Battle fund depends on map popularity

[HichigoShiiro 4,378]

You really think there won't be any bugs atall

[Maf 32,326]

Also I feel it slightly unfair to 'punish' popular maps with a reduction in XP/CRY earned so this scheme would not implement that.

It's a constantly changing balance of popularity. And the reason there needs to be a reduction is so that the economy of the game stays on the same level, otherwise players will get a lot more crystals, will stop buying crystals for money, and you know what happens next...

 

You really think there won't be any bugs atall

I have no idea, which is why I'd rather not comment about it at all. We're only discussing the actual concept here and it's usefulness, not the issues it may cause with coding.

[VaudeVille 1,428]

well this could be a problem . I like Sandbox and other popular maps mainly cause they load fast and don't lag as much as other less popular maps but if this was added those popular fast loading maps/battles would become extinct almost over night

I find boombox and valley to load faster than sandbox. Also valley is an extremely rare map but its quite fantastic. 5v5 battles @60fps with full graphics. Also valley has got a higher fund compared to sandbox and garder ( which I realized after playing on quite a few occasions with friends )

[Maf 32,326]

. Also valley is an extremely rare map but its quite fantastic

Used to be a very common map  :unsure:

[sensei_tanker 3,098]

A great idea. 

 

I just don't like how maps like island and hill and sandbox that are easy to load and impossible to lag in will have their battlefund cut. My computer has an annoying virus that won't go away and makes my ping 999  :(

[Maf 32,326]

A great idea. 

 

I just don't like how maps like island and hill and sandbox that are easy to load and impossible to lag in will have their battlefund cut. My computer has an annoying virus that won't go away and makes my ping 999  :(

There are plenty of other small maps. Valley, Combe, Rift, Boombox - just to name a few.

[HichigoShiiro 4,378]

So basically you want the devs to work on a system when looks at how many people play on a map and will change fund accordingly? What if a map has only a few players all the time? Will fund not go up at all?

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

So basically you want the devs to work on a system when looks at how many people play on a map and will change fund accordingly? What if a map has only a few players all the time? Will fund not go up at all?

I understand that the proposal for the less popular a map is an increase in funding.  This is to encourage popularity and to spread the game out.

[Maf 32,326]

So basically you want the devs to work on a system when looks at how many people play on a map and will change fund accordingly? What if a map has only a few players all the time? Will fund not go up at all?

I think it would be more like looking at the amount of battles on a specific map created per day and how long they stay in the battle list.

[generalpotato_PRO 1,076]

Friend sent this to me

 

 

Wow such battle variety, much fun :)

 

 

 

Btw, will players be informed of which maps are the selected popular/fund-increased? Or will they have to look and find out for themselves?

[Maf 32,326]

Btw, will players be informed of which maps are the selected popular/fund-increased? Or will they have to look and find out for themselves?

I don't actually know which option would be better, but I think that having an actual list of maps sorted by popularity available somewhere for everyone to see would be useful.

[VALKYRIE_RULER 215]

nice idea 

[The-Operator219 1,929]

Man, I miss Berlin...

So many memories of tanks running and teleporting around, spinning their turrets and never firing.

Maybe this will bring that back. :)

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

I use Berlin quite often.

[BlueDragon_tamki 3,204]

Can you explain?

I agree not!

 

Suppose you have 40 maps that were played 0 times in a day, this means all of them would have the same level of "rarity". Now if your system assigns the same "fund growth multiplier" to each of those maps, then again most players will only play on the small and easy ones and everyone would be stuck with those few maps for the day. The next day, it's another set of few!

 

The reward you get on a certain map should not be dependent on how rare it is, but rather on how difficult it is. A very smart guy suggested a better idea :P

 

The objective is not to make rewards higher in rare maps, but to make all maps and battle modes equally efficient in terms of fund growth. So, for example, you'd roughly get the same reward playing 1 hour on Berlin CTF as you'd get from a 1 hour play on Polygon CP.

 

Fund isn't the only consideration here. Many players choose small and easy maps, like Polygon CP, because they want to earn experience faster or they want a better chance at catching a gold box.

 

The amount of experience points gained per kill/capture should also be dependent on the map's complexity. You should get significantly more exp. points for killing an enemy tank on Lost Temple than you'd get on Polygon where you can easily find and kill enemies.

 

Also, fund growth and exp. gain should be greater for DM and TDM than CTF and CP modes for the same map to make all game modes equally efficient/profitable. In CTF/CP more crystals are added to the fund as a result of captures which do not exist in DM/TDM. Additionally, in CTF/CP players usually don't care how many times they get killed as it doesn't affect the outcome of the match, so it's easier to kill enemies there than it is in DM/TDM where everyone is trying not to be shot. The result is more overall kills and thus higher funds in CTF/CP. To balance this, the crystal reward per kill should be higher in DM/TDM.

 

And finally, the gold box factor. It's ridiculous that you get 30 seconds to locate the drop zone on Polygon and 30 seconds on Berlin! No wonder gold hunters prefer Polygon CP. The gold box timer should be dependent on the size of the map, for example 10 seconds would be enough for Hill, while on Berlin it should be at least 90 seconds. And don't tell me it will affect gameplay, because as long as there are gold boxes in the game it will affect gameplay! So if you want to keep it you might want to do it in a way that doesn't affect map favorability.

and this one? I don't understand anything

[RustyNail 1,538]

I don't actually know which option would be better, but I think that having an actual list of maps sorted by popularity available somewhere for everyone to see would be useful.

Maybe they could add a special symbol at the map name, like (P) [for Promoted] or something like that..

[BlueDragon_tamki 3,204]

Here's another idea that would help bring back old maps without causing too much disbalance, or giving players too much free stuff for nothing (i.e. making 5000 gold boxes on rare maps). The most common idea for this is to increase the battle fund on rare maps. This will make players try out the rare maps, but it will also mean that the rare maps will suddenly become extremely popular and will overshadow the current popular maps, which isn't good.

 

My idea is that instead of a fixed increased fund value for rare maps, the rate of fund growth (i.e. amount of crystals added to the fund per kill) should be dynamic and it should depend on how popular a map is. By using the data about the % of total hours played by tankers, spent on a particular map, a system can be made that creates a map popularity rating and assigns each position a certain fund growth multiplier. E.g. for the rarest map it is 1.8, for average map it is 1.0, while for common maps it's 0.7 (i.e. lower than the current fund growth).

 

The rating will change every day according to statistics collected throughout the previous day (or 7 days, or a month...), so if you want to have big funds you will have to explore uncommon maps and try new experiences on a daily basis.

 

[mps] [ecnm] [bfnd]

i bet this will be planned since you made the idea :lol:

Nice idea

[Maf 32,326]

i bet this will be planned since you made the idea :lol:

Nice idea

No, I don't get any more privilege or attention than other players' ideas. But I do hope it gets added since I'm tired of playing on the same 3 maps all the time :)

[BlueDragon_tamki 3,204]

No, I don't get any more privilege or attention than other players' ideas. But I do hope it gets added since I'm tired of playing on the same 3 maps all the time :)

that is kinda true

[DageLV 940]

Maybe better solution is to make a opinion to create Random map? 

I was playng CS with friend and we got bored playing on the same maps. So from now we are creating map <Random map>. Why tanki shouldnt use it? Allow players to set the limit of players, mode and it will get randomly generated without players knowedgle what he is up to.

After each 2 rounds map will be changed randomly again so players can experience battle in both sides.

If you agree with this maffioso, maybe put it in topic so others can see it?

[GoldRock 6,165]

This could be a really good idea, but I wouldn't just restrict the incentive to play less popular maps to battle funds.

How about providing regular incentives for playing less popular maps through 'promotions' of less popular maps (e.g. 'Magistral Week' where golds fall twice as often there for a week)? Events like this have been held before for less popular maps, but maybe it could become a regular thing, and more focused around the map itself?

 

Contests such as taking certain videos on a map, writing an article on strategies for the map and hosting tournaments held in the map could also be part of this regular 'featuring' of a less popular map.

 

In my view, such special promotions could be great in combination with this battle funds idea, or even by itself. Should I just leave this post here, or may I create a new topic on the matter? In my view, there should be one topic called "Ideas to Encourage Map Popularity", so all of these approaches can be included.

[asifmehmood 1,576]

If they did this then the maps they less popular will become rare

[DageLV 940]

Declined

3.  We do NOT accept suggestion topics about the following ideas :

♦ Increase / decrease of Gold Boxes' values or drop rates.

♦ Decrease of items' prices.

♦ Increase of battle funds.

♦ Refund and / or selling items.

♦ Changes to the actual Tanki Online to its previous versions, or ideas regarding the removal of updates.

♦ Discounts and promotions.

[TheRollingSlab 803]

Declined

3.  We do NOT accept suggestion topics about the following ideas :

♦ Increase / decrease of Gold Boxes' values or drop rates.

♦ Decrease of items' prices.

♦ Increase of battle funds.

♦ Refund and / or selling items.

♦ Changes to the actual Tanki Online to its previous versions, or ideas regarding the removal of updates.

♦ Discounts and promotions.

Actually, this is a legitimate idea as when it says no asking for Increase of battle funds, it means in general, not in for specific ideas on maps and other events such as this.

[Helindu_2014 830]

IMO, the battle funds for the so called rare maps must be increased, but the battle funds of the most common maps should NOT be decreased.

 

i.e : Rare map       - fund per 1xp = 1.8crystals

       Common map -fund per 1xp = 1srystal and NOT 0.7crystals. etc