Slow down druggers' xp and in-game pts

[creeperskelly 1,281]

I would be willing to pay for customizations such as unique skins, etc.

 

Seeing the same tanks all the time gets rather boring.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

I would be willing to pay for customizations such as unique skins, etc.

 

Seeing the same tanks all the time gets rather boring.

In another game I play you can purchase special flags to fly behind you character while in battle. You can only purchase them with game currency that you can only purchase with real money. They offer no purpose other then to show pride for your country. I see lots of players flying these flags. It just supports what I'm saying about people being willing to buy items that don't have anything to do with added power or offering an advantage in the game.

[RustyNail 1,538]

Hello,

I read most of the topic (start, current end, missing a little bit from middle  :P )

I upvoted this topic for two reasons: first, I consider AbsoluteZero a serious person that has proven to invest time and thought to this game for the benefit of all players - cheaters excluded LOL - and Alternativa as well. He deservs respect. Second, because I like the spirit or the goal of this idea.

I am not sure it can work towards that goal though... Maybe it can make druggers reduce the use of supplies, but there is a little voice inside me saying "no, it won't".

Why not?

I don't really know, but I think the difference between druggers and non druggers - should this idea be implemented - in terms of xp is not that big to make a point. Especially, considering that druggers have bigger share of funds / xp due to use of supplies, thus we should not compare two equal quantities of kills but a large one belonging to druggers and a smaller one belonging to non druggers.

 

 

I even thought about the opposite.. Boost the xp earned to druggers (every kill using a supply gets more xp), in the thought of "pushing" druggers towards the Gssimo rank as soon as possible.

That wouldn't work either, for different reasons.

The point is, handling the xp seems not the right factor for adjusting the game unbalance.

 

This is the one issue I have given quite a thought, in time and effort. And frankly, I think the only way possible to reduce the vast unbalance in battles is by reducing either the use or the effectiveness of supplies. Reasonable ideas have been found and stated at the update of the drugs topic (page 71), such as redusing the effectiveness of supplies when used together or increasing the cooling period of supplies if used together, or co-operative use of supplies causing side-effects (that is, ways to reduce not generally the effectiveness of supplies but only when being  overused). However, Alternativa is very afraid of touching the golden hen (drugs) and possibly breaking some of the eggs that it produces..

There is not anything else we can do.

 

Frankly, my only hope is that they have undersood the dead end this monetization system really is and they are working into another system for Unity.

Because apart from too much power sold to buyers, there is another unbalance factor. The ranking system. When an experienced player creates an alt account and joins a battle, due to experience, dominates just like a drugger. Thus, this person steals all the funds from really new players, struggling their evolution.

Or, the accaptance of similar ranks in a given battle, without taking into consideration the players combos. A prematured bought kit of M3 owned by a low rank can create havok in a battle. That is a disturbance as well.

 

This system has too many flaws that require heavy surgery. Reducing the supplies effectiveness is a minor restoration move and all the other (issues) are (hopefully) left behind and out of Unity.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

Hello,

I read most of the topic (start, current end, missing a little bit from middle  :P )

I upvoted this topic for two reasons: first, I consider AbsoluteZero a serious person that has proven to invest time and thought to this game for the benefit of all players - cheaters excluded LOL - and Alternativa as well. He deservs respect.

I'm glad to hear of your respect for him. You are correct, he does deserve it. @AbsoluteZero is a personal friend of mine and we have spent far too many hours discussing this game. I can tell you that we get very upset about the injustices in this game. We always try to analyze any idea from all aspects before posting them. We try to come up with the fairest solution we can. Sometimes other can't see what we see.  B)

 

 

 

Because apart from too much power sold to buyers, there is another unbalance factor. The ranking system. When an experienced player creates an alt account and joins a battle, due to experience, dominates just like a drugger. Thus, this person steals all the funds from really new players, struggling their evolution.

Or, the accaptance of similar ranks in a given battle, without taking into consideration the players combos. A prematured bought kit of M3 owned by a low rank can create havok in a battle. That is a disturbance as well.

 

This system has too many flaws that require heavy surgery. Reducing the supplies effectiveness is a minor restoration move and all the other (issues) are (hopefully) left behind and out of Unity.

I agree with this part as well. I had suggested that they implement better control at the time of a players very first account set-up. 

• every new player should have to supply an e-mail address at sign up. This e-mail should have to verified as real.
• you would be allowed 1 master account per e-mail and a few sub-accounts per master.

Now this would help them to track accounts and allow for better control over players using alternates for multing and trolling etc. How many accounts do players create just to cause trouble in the chat? Why do they do it? Because they know Tanki can't track them.

 

It could also be used to compensate for the skills you acquire as you rank, being used to bully new players. As an example, if you have a generalissimo account and start a new sub-account and depending on your rating they could reduce the parameters of your equipment at the lower ranks. They would need to use some sort of sliding scale with a few more factors included in the calculation but I think you get the idea..  

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Maybe it can make druggers reduce the use of supplies, but there is a little voice inside me saying "no, it won't".

Why not?

I don't really know, but I think the difference between druggers and non druggers - should this idea be implemented - in terms of xp is not that big to make a point. Especially, considering that druggers have bigger share of funds / xp due to use of supplies, thus we should not compare two equal quantities of kills but a large one belonging to druggers and a smaller one belonging to non druggers.

It would make some druggers reduce their supply usage at certain times but that's not the main aim of this suggestion. The aim isn't to balance it out 50-50, nor is it to get druggers to stop drugging. The main aim is to bridge the gap slightly in terms on economic return. Forget about xp for a minute and look at the scoring system I propose for battles. You must admit that non-druggers would earn more than they used to and where do those crystals come from? The druggers share! Tanki are not having to give out any more or any less. So it would indeed bridge the gap to an extent and those non-druggers would feel a little better about being virtually raped on the battlefield knowing that their kills counted for a little bit more than those of their drugging counterparts.

 

The point about xp is merely a side note to the scoring system so you don't need to focus on it to the extent you're doing.  It's really of little consequence and is there for deterrent purposes only and to bolster the alternative scoring solution.  It could actually do without it.

[RustyNail 1,538]

It would make some druggers reduce their supply usage at certain times but that's not the main aim of this suggestion. The aim isn't to balance it out 50-50, nor is it to get druggers to stop drugging. The main aim is to bridge the gap slightly in terms on economic return. Forget about xp for a minute and look at the scoring system I propose for battles. You must admit that non-druggers would earn more than they used to and where do those crystals come from? The druggers share! Tanki are not having to give out any more or any less. So it would indeed bridge the gap to an extent and those non-druggers would feel a little better about being virtually raped on the battlefield knowing that their kills counted for a little bit more than those of their drugging counterparts.

 

The point about xp is merely a side note to the scoring system so you don't need to focus on it to the extent you're doing.  It's really of little consequence and is there for deterrent purposes only and to bolster the alternative scoring solution.  It could actually do without it.

That, I agree. In fact I have proposed in numeral topics that losing team should get more than what it gets now. In regard to CTF mostly, where a final score i.e. of 4-0 doesn't necessary reflect the efforts given by the losing team.

[Brubook 1,161]

So simple but yet so very true.

 

Now if only Tanki could get that concept.  How many people are already spending huge amounts of crystals just to get an XT kit and it doesn't even offer any more advantage then a regular rail or hornet. People want because it looks cool. So why doesn't Tanki learn from this and offer more non game altering items for purchase? I sure know I would be.

Fully agree. And fully agree with the flying flag thing you mentioned in another post of yours.

 

These are very good ways for Tanki earnings, alternative to the actual drugs abuses!!!

 

We have been also proposing alternative ways of making money for Tanki (like advertising on billboard and other nice ideas (not mine, they came out in the discussion).

 

Have a look at Drugs Discussion here: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=246957&page=71&do=findComment&comment=4714520

 

I am sure we can "work" together .... our target is the same!

[Opex-Rah 5,382]

I have yet to see any real logical explanation as to why this idea is so bad, other then you suggested it and probably because I support you. It is no secret that him and I don't see eye to eye on many issues.

What's up with you?

[Legolover3 91]

As things stand today, I don't believe that TO takes anyone person from the EN Community seriously. Some of the immature and condescending replies we've had in this topic alone are proof of that.  So with that in mind, we must all stick together to help steer them in a direction that is profitable for TO while also enjoyable and playable for all kinds of players, buyers and non-buyers alike. If we stick together and all make a noise at once, they'll find it hard not to listen. When it comes to suggestions here in the forum, loan voices, no matter how logical or sensible, are muted easily.

Dude, I might make it a point to stop over in Perm sometime. Get to see the greats of Tanki....and....the not-so-greats....

[Legolover3 91]

What's up with you?

Well, I've seen a general trend in your comments. There is good stuff there, but it's clouded over by sarcasm (which I must admit to as well :P ).

 

So eventually, everyone just starts ignoring your opinion simply because it's yours. They figure it's barely worthwhile having a conversation with you because you won't respect them or their suggestion and nothing will be accomplished.

 

This is not necessarily my view, but I'm guessing that plenty of others around here hold it.

[ngc2363 0]

 

Why reduce the experience rate too:

There are Score Multiplier Passes available and these should be used as the primary method of gaining experience faster.

 

As I player I can understand that players should have the pleasure of using supplies located on the map. It makes the game a bit interesting and it's fair. Everyone can get them.. I don't support but I can even accept that players use supplies from their stock on demand. What I can't accept and hate is players' using too much supplies in game and ruin the pleasure. That's drugging and that's the only thing I don't like in TO. 

 

Buyers seem to have the upperhand always for devs and TO people but on the other hand this game exists cause thousands of non-buyers play the game too. Excessive drugging kills the joy of the game and devs do nothing about it, cause excessive drugging means buying kits & crystals etc..

 

People may select to be a drugger and still buy kits/crystals but xp points and crytals won on drugs should not be encouraged. 

 

AbsoluteZero has a point. It should be discussed seriously and implemented..

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

What's up with you?

Let's leave our personal opinions of each other out of this discussion for a minute. I'm going to try and not insult you but I will try to explain the situation to you.

 

You have not given a real good logical and truthful explanation as to why this idea is so bad.

Many times you give answers that are very vague in nature and this time we would like to hear what the real issues are. When you don't explain things it leaves blank spots in the information, human nature is to fill in these blank spots. Unfortunately, there is a lot of mistrust in the decisions being made so these blank spaces get filled in with the wrong ideas.  

Trust me, I understand that the demand on your time is very high but our community deserves more interaction with you and your team then we currently get. The reason that I and many other say the things we do to you is because it is sometimes the only way to get a response from you. Many of us have spent a lot of time to create these topics and ideas and we get little or no response from you or anyone else in your team. Do you think that is the way we should be treated?

I've suggested to you before that if you don't have the time to give us the kind of response we deserve then see if you can get someone else to relay your information to us. There are a lot of issue that need to be fixed before you release Unity TO, if you want it to succeed. Clearly some other members of your team feel there are some issues or why else would they have asked us all those questions in a recent google forms poll?

 

We all understand that money needs to be made but many of us have offered many suggestions for ways to make that money. Many of these don't involve giving such a huge in game advantage to buyers. Don't forget that many of us are adults and are responsible for earning money or finding ways to earn money everyday and some of them have been doing that job longer then most of your team. So try to think before you simply dismiss something based off your personal beliefs. 

[RustyNail 1,538]

As I player I can understand that players should have the pleasure of using supplies located on the map. It makes the game a bit interesting and it's fair. Everyone can get them.. I don't support but I can even accept that players use supplies from their stock on demand. What I can't accept and hate is players' using too much supplies in game and ruin the pleasure. That's drugging and that's the only thing I don't like in TO. 

 

Buyers seem to have the upperhand always for devs and TO people but on the other hand this game exists cause thousands of non-buyers play the game too. Excessive drugging kills the joy of the game and devs do nothing about it, cause excessive drugging means buying kits & crystals etc..

 

People may select to be a drugger and still buy kits/crystals but xp points and crytals won on drugs should not be encouraged. 

 

AbsoluteZero has a point. It should be discussed seriously and implemented..

You know, there's a topic dealing with this issue. It's called "Drugs - The only today Tanki strategy to win a battle"

Maybe you 've seen this, in that case apologies.

In case you haven't seen or read the topic properly, here's the link to the conclusion on page 71: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=246957&page=71&do=findComment&comment=4714520

In short, the best proposals include drawbacks or reduced effectiveness for supplies used in a co-operative manner.

[Brubook 1,161]

Let's leave our personal opinions of each other out of this discussion for a minute. I'm going to try and not insult you but I will try to explain the situation to you.

 

You have not given a real good logical and truthful explanation as to why this idea is so bad.

Many times you give answers that are very vague in nature and this time we would like to hear what the real issues are. When you don't explain things it leaves blank spots in the information, human nature is to fill in these blank spots. Unfortunately, there is a lot of mistrust in the decisions being made so these blank spaces get filled in with the wrong ideas.  

Trust me, I understand that the demand on your time is very high but our community deserves more interaction with you and your team then we currently get. The reason that I and many other say the things we do to you is because it is sometimes the only way to get a response from you. Many of us have spent a lot of time to create these topics and ideas and we get little or no response from you or anyone else in your team. Do you think that is the way we should be treated?

I've suggested to you before that if you don't have the time to give us the kind of response we deserve then see if you can get someone else to relay your information to us. There are a lot of issue that need to be fixed before you release Unity TO, if you want it to succeed. Clearly some other members of your team feel there are some issues or why else would they have asked us all those questions in a recent google forms poll?

 

We all understand that money needs to be made but many of us have offered many suggestions for ways to make that money. Many of these don't involve giving such a huge in game advantage to buyers. Don't forget that many of us are adults and are responsible for earning money or finding ways to earn money everyday and some of them have been doing that job longer then most of your team. So try to think before you simply dismiss something based off your personal beliefs. 

 

I think we all understand that part of the customer base is made of really young chaps, yet maybe (ironical) some of them are not totally dumb. Beside there is also a population of kind of more "advanced thinking" players that appreciate attention and answers!

 

One of the worst lacks of Tanki .... lack of "customer care" ... or should I say just that "they don't care about customers"!!!

 

I (and not only me of course) pointed out many times! Actually, on another post, I copied/pasted the Alternativa Platform customer care statements, which are exactly the countrary of what really happens. It sounded to me just like a politicians' manifesto!!!

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

 

I (and not only me of course) pointed out many times! Actually, on another post, I copied/pasted the Alternativa Platform customer care statements, which are exactly the countrary of what really happens. It sounded to me just like a politicians' manifesto!!!

I saw that too and it makes me laugh. I also posted some of that page somewhere on here. I figured it was worth a try to try and hold them to their word. We all know where that will lead. 

[Opex-Rah 5,382]

You have not given a real good logical and truthful explanation as to why this idea is so bad.

Ok, let me expand this one a little bit

 

You are suggesting to cut battlefunds from players who can afford to buy crystals? I have no idea how to comment it.

Supplies are bought by crystals.

People who can buy supplies can buy crystals.

Therefore, crystals are not an issue for them.

The suggestion is to limit their ability to gain in-game crystals.

Punish people who don't care for crystals by giving them less crystals is counterproductive.

Therefore, the Idea is not good.

 

 

Kinda not that hard of a logic isn't it?

 

But that is not even a best part of the story. Battle fund is created by players score. Giving less score will 'shift' fund distribution at the end of the round, but will essentially nerf battle funds. Which in the end will only backfire at those who don't use supplies due to less crystals will be created in the game. 'Mindless druggers' on the other hand will be able to compensate it by buying crystals. And 'mindless druggers' who are not buying supplies will use thier supplies harder to compenste due to be, you know, 'mindless'! Which in the end makes the idea of taking away funds from 'mindless druggers' in favor of others impossible. And it will be me who will have to carry responsibility of nerfing battle funds if this idea will ever be implemented. Not gonna happen.

 

Over this entire situation, by the way. I've been telling on this forum not so long ago that there are no suggestions can make into this game, because we are shifted our priorities to the new game. Most suggestions around here simply can not be applied to the future game due to difference in the mechanics. Which makes this entire forum section a bit pointless at the moment, from my personal point of view. And as long as my comments considered by this forum section community as 'sarcastic' and 'disrespectful' I am leaving this part of forum entirely.

 

You may consider yourself victorious over the evil developer.

[RustyNail 1,538]

Ok, let me expand this one a little bit

 

 

Supplies are bought by crystals.

People who can buy supplies can buy crystals.

Therefore, crystals are not an issue for them.

The suggestion is to limit their ability to gain in-game crystals.

Punish people who don't care for crystals by giving them less crystals is counterproductive.

Therefore, the Idea is not good.

 

 

Kinda not that hard of a logic isn't it?

 

But that is not even a best part of the story. Battle fund is created by players score. Giving less score will 'shift' fund distribution at the end of the round, but will essentially nerf battle funds. Which in the end will only backfire at those who don't use supplies due to less crystals will be created in the game. 'Mindless druggers' on the other hand will be able to compensate it by buying crystals. And 'mindless druggers' who are not buying supplies will use thier supplies harder to compenste due to be, you know, 'mindless'! Which in the end makes the idea of taking away funds from 'mindless druggers' in favor of others impossible. And it will be me who will have to carry responsibility of nerfing battle funds if this idea will ever be implemented. Not gonna happen.

 

Over this entire situation, by the way. I've been telling on this forum not so long ago that there are no suggestions can make into this game, because we are shifted our priorities to the new game. Most suggestions around here simply can not be applied to the future game due to difference in the mechanics. Which makes this entire forum section a bit pointless at the moment, from my personal point of view. And as long as my comments considered by this forum section community as 'sarcastic' and 'disrespectful' I am leaving this part of forum entirely.

 

You may consider yourself victorious over the evil developer.

 

Punishing is a perspective that you only see. What Canadian_Eh says is "give non druggers extra funds so that they can stand the beating more". As you see it it really will reduce total funds, but it's not the only way it can be done. It can work the other side, i.e. every kill from a drugger "pays" a "fee" to non druggers. A small one, that won't hurt the drugger.

That is, "transfer" a 10% or less of druggers' fund to non druggers.

 

It is obvious that people who use supplies constantly  don't go for the funds. They spend in supplies' worth more than the battle fund they earn. They are in for the game. The win. Thus, it won't be a problem to them if non druggers get a little bit more.

 

 

Of course, that is just what Canadian_Eh says. My point of view is that druggers' power should be less than what it is. One of the elements of power should go out of the crystal market. Tanks cost crystals, you want supplies to cost crystals (to be bought), then it has either MUs that will depend on another factor - no money - or the paints. Somehow, non druggers should get a relative power boost in relation to druggers. I think it's obvious what I say, the details can be handled by your team much better than by me.

 

Make Tanki less expensive, there are many people that really can't follow. People you want them to play. Sell cosmetics, ego, pride. Not just power.

 

 

EDIT. It's also obvious that what we propose is meant for Unity. If different mechanics make the suggestions irrelevant, the spirit behind the suggestions is still effective. Follow that spirit.

[Brubook 1,161]

Ok, let me expand this one a little bit

 

 

Supplies are bought by crystals.

People who can buy supplies can buy crystals.

Therefore, crystals are not an issue for them.

The suggestion is to limit their ability to gain in-game crystals.

Punish people who don't care for crystals by giving them less crystals is counterproductive.

Therefore, the Idea is not good.

 

 

Kinda not that hard of a logic isn't it?

 

But that is not even a best part of the story. Battle fund is created by players score. Giving less score will 'shift' fund distribution at the end of the round, but will essentially nerf battle funds. Which in the end will only backfire at those who don't use supplies due to less crystals will be created in the game. 'Mindless druggers' on the other hand will be able to compensate it by buying crystals. And 'mindless druggers' who are not buying supplies will use thier supplies harder to compenste due to be, you know, 'mindless'! Which in the end makes the idea of taking away funds from 'mindless druggers' in favor of others impossible. And it will be me who will have to carry responsibility of nerfing battle funds if this idea will ever be implemented. Not gonna happen.

 

Over this entire situation, by the way. I've been telling on this forum not so long ago that there are no suggestions can make into this game, because we are shifted our priorities to the new game. Most suggestions around here simply can not be applied to the future game due to difference in the mechanics. Which makes this entire forum section a bit pointless at the moment, from my personal point of view. And as long as my comments considered by this forum section community as 'sarcastic' and 'disrespectful' I am leaving this part of forum entirely.

 

You may consider yourself victorious over the evil developer.

Apart the specific content of all suggestions (both here and on other posts), where most of us think that somehow the great unbalance created by drugs excessive power and use, I think once again the really bad lack of "customer care" you have.

 

Another proof of it is your intention of leaving this part of the forum ... great customer care, great attention to players and their needs ... you behave exactly right how your owner (say Alternativa Platform) states on his pages about customer care! (last was ironical, just in case it wasn't clear).

 

Also, you said somewhere on my post, that Unity will be "on air" in something like 1 year time or less. Is it correct?

You just stated here that nothing will be done anymore on the actual Tanki. Do you (for "you" I mean all Tanki staff) mean that the actual Tanki will be abandoned for the next year or so?

 

Hence, as that was a rethorical question from what you said before, why don't you close Tanki till the Unity release? I mean that if you are not able/willing to implement, keep up and care about customer of the actual Tanki, then you should not run it!

But, if you run it (as you do), you are supposed to keep it up and take care of your customers that, let's remember, are the one who make your earning possible! Even the non payers, as I explained earlier and as you sure understand!

 

Finally, you should carefully listen to all suggestion, even to be able to create a better Unity. Sure many of them will be useless, but maybe some of them could give you good ideas too ... why reject them just because they are players rants? Try to open your mind and listen to players, not only through "orientated" polls, but through real opinions!

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Regardless of your view of the section, Tanki players are your biggest critiques. When you scuff off your biggest critiques, you're digging a hole. Once you've dug a hole, its hard to get out of it. Sorry I picked a lame analogy but we will certainly welcome you back after the Unity release, Hazel, when this section will have a purpose.

 

Now, to get around the second point of Hazel's is to have the 10% be deducted only on the players tabbed score and not the battle fund, shifting the scores but not nerfing the amount added to the fund. Although my guess is that the fund is added cumulatively as scores are updated? (If that made sense to any of you, I hope it did. I don't know how else to describe what my mind was thinking)

 

So if players that are able to purchase crystals don't care about receiving them from battle, how is that necessarily counterproductive? I also fail to see how its impossible. This could be implemented and it, hypothetically, could give those who use lesser amounts of drugs a better chance of putting up a competitive score amongst Mindless druggers. Its a win for us and you may think its a loss for you, but if your regular drugging customers don't care, they wont care if they lose out on a few hundred crystals.

 

I know, with your monetary policy, you have to limit the amount of power to your free playing users have, I get it, but if it comes to sacrifice the quality of gameplay its not worth it. Mindless druggers wasn't made up to compliment them. The more people rely on drugs, the less they rely on skill. When there is little skill, the game will become less and less enjoyable, even for the player drugging. Because if you're a constant drugger, you're a 'casual.' I didn't stick with this game for 4 years to play with casuals.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

Ok, let me expand this one a little bit

 

 

OK well thank-you for the detail. Was that so hard to do?  If I understand correctly, you are saying that the battle fund would be reduced because the drugger is only earning 7pts instead of 10. But if you remove the points from the players personal score not the battle fund then your objection is no longer valid. The battle fund would remain the same but the distribution of that fund would be more evenly distributed. Take away from the ones who don't need or care about earned crystals and give it those who do need them.

 

 

 

 

Over this entire situation, by the way. I've been telling on this forum not so long ago that there are no suggestions can make into this game, because we are shifted our priorities to the new game. Most suggestions around here simply can not be applied to the future game due to difference in the mechanics. Which makes this entire forum section a bit pointless at the moment, from my personal point of view. And as long as my comments considered by this forum section community as 'sarcastic' and 'disrespectful' I am leaving this part of forum entirely.

 

You may consider yourself victorious over the evil developer.

And if I understand this part, you are saying that you no longer care about any suggestions we make because you are working on the Unity version. Well this is precisely when you should be looking for suggestions, unless you want to go down the same wrong path twice. And don't give the crap about we are fine and very successful. Those rewards you all seem so proud of are from a life time ago in the gaming industry and the fact that you support the current monetization model indicates that money is an issue or maybe the owners are just greedy.  If you think about it for more then 2 seconds you would see that many of the ideas suggested in this forum can be applied to either version. Is that so hard to understand?

 

As for you leaving this section, this only supports what we have been saying. Your team , or maybe it is just you, don't really care about this community. So if you leave who will replace you or are we just going to be completely abandoned by the developers? And you wonder why we say the things we do about you and your team. Like I've said, "some of the worst customer support I've ever seen." Every time we extend an olive branch you just break it off and burn it. If they do replace you in this forum, I hope he/she has better people skills then you. From your video appearances you seem like a nice guy, maybe you are, and your programming skills may be great, but communicating with your customer base is not your thing. Sorry to tell you that.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

People who can buy supplies can buy crystals.

Therefore, crystals are not an issue for them.

The suggestion is to limit their ability to gain in-game crystals.

Punish people who don't care for crystals by giving them less crystals is counterproductive.

Therefore, the Idea is not good.

Kinda not that hard of a logic isn't it?

At first I thought you were being deliberately obtuse. Now I see you just don't get it. You can't see the wood for the trees.

 

The idea is to tweak the balance slightly. Who ever said the balance is 100% right and would never need a correction. Tweaks to balance happen all the time and this is an easy solution to implement.

 

It is not about limiting ability to gain crystals of those who can afford to buy, rather, a small shift to reward those who don't rely on supplies, making their efforts in battle count for a fraction more than their drugging teammates.

 

But that is not even a best part of the story. Battle fund is created by players score. Giving less score will 'shift' fund distribution at the end of the round, but will essentially nerf battle funds. Which in the end will only backfire at those who don't use supplies due to less crystals will be created in the game.

Yes, the overall score for a team would be less.  But only one short line of code is needed to keep the bf growing at the same rate. It's so easy I could even do it. The fund at the end would be distributed in exactly the same way as it is now. There is no nerfing going on and TO don't have to give any more or any less crystals than they currently do. I don't see any problem here.

 

 

And 'mindless druggers' who are not buying supplies will use thier supplies harder to compenste due to be, you know, 'mindless'!

A bit of a contradiction in terms there. Non-buyers tend not to be mindless druggers. They're careful and chose the right times when to employ them.

 

 

Over this entire situation, by the way. I've been telling on this forum not so long ago that there are no suggestions can make into this game, because we are shifted our priorities to the new game. Most suggestions around here simply can not be applied to the future game due to difference in the mechanics. Which makes this entire forum section a bit pointless at the moment, from my personal point of view. And as long as my comments considered by this forum section community as 'sarcastic' and 'disrespectful' I am leaving this part of forum entirely.

 

You may consider yourself victorious over the evil developer.

Most suggestions cannot be applied you say? So does that mean some still can be?

But I hear you. The suggestions section is here to appease us only. It's there to give us the illusion that we're somehow contributing and participating. The forum is just pretend. Got it.

 

So from now on when I hear the CM say something like, "Tell us how you feel", is he pretending and really doesn't care or is he seriously asking. I don't know anymore. 

 

Does anyone else feel like a door mat?

 

So if players that are able to purchase crystals don't care about receiving them from battle, how is that necessarily counterproductive? I also fail to see how its impossible. This could be implemented and it, hypothetically, could give those who use lesser amounts of drugs a better chance of putting up a competitive score amongst Mindless druggers. Its a win for us and you may think its a loss for you, but if your regular drugging customers don't care, they wont care if they lose out on a few hundred crystals.

 

I know, with your monetary policy, you have to limit the amount of power to your free playing users have, I get it, but if it comes to sacrifice the quality of gameplay its not worth it. Mindless druggers wasn't made up to compliment them. The more people rely on drugs, the less they rely on skill. When there is little skill, the game will become less and less enjoyable, even for the player drugging. Because if you're a constant drugger, you're a 'casual.' I didn't stick with this game for 4 years to play with casuals.

In a nutshell.

[PuncherTank 37]

Despite all proponents' justifications for such a change I still hold my position against it!

This will not have any significant positive effect for non-druggers. It tries to ease some of the symptoms while ignoring the core cause of the problem which is the excessive power of supplies themselves. You can't penalize players for using supplies inordinately when the system allows this practice.

Here are a few more reasons why this suggestion won't be of much use:

1. The extra crystal gain for non-druggers won't help them much. It may allow them to buy a few extra supplies but when compared to the huge amounts buyers can get it'll make no practical difference for non-druggers/non-buyers on the battlefield.
2. Druggers might feel a bit discriminated against in terms of points gain, so they might want to make up for it or get back at non-druggers by using supplies EVEN MORE excessively. Remember, they don't really care how many supplies they spend/waste.
3. As Hazel said, this can be very frustrating for non-buyers who might find themselves in a situation that requires some excessive drugging, especially when dealing with raiders. I have been in situations where I had to use supplies "mindlessly" against raiders, and I would've really hated to earn less points per kill than my non-drugging teammates when I'm the one trying hard and spending supplies to combat the druggers on the opposite team.
4. This little score boost will not improve experience for non-druggers. If they are on the same team with druggers they will still remain at the bottom of the scoreboard. If they are playing against druggers they will be beaten hard. This is like giving them a pacifier to suck on!

The only way to balance out gameplay and in-game gains between buyers/druggers and non-buyers/non-druggers is by reducing the huge power (not score!) gap between buyers and non-buyers. This primarily means reducing the effectiveness of supplies by 70% (-70%) or more, and increasing their prices. But this can only be done when there are other means for the game to generate revenue. This can be achieved by adopting a new monetization model that depends on selling premium status and other accessory (non-power) items. I have been advocating a premium-based model for a while now and made some suggestions in this regard for the Unity TO. I'm glad to hear that developers are at least considering changing the monetization model and I hope that we'll see some drastic changes in the upcoming game.
 

 

And as long as my comments considered by this forum section community as 'sarcastic' and 'disrespectful' I am leaving this part of forum entirely.
 

 

You can't blame some people if they misunderstand your posts or don't get the point when a lot of your comments are hazy and/or indirect, which leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. If you want to crash a topic, crash it with some elaborate reasoning - like I do! :D You did a good job on your last post in this regard. Your time may not allow for this, in which case it may be better if you don't comment at all!

P.S. You can PM me anytime if you'd like me to crash a topic for you! :lol:

The easiest thing you can do is to leave this section, but remember that leaving the game is also an option for all players. In fact, what TO should do is listen more carefully and appreciate the feedback and suggestions many players make in this forum. Countless numbers of players have left the game silently without making a single complaint, but there are a few who decided to speak out and "try" to improve this game, however if they are continually rewarded with silence by the developers then they too can simply leave. A few dissatisfied players complaining in the forum may not sound like a big deal, but remember that there might be thousands of other players silently dissatisfied about the same thing who may also silently leave the game when things get too frustrating for them.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

......

I agree with your idea as well, however it will require a complete re-working of the economic system, as you mentioned. This idea , although not as effective as your, requires a lot less work and will have some effect.  No disrespect intended. 

 

 

 

The easiest thing you can do is to leave this section, but remember that leaving the game is also an option for all players. In fact, what TO should do is listen more carefully and appreciate the feedback and suggestions many players make in this forum. Countless numbers of players have left the game silently without making a single complaint, but there are a few who decided to speak out and "try" to improve this game, however if they are continually rewarded with silence by the developers then they too can simply leave. A few dissatisfied players complaining in the forum may not sound like a big deal, but remember that there might be thousands of other players silently dissatisfied about the same thing who may also silently leave the game when things get too frustrating for them.

One additional thing to add to this is the language barrier. Unless you speak English, Russian, or German it is very difficult to express any opinions about this game. So how many players just silently leave but with a lot on their mind and nowhere to speak up?

[Brubook 1,161]

...

You might find this interesting: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=246957&page=71&do=findComment&comment=4714520

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

1. The extra crystal gain for non-druggers won't help them much. It may allow them to buy a few extra supplies but when compared to the huge amounts buyers can get it'll make no practical difference for non-druggers/non-buyers on the battlefield.

But you do agree it will help them right?

 

 

2. Druggers might feel a bit discriminated against in terms of points gain, so they might want to make up for it or get back at non-druggers by using supplies EVEN MORE excessively. Remember, they don't really care how many supplies they spend/waste.

Druggers discriminated against? No, won't have that.  But if they don't really care how many supplies they spend or waste, why should they care about their measly battlefund share either? A drugger who drugs constantly cannot drug even more than constantly.

 

But l don't disagree with you totally on this point, because druggers drug mainly for two reasons - Win the battle by the biggest margin possible & to come top of the scoreboard. So if they could drug more to make up for what they are losing, (which according you is not very much), then it's still a win win for that team because the battlefund would be higher than it ordinarily would have been. The drugger and his teammates would still earn more because battlefund allocation has been distributed proportionately since June 2014 when the old formula was replaced. 

 

There are casual druggers and then there are extreme druggers. I'd consider myself to be casual, drugging when the need arises. Extreme druggers are those who seem to have unlimited supplies who still drug even when it's 10 v 1.  I don't have the numbers but I'm guessing there are a lot less extreme druggers than casual ones. My point being is this suggestion, while not 100% perfect, would change the game for the better for those who drug very little or not at all. It might not be a big increase for them but it's enough of a tweak to placate them for a time. It would be better for gameplay too because with this solution there are incentives not to drug excessively when you don't have to.

 

 

3. As Hazel said, this can be very frustrating for non-buyers who might find themselves in a situation that requires some excessive drugging, especially when dealing with raiders. I have been in situations where I had to use supplies "mindlessly" against raiders, and I would've really hated to earn less points per kill than my non-drugging teammates when I'm the one trying hard and spending supplies to combat the druggers on the opposite team.

But if you're drugging and your teammates are not, you would still score very much faster than they do irrespective of whether you're facing raiders or not. Are you suggesting this isn't the case right now? Let me assure you, druggers do score so very much faster than non druggers and this suggestion won't change that much.

 

 

4.This little score boost will not improve experience for non-druggers. If they are on the same team with druggers they will still remain at the bottom of the scoreboard. If they are playing against druggers they will be beaten hard. This is like giving them a pacifier to suck on!

If druggers used their supplies at the same rate as they do now and non-druggers carried on as normal then the non-druggers would bridge the gap slightly. Experience doesn't change for non-druggers one iota. But so what if they're still at the bottom of the scoreboard, at least they will have a bigger return than before.  It's a balance tweak but pacifier works for me.

 

 

You can't penalize players for using supplies inordinately when the system allows this practice.

It's not penalising more incentivising. Does the system not allow for balance tweaks?

 

 

The only way to balance out gameplay and in-game gains between buyers/druggers and non-buyers/non-druggers is by reducing the huge power (not score!) gap between buyers and non-buyers. This primarily means reducing the effectiveness of supplies by 70% (-70%) or more, and increasing their prices.

But you've just argued about not penalising druggers. Now I am confused. How can you argue against my solution and then say this? Facepalm!