Game Balance - There is something wrong with this game!

[Zubeneschamali3 27]

If you are ready this, you are probably either already annoyed by the major imbalances in the game, or probably generally like the game and are following any idea on how to make it better. Either way I'm sure you want to see this fixed. I seen tons of suggestions, hull, turrets, modes, etc. I've also read every topic about game balance (or imbalance). Most closed without real suggestions, or least any actions. Not to say game balance hasn't changed but there is an undeniable reality. Most games available in the game list are absolute massacres, many look like 18-0 (CTF) 100s to 10s (TDM or CP)  with the losing team having at least on player less. In my experience, at my level that means that there may be a hundred battles happening, I don't want to play in 90%-95% of them. 

 

I am annoyed and tired of playing on either side of a massacre battle. 

 

So suggestions to look at (in order of effectiveness, in my opinion)

 

1. Increase crystal ratio to losing team players. Make it their while to stay and fight. A losing team player with 100 points should earn the same amount of crystals as a player on the winning team with the same number of points. They are often a lot harder to earn (points) when you are playing on the losing team.
2. When teams are equal in number make new joining member join the losing team (ie when team are 6/6 then you can only join the losing team) That way losing team would have at least the same number of players 
3. Fix / reinstall early battle endings when its a massacre. ie. give some dignity to losing team players to collect the little they have earned and start a new battle. 

 

 

[dilsharox 2,395]

at least be happy with what we already have

[Meowmix56 174]

I agree completely.  I only play close or winning games, otherwise I'd have to buy many more crystals.  I think most players, especially free players, do the same.  Even if you do well on a losing team the reward is negligible.  Unfortunately the people who leave also tend to be the most experienced, best equipped, most willing to drug, and best at picking which team will win before they join a match.  Even if you chose to stay you are stuck with noobs, afkers, mults, and gold box hunters on an unready undermanned team with little hope of mounting effective resistance.  

 

It is boring to spawn camp and be spawn camped.    Even if you don't mind not earning crystals it is rarely fun.  You spawn, three people shoot you right away.  Or if you are on the winning team you drive aimlessly looking for something to kill as you wait to get paid for the battle.  This would be fixed by increasing rewards for losing, since more active players would stay there would be more of a competition.  In the event that even this added incentive is not enough early termination would at least clear the map.

 

It is so bad that you can easily kill off a map by making the opposing team quit.  It happens more often than not.

 

That being said I do not agree with idea number 2.  Sometimes you want to player with your friends or join as part of an organized group.  Being forced to join against your friends or group only creates more problems of mults, saboteurs, and conflicted interests.

[Zubeneschamali3 27]

To clarify my suggestion point #2 

 

There is already a rule when joining a battle to promote equal number of players in both teams. If one team has more player than the other, you can't join the team with the most players.

 

I suggest that if them have equal number of players (where today you can join either team) you can only join the losing team (if one is losing).

 

The result would be this:

 

Usually, when looking at available team games (CTF/FP/TDM). For many/most games at any moment, the team with the least number of players in the losing team. Current rule is that given a game with 10/10 max players where lets say red team has 6 players and blue team has 5 players, you'll often find the blue is behind in score. If someone joins blue team, making the team even 6/6 someone waiting will immediately join red team (the winning team) again skewing the team where the blue team is behind in score, and disadvantage in the player number. 

 

With a rule change, we could change the more stable situation be with even strength team. For example in the 10/10 max player game, red and blue both have 6 players and blue is behind. Next player must join blue team, only then can a waiting player wanting for "winning" game join the red team but now the team are again even strength. Doesn't mean blue will win, maybe at least they might have a fighting chance to make it interesting. 

 

Hope its clear. 

 

 

[stanzhang 3,291]

Devs are doing the best they can to balance the game. Of course some of their decisions don't please to everyone. You maybe need to get a better weapon/hull to manage to win.

[Zubeneschamali3 27]

Devs are doing the best they can to balance the game. Of course some of their decisions don't please to everyone. You maybe need to get a better weapon/hull to manage to win.

I'm sure they are. Never said they weren't. Although I have expressed frustrations, I am here to suggest changes to make thing better. To elicit a debate on whether these proposed changes could/would make things better. Simply stating the above does not work towards improving the game. If you have any comments on my propositions, I love to hear them. But I don't need your condescension. 

[Meowmix56 174]

Devs are doing the best they can to balance the game. Of course some of their decisions don't please to everyone. You maybe need to get a better weapon/hull to manage to win.

Don't reply from the thread title alone.  A player can do great, grab flags, maintain an excellent k/d ratio, but it is not the same as having balanced teams. 

[RustyNail 1,538]

Devs are doing the best they can to balance the game. Of course some of their decisions don't please to everyone. You maybe need to get a better weapon/hull to manage to win.

Sorry dude, meant to downvote you.

Why?

Because what you say makes no sense.

This game is pretty much unbalanced and in deep sh_t. It needs a rescue ASAP.

[RustyNail 1,538]

 

If you are ready this, you are probably either already annoyed by the major imbalances in the game, or probably generally like the game and are following any idea on how to make it better. Either way I'm sure you want to see this fixed. I seen tons of suggestions, hull, turrets, modes, etc. I've also read every topic about game balance (or imbalance). Most closed without real suggestions, or least any actions. Not to say game balance hasn't changed but there is an undeniable reality. Most games available in the game list are absolute massacres, many look like 18-0 (CTF) 100s to 10s (TDM or CP)  with the losing team having at least on player less. In my experience, at my level that means that there may be a hundred battles happening, I don't want to play in 90%-95% of them. 

 

I am annoyed and tired of playing on either side of a massacre battle. 

 

So suggestions to look at (in order of effectiveness, in my opinion)

 

1. Increase crystal ratio to losing team players. Make it their while to stay and fight. A losing team player with 100 points should earn the same amount of crystals as a player on the winning team with the same number of points. They are often a lot harder to earn (points) when you are playing on the losing team.
2. When teams are equal in number make new joining member join the losing team (ie when team are 6/6 then you can only join the losing team) That way losing team would have at least the same number of players 
3. Fix / reinstall early battle endings when its a massacre. ie. give some dignity to losing team players to collect the little they have earned and start a new battle. 

 

 

Two certain changes that devs made set the game off balance.

 

The enhance of supplies sales (supplies kits etc, that created druggers) and the remove of crystals drops (that made battles too competitive and thus people trying to earn crystals in any way possible - drugging, multing, raiding etc).

 

The massive players base that depended on joy / pleasure are evaporating fast.

Can this game survive on top buyers only?

Definitely not.

 

Tanki needs to bring back the pleasure for both sides of battles. The aim in battles should be playing, not earning crystals. The latter should only be a side-effect. That can only be possible if Tanki is made less competitive (less expensive).

 

Simple as that.

 

 

 

 

p.s. if you haven't read this,

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=246957&hl=

give it a try...

[Zubeneschamali3 27]

The enhance of supplies sales (supplies kits etc, that created druggers) and the remove of crystals drops (that made battles too competitive and thus people trying to earn crystals in any way possible - drugging, multing, raiding etc).

 

I am not a big fan of drugs and druggers. Although I do use them sometimes. I hate crystals drops, brings out the worst in people. However I do not believe simply fixing the drugging problem, and I'll admit there is one, will fix the effects the team unbalance. And after reading some of topic your referenced it did open my eyes to what is maybe a more systemic problem of paying players vs non paying players (with all the variants in between). But to Tanki admin and devs i would say this. While I have spent many, many hours playing, while Tanki is very addictive, I am always on the brink of just quitting it all, and that makes it very to justifying putting money in the game.

 

Point is this.

1. More fun playing means more money. 
2. More fun playing means more balanced teams. 

 

I'd like to ask a question to all out there. What's the history between the losing/winning team battle fund share imbalance? Has it always been like this. Was it changed because of some other problem?

[r_Your-Daddy3 605]

Every things fine here. About CTFs,as a battle finish, the battle again fills with players.DMs and TDMs are also fine but I see these battles sometimes.I agree with you only in CP mode, but the new update or reworked CP mode will fix it. So every thing fine here. Just enjoy tanki...

[Meowmix56 174]

I agree with Zubeneschamali3 that having a better experience would help retain more people in the game.  A better experience can come from having more competitive matches.  I find myself frustrated again today as every open map has one team utterly dominating over the other.  If you don't believe me just look for yourself, what percentage of ctf matches have a score of 5+ to 0 as opposed to teams remotely close to each other.  Reversals or ties do occur but are extremely rare.  Generally the best players will wait to join a winning team, leaving a losing team to dwindle or be filled with mults, afkers, and gold box hunters.  Many of the problems people complain about such as mults and druggers would be reduced if teams were more balanced so they did not effect the outcome as severely.  Whether the solution is a monetary incentive for active players to stay, a means of attracting druggers to losing teams, or early match termination I hope something is done.

 

I disagree strongly with rusty nail about the removal of crystal boxes.  They were a part of the problem, since the moment a team started to lose many people would immediately give up and run around grabbing boxes.  I wish the devs would do the same with gold boxes.  Druggers are sometimes a problem, and it is easy for a handful of druggers to make an entire team quit, they are not going anywhere.  If you try to drug back against them most of the time all you accomplish is convincing the rest of their team to start drugging too so it is rare for drugs to increase team balance.  Even if drugs weren't so profitably the kits wouldn't go away, just look at the uproar over the much needed shared cooldown nerf.  What is needed is more of  a way to convince even numbers of druggers to join both teams in each match.

 

 

I'd like to ask a question to all out there. What's the history between the losing/winning team battle fund share imbalance? Has it always been like this. Was it changed because of some other problem?

 

I've only been playing a year and I've been on the forums less than that but insofar as I am aware the ratio has always been the same. 

 

 

One aspect that hasn't really been mentioned is that one sided matches make people quit or pause, resulting in less conflict.  Fewer kills means a significantly smaller battle fund.  We would all be richer with closer games.

[Excyte 569]

 

If you are ready this, you are probably either already annoyed by the major imbalances in the game, or probably generally like the game and are following any idea on how to make it better. Either way I'm sure you want to see this fixed. I seen tons of suggestions, hull, turrets, modes, etc. I've also read every topic about game balance (or imbalance). Most closed without real suggestions, or least any actions. Not to say game balance hasn't changed but there is an undeniable reality. Most games available in the game list are absolute massacres, many look like 18-0 (CTF) 100s to 10s (TDM or CP)  with the losing team having at least on player less. In my experience, at my level that means that there may be a hundred battles happening, I don't want to play in 90%-95% of them. 

 

I am annoyed and tired of playing on either side of a massacre battle. 

 

So suggestions to look at (in order of effectiveness, in my opinion)

 

1. Increase crystal ratio to losing team players. Make it their while to stay and fight. A losing team player with 100 points should earn the same amount of crystals as a player on the winning team with the same number of points. They are often a lot harder to earn (points) when you are playing on the losing team.
2. When teams are equal in number make new joining member join the losing team (ie when team are 6/6 then you can only join the losing team) That way losing team would have at least the same number of players 
3. Fix / reinstall early battle endings when its a massacre. ie. give some dignity to losing team players to collect the little they have earned and start a new battle. 

 

If players with an equal score would get the same amount of crystals there would be no need to win a battle so on no pressure which makes the battle exciting .

 

Players would start loosing intest in winning maps and so on in the game.

[RustyNail 1,538]

If players with an equal score would get the same amount of crystals there would be no need to win a battle so on no pressure which makes the battle exciting .

 

Players would start loosing intest in winning maps and so on in the game.

But nobody said anything about same funds......... Zubeneschamali3 did not wrote that the losing team should get as much as the winning but just a little more than what it now gets.

 

Furthermore, battles are not exciting nowdays, they are harsh and too competitive, most of them end very quickly in a 10-0 score and losing team abandons the battle fast.

Is this your definition of exciting?

[outtactrl 0]

The battle balance is really bad.

 

Even only allowing to join the weaker team is not enough. I would go differently about it and suggest that winning team killed tanks should not respawn if they have more active tanks.

This would cause that there are the same number of active tanks on both sides, and being on the winning team can be boring. In return I would allow to join a team with a friend in it (no harm done to the balance). I'd also let bored winning team tanks switch to the losing team keeping their score, but only once a battle (turncoat once).

 

This will

1. balance the battle
2. lets us play with our friends (and not against them)

When I say losing team, it's not necessary means less score. It could mean way less score and/or way less rank. Close score would not halt respawns. Respawn time would be a function of score difference and rank difference and active tank difference.

 

Druggers also upset the game balance, but I guess Tanki needs the revenue they generate. I hate when others use it, I hate when I use it. I just hate it so much that time to time I re-start with a new login, just to see battles without drugs.

 

If TO created druggers that makes it a drug sindicate or a druglord maybe? This is a horrible terminology! Ban it! Kids play this game and they "drug" because it's sooo good. Wrong mindset. Find another term for this and enforce it everywhere.

 

Pro battles are actually good answer to the "enhancers" problem. Maybe these ideas could be tested in a pro battle mode. Promoting Pro battles was also a great idea. Do it more.

[swede1 1,726]

I don't often come to the ideas and suggestion page, since it's so rare to get any feedback from testers or developers, I've found it a waste of time and/or ideas are taken and Frankensteined with a monetization twist.

I will however respond to this ONE SIDED BATTLE debate.

Balance is a very complex issue and the original Tanki format was pretty damn good, gameplay was slower and bigger was better, it had its problems, but not the runaway train we are dealing with now.

From day one in this game buyers had an advantage by being able to have access to unlimited supplies, but that was about it.

Pro passes were not used and/or promoted but monthly modest purchases were a viable option to flourish in this game.

Here is where everything has gone wrong time and time again.

The old saying "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is very true in this case, and every update has only increased the problem each time.

Basically the monetization model is based on pay to have advantage over other players, rather than for premium content that doesn't affect the game balance.

Many of the updates would have been excellent for the game "if" the root problem of "pay to win" was addressed from the beginning, but without addressing the root cause first, every update just alters the tactics of oportunists and breeds more and more opportunists to the point that there are now more opportunists in the game than honest players.

Once a player decides to manipulate the system in order to compete, they are lost forever.

I have great ideas to rebuild the game, and I know many other Tanki players as well with the same heart and soul of the game in their hearts.

Alas, it seems no one is interested.

[RustyNail 1,538]

...

Many of the updates would have been excellent for the game "if" the root problem of "pay to win" was addressed from the beginning, but without addressing the root cause first, ...

What do you mean by that, if I may ask? I'm not sure I understand...

[creeperskelly 1,281]

But nobody said anything about same funds......... Zubeneschamali3 did not wrote that the losing team should get as much as the winning but just a little more than what it now gets.

 

Furthermore, battles are not exciting nowdays, they are harsh and too competitive, most of them end very quickly in a 10-0 score and losing team abandons the battle fast.

Is this your definition of exciting?

Compared to when I started playing it is indeed boring and tedious like hell now. There's little "fun" factor in it at this point. By the time the developers release Unity the number of players will be nil.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Basically the monetization model is based on pay to have advantage over other players, rather than for premium content that doesn't affect the game balance.

Many of the updates would have been excellent for the game "if" the root problem of "pay to win" was addressed from the beginning, but without addressing the root cause first, every update just alters the tactics of oportunists and breeds more and more opportunists to the point that there are now more opportunists in the game than honest players.

 

Absolutely! It cost about $700 USD or so to "buy" a completely upgraded tank. That's insane! I know of no game in my life aside from the games in the casino that cost that much to play.

 

The whole concept is backwards. Paying players should have access to premium items - maps or tanks that cannot be used in the free section. But the whole model now is based on allowing paying people to beat up the free players. It's nothing more than paying to be a bully.

[swede1 1,726]

What do you mean by that, if I may ask? I'm not sure I understand...

Well it all started back in December of 2012 with the Re-balance Release 114, when all of a sudden the new economics were completely re-vamped and the game became very expensive to advance,

Very quickly buyers were able to dominate the games by buying advantage, earning crystals for the average player became more and more difficult, so the Gold box camper and the crystal farmers were born, this was the beginning of the end, the players quickly became a two tier society with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Tanki refused to believe this was any of there doing and decided to implement the anti cheat system to combat this problem instead, in fact this was the first escalation in cheating in the game to earn crystals and the relatively few campers and farmers now were forced to become organized and many, many more players became involved in fixing battles and the still "it couldn't be caused by Tanki"  now that the game now started getting organized cheaters who were using the anti cheat system grew and grew, finally Tanki removed the anti cheat system, so now these organized groups quickly started takeover and recruiting more and more players to cheat and become mults to advance in the game.

Once a game decides to monetize through "pay to win" and cheating to advance players take over the game, you can never stop them from cheating and no matter what you do to block them just increases the numbers of players involved 10 fold with each new deterrent, and it all stems back to Release 114.

[RustyNail 1,538]

Well it all started back in December of 2012 with the Re-balance Release 114, when all of a sudden the new economics were completely re-vamped and the game became very expensive to advance,

Very quickly buyers were able to dominate the games by buying advantage, earning crystals for the average player became more and more difficult, so the Gold box camper and the crystal farmers were born, this was the beginning of the end, the players quickly became a two tier society with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Tanki refused to believe this was any of there doing and decided to implement the anti cheat system to combat this problem instead, in fact this was the first escalation in cheating in the game to earn crystals and the relatively few campers and farmers now were forced to become organized and many, many more players became involved in fixing battles and the still "it couldn't be caused by Tanki"  now that the game now started getting organized cheaters who were using the anti cheat system grew and grew, finally Tanki removed the anti cheat system, so now these organized groups quickly started takeover and recruiting more and more players to cheat and become mults to advance in the game.

Once a game decides to monetize through "pay to win" and cheating to advance players take over the game, you can never stop them from cheating and no matter what you do to block them just increases the numbers of players involved 10 fold with each new deterrent, and it all stems back to Release 114.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't that old a player to have lived Tanki before that Release.

However, what you say agrees with my current experience.

 

By making all four elements of power (Mods, MUs, paints and Supplies) sellable and at the same time the whole game more expensive, it was inevitable that paying out of fun would turn to paying just to evolve and aquire next gen items. Loss of fun, game turns into a highly competitive arena.

No wonder raiders and druggers and mults dominate the game today.

 

The question is, "is Tanki going to repeat all this monetary model in Unity"? If yes, Tanki has no future, at least not a MMOg one. It might turn into an expensive private club for wealthy people. -_-

[golden5648 1,686]

 

 

1. Increase crystal ratio to losing team players. Make it their while to stay and fight. A losing team player with 100 points should earn the same amount of crystals as a player on the winning team with the same number of points. They are often a lot harder to earn (points) when you are playing on the losing team.
2. When teams are equal in number make new joining member join the losing team (ie when team are 6/6 then you can only join the losing team) That way losing team would have at least the same number of players 
3. Fix / reinstall early battle endings when its a massacre. ie. give some dignity to losing team players to collect the little they have earned and start a new battle. 

 

1. I don't think so, the person with 100 points on the loosing team get the same as the 100 points person on the other team? No!

It should be half I think. :)

 

2. Bad idea, this will make players avoid playing anything on Tanki since many people never like to join loosing teams.

 

3. Yes, this one is good. But would need some editing. :)

 

 

 

[tankiprofam 4]

I agree too

[Zubeneschamali3 27]

If players with an equal score would get the same amount of crystals there would be no need to win a battle so on no pressure which makes the battle exciting .

 

Players would start loosing intest in winning maps and so on in the game.

See I think this is a bad premise. You get crystals from actions in the games. More good actions from your team, more crystals to your team. the losing team by definition will have less points, less crystals. I don't think players would lose interest. Who comes to a tank game and not try to win? Who plays any kind of game not trying to win?  Currently, the more important question becomes why continue in a game if the team's is going to lose? why spend time, get XP's for such a reduced reward? 

 

I would consider a version where there is a better split yet un-egual for the losing team as proposed by RustyNail. Currently its appears something like 2 to 1. something like 4 to 3 would be better. And for naysayers, remember to point of the game, why you come here. You come to play. Everything else is extra. Its a game. playing without some other player to shoot at is just boring, even killing tanks while they are spawning gets old fast. 

 

One last comment a little on the side. Everyone commenting on this post but me on another are some kind of general or above rank. I don't know how games are at you're ranks I'm just a lowly warrant officer but remember this: before players reach those higher ranks they must go through the lower ranks, They must survive those lowers ranks. And they see what I see in those games. Lobsided games. A good fight. A good game. Its a rare thing. When I come across one of those; one of those tense games when you feel everything is on the line, when it feels real,  and if I can win it. wow the feeling. Hasn't happened in a while though.