may be.

 

Well, if the pain gets to be too much, you can still keep your score, just not your rewards. You only have to play every 5 minutes, although you can't pick whether you will pop up and get killed or pop up and improve your score. (That happened to me on Massacre when everybody else left...I just waited for someone new to join and went along with them until I got killed.)

There are ways around this, including (what I hate most) is forcing people to stay to the end to get their rewards, or the rewards go back to Tanki Online. If this kind of iron hand is necessary, I prefer making them lose half their rewards if they quit prematurely.

 

The ideal way though is that you play to have fun. If you are not having fun, do you really want to sacrifice your time for the team, not to mention the other team? Miserable battles should die a quick death, and new better battles should come out. Miserable battles die without actually ending the battle this way. They die by people that have a miserable time quitting and other people joining. Maybe letting it easy for miserable team members to quit will work like evolution of the team. They people who are not doing well leave, and better people join.

 

We have to face this: You can't force people to have fun.

[Baby_Sam 614]

What I said above is one reason that I advise all players to quit as soon as they find out that they are going to be raped.

 

I know that rapists don't want the raped to quit and they even make it a matter of honor (not stupidity), but one should take care of their own interests.