The Illusive Battle Balance or Lack Thereof

[Baby_Sam 614]

How appealing is it to join this battle? There is plenty of room.

 

 

Not very appealing, is it?

 

What does it take to make it appealing to join it?

 

The ideal online game to me is one where you have plenty of opportunities to join and have a good time. It surely is not one where you need to spend most of your time trying to find a "good" battle.

 

The issues known to me that stand in this way are:

 

• The reward distribution algorithm, which make it a disaster to join the "wrong" battle. I proposed the periodic reward earning to enable leaving the battle at will without a penalty and prevent battle fund raids.
• Huge maps that makes the game more of a tank driving exercise and inefficient to earn rewards. I proposed scaling up the score and rewards to make them competitive with other battles. Tanki used missions to make them compulsorily popular, but a mission can be done in a very short time.
• The drugging issue where one side drugs madly and obliterates the other side. There has been a huge thread on it, but there was no compelling proposal. For that, I proposed the opt-out-of-drug individual setting. Since drug-free players are considered a minority, nobody should complain.
• Battle imbalance like the battle above, where one smaller side is being beaten into a pulp. Tanki proposed the battle early end system, which never worked as intended and was discontinued. For this problem I am writing this proposal.

 

Back to the question, what would it take to make this lopsided battle appealing to join? One answer is having a raider team of 4 players to join the battle 5 minutes earlier, but what would it take to make it appealing to join now?

 

Why would a sane person pick this battle to join the side losing at this huge gap? Rewards! What else? How can someone earn 200 crystals if they join this losing side, given that they play well?

 

The proposal I have here is that for the side with fewer players, their scores and rewards need to be scaled up, not by the ratio of the teams, because if you are on the losing side, you can be killed by 4 tanks within a second or two. That can happen a hundred times, so multiplying your score by 2 can't help you. Spawn-camping needs to be automatically prevented, and the scores and rewards (contributions to the battle fund) should be scaled up by the ratio of players to the 1.5 power or something that needs to be researched.

 

The other side of this proposal is to handle the case above for someone who joins this late. Say 4 players join now. They would get nothing because the ratio becomes 1. The ratio of the time they play to the full battle time (or whatever) and the score ratio (the amount of loss for their team) need to be taken into consideration when scaling up their scores and battle fund contributions.

 

While the reward distribution algorithm can be left alone, earning exp points and battle fund contributions need to be addressed to make it appealing to join the game.

 

Any good solution to any of the 4 problems above would improve the game conditions a lot, I think implementing solutions for the 4 problems at the same time would make it near ideal.

 

Previously, proposals that were not perfect were rejected. In the absence of solutions that have no drawbacks at all, maybe we should start thinking about improving things by implementing the best solutions on the table.

 

What do you all think?

[R.4.Z.O.R 1,067]

It does need some fixing but the solution is a hard one to find.Your ideas might work.

[Indra_Otsutsuki 329]

I think its time to do some BRAINSTORMING!!! I will start: I have seen a couple of times that the losing team has actually more point than the winning team, the only reason the winning team was winning because they had a jump start of controlling an empty battle so what if the losing team's players crystal distrubiation would be based entirely on his score like if a guy in the losing team has 700 points he would get 700 crystals provided that the battle fund is enough to "feed" everyone.

[R.4.Z.O.R 1,067]

I think its time to do some BRAINSTORMING!!! I will start: I have seen a couple of times that the losing team has actually more point than the winning team, the only reason the winning team was winning because they had a jump start of controlling an empty battle so what if the losing team's players crystal distrubiation would be based entirely on his score like if a guy in the losing team has 700 points he would get 700 crystals provided that the battle fund is enough to "feed" everyone.

I don't think the battle fund would be enough in all cases.Besides, the winning team is supposed to be getting the greater reward.If not,there is no point in winning or losing a match.Like you said,those teams were winning just because they had a JumpStart at the beginning of the battle.Maybe they should make an option while creating battles where you could toggle capturing/killing before the teams are equal or something like that.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I'd rather stop such battles from becoming unappealing in the first place.
 
Once a team gets so far in front, don't let them get any further. Sensible trigger conditions to halt a side capturing more flags or more control points could easily be implemented.
 
quick thoughts are;
 
a ) When you add up the ranks, they total  ( a1 )  208 to 110 ( a2 )  
b ) The trailing side has fewer players
 
Trigger conditions could be found to suit this for example. It just needs thinking about.
 
Something like if  a1   is 30% greater than  a2  AND  b  is TRUE then  halt progress.
 
I'm not saying this is how it should be, but these are my quick thoughts before I have to go out.

[dilsharox 2,395]

some players join these unappealing battles for gold boxes & they dont help the winning side in any way so will this help?

[1stsuperwhitedragon 408]

I think its time to do some BRAINSTORMING!!! I will start: I have seen a couple of times that the losing team has actually more point than the winning team, the only reason the winning team was winning because they had a jump start of controlling an empty battle so what if the losing team's players crystal distrubiation would be based entirely on his score like if a guy in the losing team has 700 points he would get 700 crystals provided that the battle fund is enough to "feed" everyone.

that's the strangest part: when someone in the losing team (in first place) had more points than me, after the battle ended, he still received less crys than me :mellow: :huh:

[Baby_Sam 614]

Thank you for your inputs. I will comment on the input you all provided in one post.

 

I missed the case where someone captures a dozen flags or captures a hundred points while there is nobody on the other team. Just like this does not give them any exp points, it should not change the score. If you capture flags or points without opponents, the score should not change, it should remain 0:0 or whatever if the opponents left in the middle of the battle.

 

The reward distribution cannot be based solely on the individual score. The battle score is very important, or there will be no point in winning a game. However, the way it is, the losers are raped. It should be something like for the same individual score, say 1000, your reward should be between 500 and 1000 (this is an example). If you lost 100:0, you get 500 crystals and if you win 100:0 you get 1000. The way it is now, the winner may get 1000 crystals and the loser may get 100 crystals for the same individual score. This is rape and shame.

 

If the good suggestions were implemented, the battle would not have become this unappealing, but there is really no way you can guarantee a team does not get beaten badly. We are trying to make it fair to the people who put effort and play well. If you do not play and do not earn a score as if when you join to hunt gold boxes or as in recently collect repair kits or whatever, you do not get anything. 0 score means 0 reward, no matter what we suggest.

 

I did not think about the rank tally, but it (or the yet to be implemented ratings) should be considered when scaling the individual score.

 

I want to repeat that the point of this is not to give rewards for players who do not make an effort and play well or give anybody more than they deserve, but to make it fair to everyone and appealing to players to join battles without spending half an hour combing all the servers to find a "good" battle because of the issues we are currently suffering from.

[Indra_Otsutsuki 329]

that's the strangest part: when someone in the losing team (in first place) had more points than me, after the battle ended, he still received less crys than me :mellow: :huh:

I think you mean something like this:

 

 

Note how my friend @zainmandark had the best score in the whole game despite the odds he had faced and yet he only recived crystals worth THIRD of his own score :(. This screenshot was taken on the same day I made this post.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

There are only a few real ways to solve the lopsided team battles:

 

1. Remove random players from one team when the round restarts until the teams balance - this way the next round starts with even teams. No more 10 versus 3 beginning the next round - by randomly removing or queuing 7 players on the winning team the next round starts fairly. As people join the smaller team then those in the queue are automatically added.

 

2. Everyone goes into a bucket to join a certain map - this way each round starts with randomly assigned teams so that both teams are equal in number.

 

3. Disable all garage supplies for the team with the highest score and highest number of people until the gap closes.

 

4. Eliminate any ability to spawn camp. Players cannot be killed on their spawn points - this at least gives them the time to activate DD, etc.

 

Why would anyone want to join the battle shown? Only if they truly like pain.

[Baby_Sam 614]

There are only a few real ways to solve the lopsided team battles:

 

1. Remove random players from one team when the round restarts until the teams balance - this way the next round starts with even teams. No more 10 versus 3 beginning the next round - by randomly removing or queuing 7 players on the winning team the next round starts fairly. As people join the smaller team then those in the queue are automatically added.

 

2. Everyone goes into a bucket to join a certain map - this way each round starts with randomly assigned teams so that both teams are equal in number.

 

3. Disable all garage supplies for the team with the highest score and highest number of people until the gap closes.

 

4. Eliminate any ability to spawn camp. Players cannot be killed on their spawn points - this at least gives them the time to activate DD, etc.

 

Why would anyone want to join the battle shown? Only if they truly like pain.

You bring good points, but if we somehow can prevent battles to end with 10 against 3 people in the first place, we will not need to do something about restarting the battle.

 

Instead of randomly picking which go into battle when it restarts, maybe the restarted battle should start with 0 players, and then whoever can join the team of their liking does that.

 

The supply thing does not work in battles without supply, so I tend not to like it. I hate supplies all the time, but the idea itself is not clicking with me. We need a global well-thought way to work for both cases.

[Maf 32,347]

The recent addition of score caps has partially solved this issue. Not battles with unbalanced teams will end faster and reset, so that new players will be more willing to join.

[felinee1 48]

I notice that there are 11 ranks who can join this battle, and the majority of those playing are in the top few ranks.  I notice this a lot, and I often don't have motivation to join a battle when I know that my lower-rank will mean that I will have absolutely no chance of competing against the more highly-configured ranks.  Having less variation in tanks will make it more even, more fair, and there would be less imbalanced games. 

 

>> my suggestion for bringing some balance is:  to reduce the variation in the ranks allowed in a batttle. 

[Papaya14 481]

The recent addition of score caps has partially solved this issue. Not battles with unbalanced teams will end faster and reset, so that new players will be more willing to join.

It still barely solves the problem of everybody purposely piling on to one team or abandoning another though. That's why I think the suggestion mentioned above, about randomly assigning players to each team after every game, would be currently the wisest choice for settling balance. That way "overpowered" teams would be a much more rare scenario than it is now.

 

Also, in my suggestion, instead of having a "Play" button below the red or the blue team, we could have a "Play" button directly in the middle. When clicked, it would randomly assign you to red or blue team. It could even be an option in the settings when making a game: "Randomize Teams." I even made a sort of concept vision for it, based on the picture OP provided:

 

 

 

What do you think?

 

 

[Papaya14 481]

I notice that there are 11 ranks who can join this battle, and the majority of those playing are in the top few ranks.  I notice this a lot, and I often don't have motivation to join a battle when I know that my lower-rank will mean that I will have absolutely no chance of competing against the more highly-configured ranks.  Having less variation in tanks will make it more even, more fair, and there would be less imbalanced games. 

 

>> my suggestion for bringing some balance is:  to reduce the variation in the ranks allowed in a batttle. 

If you think that's a problem now, you should have been here in 2011-2012, back when Marshalls could play with Master Corporals.  ;) Rank variation has already been reduced enough, and it makes a lot of people angry that they can't play with their smaller ranked friends anymore. If you see you won't stand a chance against the enemy ranks, play battles that are closer to your rank!

[Baby_Sam 614]

I think I should update this thread with my "Mother of All Suggestions" from the thread about the Score Cap update. I made a few minor changes.

 

I think this is one way we can get rid of all those problems.

 

I know that this suggestion will not put an end to world hunger, hatred, racism, wars, poverty, disease, etc. I am sure there are people more qualified than I am who are thinking about that and are not able to come up with a solution for them.

 

First, when there is nobody on the other side, flags or points must not be able to capture. The same goes whenever there is no opposition in the middle of the battle.

 

Second, if the team ratio is 8 vs 5, then the damage/health of each tank on the team of 8 should be multiplied by 5/8. That way the fire power and health of both teams are reasonably equivalent. This is never going to be like 8 vs 8, but it's close. If someone joins the team of 5 and it becomes 8 vs 6. The damage/health of the team of 8 will be multiplied by 6/8, and so on.

 

Third, when a battle restarts and it is not of equal sides, the timer does not start, nothing can be captured or killed until the numbers are equal, so if the previous battle ends with 8 vs. 2, they switch sides, but the next battle does not start until the bigger team gets smaller or the smaller team gets bigger. It is silly to start an imbalanced battle.

 

Fourth, anybody who wants to leave a battle should leave, taking their rewards without a penalty. The point is that you should play while you are having fun. It is not that you should be bored to death or penalized if you do not make sure your enemies are having fun.

 

Fifth, the rewards should be distributed periodically, e.g. every minute, so nobody can raid the battle fund and steal rewards that were generated before they were even in the game. Also this step, makes the previous point easier.

 

Sixth, the drugging issue should be addressed, so people who drug can't rape everybody else like they do now. They should still get an advantage, but it should not be rape for the others. An option in PRO battles can be added to drug wars to scale the drug potency up or down, e.g. 10%, 30%, 50%, 100%, etc., but make it in normal battles 20% or something reasonable.

 

Seventh, when a tank spawns, it should not materialize until 3 seconds after the player moves it--to avoid spawn killing.

 

The point is that the goal should be that everybody should have fun, not just a few. Everyone who is in the game should be having fun as long as they play or they should be able to leave without being punished for not being able to have fun except for leaving the game.

[Baby_Sam 614]

The recent addition of score caps has partially solved this issue. Not battles with unbalanced teams will end faster and reset, so that new players will be more willing to join.

You are astute if you notice that. I still see battles with 5 vs 2, or people being left without opposition, etc. I have no idea what you are talking about. Killing an imbalanced battle faster so another imbalanced battle can start is no solution in my eyes.

[Zenyth 6,494]

Good ideas there. I will chip in but most of the ideas I thought of have already been stated.

I like the idea about customizable drug potency for battles but the idea about increasing/decreasing HP/damage of unbalanced teams needs changes. If one team has 8 players and the other 5 then it seems a bit unfair that the former loses strength just because some opponents left... we could rather not allow the larger team to use supplies and a buffer time of 4-5 sec after respawn for smaller team if there is 25% or more size gap between teams.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

The recent addition of score caps has partially solved this issue. Not battles with unbalanced teams will end faster and reset, so that new players will be more willing to join.

It really has done nothing to solve this issue. The score caps only help the team with more players. If their behavior did not drive off the other team then the wait for the battle fund would be less boring, and, it would actually be bigger.

 

Lopsided battles are the result of drugging.

[Zenyth 6,494]

Regarding other issues,

A fresh battle should only start with equal team sizes... if the teams are 6 and 4 then at the start of new battle a randomized mechanism should move one player from larger tean across to the smaller. In case of odd amounts like 6 and 5, teams will remain the same, but in wider odds like 6 and 3 or 6 and 1, losing team of the previous round should get the more players.

Periodic distribution of funds is also supported by me.

[Indra_Otsutsuki 329]

I dont get why isnt tanki slightly reducing the power of drugs? This way even non-druggers can compete against druggers.

[felinee1 48]

Replying to comments regarding rank variation:

 

If you think that's a problem now, you should have been here in 2011-2012, back when Marshalls could play with Master Corporals.  ;) Rank variation has already been reduced enough, and it makes a lot of people angry that they can't play with their smaller ranked friends anymore. If you see you won't stand a chance against the enemy ranks, play battles that are closer to your rank!

 

That's easy to say and makes sense, the reality is that in just about all of the battles presented to me I'm at the much-lower end of the rank scale. 

[Baby_Sam 614]

I heard the suggestion about not allowing the bigger, winning team use drugs, but that is not good enough. Look at this battle. Nothing is allowed here. No upgrades, no equipment change, no drugs, nothing! It is lopsided still.

 

The point of reducing the power of the bigger team is to keep the balance. Anybody who was a part of a battle with 8 vs. 3 on either side would attest that it was not fun because there was no challenge or enough resistance to make it interesting for the bigger team and the losing team could not capture or do anything, except donating crystals to the winners. If you don't like slashing the power/health down, it is the same if you multiply the power of the smaller team up by the same ratio.

 

[Baby_Sam 614]

I dont get why isnt tanki slightly reducing the power of drugs? This way even non-druggers can compete against druggers.

Not to upset druggers.

[lukey0 27,543]

The recent addition of score caps has partially solved this issue. Not battles with unbalanced teams will end faster and reset, so that new players will be more willing to join.

They have done nothing much but end good battles faster. :rolleyes: