Battle fund depends on map popularity

[Maf 32,312]

This kind of idea is being discussed by the Deves. Semyon talked briefly about this in "Tanker's Day" topic.

Do you know on which page the post is? At least to an accuracy of +-10 pages.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

You ever think about why some maps are popular and some aren't?

 

If you think about Rio it's really a map that doesn't require many skills. A drugger Thunder can just park itself on the hill and spam the spawn points all day. You drive to red base, take flag, then drive back over the rooftops to blue base. Blue always has a significant advantage in Rio to capping flags.

 

In Industrial Zone, for example, it requires actual work to defend and capture the flag and there aren't many areas for someone to just park and spam the opposing team's spawn points with little fear of being destroyed yourself.

[Maf 32,312]

let's say Camp is a rare map (for example), it gets a fund increase. Then over the sudden all players start playing it, in which leaving other maps and then those maps get rarer than they used to be before Camp got an increase, so Camp's fund goes back to normal and other battles get an increase and which more players will start heading there for a higher fund, and so the operation goes

Ummm, isn't that the exact description of a balanced distribution of maps? 

[Finesse 968]

Fantastic idea, MAFIOS0. :D

[LOLKILLERTOTHEDEATH 1,921]

or more xp?

[deadmanrising 715]

Wouldn't this just cause popular maps to become rare and rarer maps to become more popular

[Maf 32,312]

Wouldn't this just cause popular maps to become rare and rarer maps to become more popular

Yes, but only temporarily. I mentioned that the "popularity rating" would be re-evaluated once per day or per week, so if rare maps suddenly become popular due to high funds, then after their popularity gets checked again, the funds on the previously rare maps will decrease and ex-popular maps will have high funds again. It would be a dynamic equilibrium that keeps the popularity of maps balanced as long as people always aim to play on the maps with highest funds.

[DragonOfStorms 2,706]

I like it!

 

It would also be cool if they added a new banner advertising these maps.

[HaloScorpionV2 438]

i think rare maps become rare because of their design. Some maps are poorly put together (i.e. gravity - literally just a double helix). Even if funds on bad maps are a little higher, i still wouldnt play on them.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

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.

An interesting suggestion.

[fordmustang12345 3,910]

Well people who have good internet would start playing on Berlin instantly

[fordmustang12345 3,910]

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

[Mr.Ace 1,116]

Then i think i no one will play polygon CP and wait for it to become a rare map then we will play poly cp for tremendous funds  :ph34r:

[TriNitroToIuene 4,765]

If this will encourage people to play more Deathtrack, I'm all for it! :D

[MarineMan2 1,164]

Hmmm... I like this idea and I think it could be very good for the game. It seems like a good way to incentivize players to explore maps which don't often receive enough attention, and furthermore this would add variety to the ongoing battles found in any particular server. Rather than having a server flooded with the top five most popular maps, we'd suddenly have some diversity.

[DageLV 940]

How much of an increase is this?

The 1.8, 1.0, 0.7 were examples, will the highest (rarest) be a significant increase? Vice-versa with most used.

 

What about golds, currently, from my understanding, golds have a 1/7000 chance, will this idea affect golds?

no

[DageLV 940]

Each day there should be a banner of SOME maps from top 10? (Create banner for each map and thats it!) Not top 3, not top 5, but just 3 maps randomly choosen from top 10 so it would stop players to join the rarest map each day, but still explore... I think...

 

I hate exploring maps.

Why? Because i dont explore them during battle but driving all alone there... ;(

[cube3e 1,973]

This idea will undoubtedly entice players to play in rare maps but will make the amount of players who play in the usually made maps decrease drastically and some people don't like change. It's either play in the map you love but don't get any special promos or gold boxes or play in maps that you're totally noob in and don't like at all but get better gold boxes.

[r_Adnan_30 164]

Small maps Should have low Battle and huge Maps Should have high

Small Maps : x0.2 Battle Fund

Medium Maps : x0.4 Battle Fund

Big Maps : x0.8 Battle Fund

Huge Maps : x1 Battle Fund

 

Rare maps = x2 Battle Fund

[cube3e 1,973]

Small maps Should have low Battle and huge Maps Should have high

Small Maps : x0.2 Battle Fund

Medium Maps : x0.4 Battle Fund

Big Maps : x0.8 Battle Fund

Huge Maps : x1 Battle Fund

 

Rare maps = x2 Battle Fund

10 Cry is how much the battle fund goes up by for each kill landed in battles. So what you're saying that is if you were playing in Island then the batte fund should go up by 2 Cry per kill now instead? -_- If your idea is really to make it that low then imagine how low it will be for low rank battles? 0.1 Cry per kill?...

[DageLV 940]

So you are saying that battles like Polygon and Sandbox get extinct? No.

 

The fund should be same for the famous battles, only the prize of gold-boxes should increase on rare battles. 

There are a topic called What is noob and you should be added there. You are scared to try something else.

[HichigoShiiro 4,378]

Naaah, bad idea.

First off it would mess everything up because people will just keep switching between what's popular and what's not, secondly pretty sure this will bring the birth of a lot of crystal bugs.

[Maf 32,312]

Naaah, bad idea.

First off it would mess everything up because people will just keep switching between what's popular and what's not, secondly pretty sure this will bring the birth of a lot of crystal bugs.

That's exactly what I'm aiming for - encouraging players to play on different maps, rather than just 5 or 10 out of the list.

 

And you can't talk about bugs until an update actually comes out. Same goes for other comments like "bad idea because it will cause lags" or "this will take ages to develop". There is no reason to say that since it's completely up to developers to decide if they have the time to do it and whether they can do it without causing lags/glitches. Our "job" is simply to come up with ideas and discuss them in this section to see how we can improve them. :)

[generalpotato_PRO 1,076]

 

 

This will take ages to develop, causing lag :ph34r:

 

 

 

And you can't talk about bugs until an update actually comes out. Same goes for other comments like "bad idea because it will cause lags" or "this will take ages to develop". There is no reason to say that since it's completely up to developers to decide if they have the time to do it and whether they can do it without causing lags/glitches.

Lol the people going around hating on topics with the same lame excuse, "lags, lags, and lags, oh, and did i forget to mention, LAGS"

 

On a serious note, as long as this makes more Future and Skylark maps, yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesssss. 

[Redlinezak_EN 83]

Nice idea - I to would like some opportunity to try out some rarer maps with more than just 2 people on them.

 

Another variation to throw into the pot.

 

With the scheme Mafioso has described i can see the rare and popular maps changing every day / week etc which will only get them limited coverage on that particular day.

 

What about if there was a threshold set for a map to be classified as 'common'?

All maps below this threshold would gain the increase in funds until they passed this threshold at which time they would revert to the x1.0 funds.

If the map dropped straight out of the 'common' category after the fund changed TO would know it has not survived as a popular map.

If however even after the threshold is reached it remains 'common' then we may have revived an old map that people were not a\ware of.

 

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

 

Just an idea / variation on the theme