category Let's Discuss Game Balance

[CrimsonComet 15]

Another one! Viking is clearly the most versatile and useful hull in the entire game. There is not a single map where you wouldn't use a Viking on. It makes no sense, it has a stupid amount of HP for something that fast. First of all, medium hulls should have their top speed slightly nerfed but more importantly their acceleration. It makes no sense whatsoever why they can get to their top speeds so fast. Hulls like Viking make Hornet and the like pretty much obsolete. Why would anyone use a Hornet for 20-25% higher speed when they can get very competitive speed and 50% more HP?

[CrimsonComet 15]

Well, I did say that it's just one of the options. So instead of increasing damage it could be just removal of the random damage, making damage dependent exclusively on the projectile's velocity at time of impact.

The Magnum problem is present in another game (I won't name it) and it's exactly the same situation. Artillery in that game literally sits in base and clicks on people to do free damage. It makes no sense. Magnum players can sit in a safe spot and do a stupid amount of damage without putting themselves at any kind of risk. This needs to be changed.

[nemoetnihil 388]

Twins as it stands right now, is clearly one of the most overpowered turrets at M2. The thing about Twins is, it always used to be a no skill weapon. You just held Spacebar, but back in the day it was very weak compared to higher tier turrets like Thunder. After the rebalance, the power level of this no skill gun is out of this world. Clearly the amount of Twins and Firebird protections used at M2 ranks is evidence enough that it's beyond overpowered and should be nerfed. Why would you ever make such a no skill weapon be this powerful?

Before the re balance is was actually more powerful, it reloaded much faster and didn't have splash/self damage.

Edited June 5, 2018 by nemoetnihil

[CrimsonComet 15]

I think that railgun strongly needs a buff .

Yes, it has terrible DPM(about 11K at M2) and can't 2 shot. What is the point of playing it on mid sized maps?! Something like Smoky might suck at range but has 18K DPM if you assume 1 of 5 shots is a crit(at M2). Thunder M2 has about 14000 DPM at M2.

[CrimsonComet 15]

 

Yes, it is fine. This is due to the randomise damage per shot. This is to keep the game surprising. If you always kill everybody in 2 shoots it will be too boring. While if sometime it needs 3 shoots then you will thinks twice before going for the flag unless you are a hot shot.
Also 3 shots kills happen when a tank was hit during a double shoot. The second tanks receive less damage than the first one, thus increasing the probability of a three shoot kill.
Read the wiki: https://en.tankiwiki.com/Railgun

• Penetrating power (%) — The percentage of damage that a tank in line behind the first receives upon being hit. The damage from the first tank to be struck is multiplied by the percentage, resulting in the approximate value of the damage to the second. If there is a third tank behind the second, that value will be multiplied by the same percentage, and the result of that number will be the damage dealt to the third tank, and so on.
  

 

Last but not least, it depends of the Mastery level of the turret and the hull, M3 and M2.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. How is a more skilled player losing a fight because of stupid luck is in any way fun? And no it doesn't exist because it is somehow "boring". It exists so that worse players can get lucky and win fights they shouldn't although they suck at the game. And no 3 shot kills don't only happen when you double shoot. They can happen in a 1v1 as well.

 

 

Before the re balance is was actually more powerful, it reloaded much faster and didn't have splash/self damage.

Not that rebalance. I mean THE FIRST BIG rebalance. The time when Smoky, Firebird and Twins were useless at high ranks. This was years ago.

[Viking4s 10,791]

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. How is a more skilled player losing a fight because of stupid luck is in any way fun? And no it doesn't exist because it is somehow "boring". It exists so that worse players can get lucky and win fights they shouldn't although they suck at the game. And no 3 shot kills don't only happen when you double shoot. They can happen in a 1v1 as well.

Because life is not perfect that it is not boring. Every outdoor game have a part of unknown. Imagine if I was able to kick the ball all the time the same and hit that top corner of a a goal - I would score every time - even a skilled player will miss.

[CrimsonComet 15]

Because life is not perfect that it is not boring. Every outdoor game have a part of unknown. Imagine if I was able to kick the ball all the time the same and hit that top corner of a a goal - I would score every time - even a skilled player will miss.

Yeah but that's because like you said no one is perfect. But imagine you hit the ball just right and it flies straight up. Players shouldn't be punished for good play, that's a terrible way to balance the game. Besides, why would you ever compare this to an outdoor game? It doesn't make sense, they're 2 very different things, what works for 1 thing cannot work for another.

[Viking4s 10,791]

Yeah but that's because like you said no one is perfect. But imagine you hit the ball just right and it flies straight up. Players shouldn't be punished for good play, that's a terrible way to balance the game. Besides, why would you ever compare this to an outdoor game? It doesn't make sense, they're 2 very different things, what works for 1 thing cannot work for another.

When it is fate it is not punishment. And when it is Tanki it is punishment!? 

Let's take another example - you play a card game with friends - you shuffle the deck and distribute so everybody get a mixes of cards.

Would it be funnier to never shuffle the cards? Less boring?

 

[CrimsonComet 15]

When it is fate it is not punishment. And when it is Tanki it is punishment!? 

Let's take another example - you play a card game with friends - you shuffle the deck and distribute so everybody get a mixes of cards.

Would it be funnier to never shuffle the cards? Less boring?

 

This isn't a card game or anything of the sort. You don't balance the game around luck, you balance it around effectiveness versus skill required to use.  

[Viking4s 10,791]

This isn't a card game or anything of the sort. You don't balance the game around luck, you balance it around effectiveness versus skill required to use.  

Denial. Well, TO, card games, board games and outdoor games have something in common: they have rules and specific mechanics. It's your choice to not follow them. Unfortunately for you, you can't change those on an electronic game neither do I. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[wolverine848 13,097]

Another one! Viking is clearly the most versatile and useful hull in the entire game. There is not a single map where you wouldn't use a Viking on. It makes no sense, it has a stupid amount of HP for something that fast. First of all, medium hulls should have their top speed slightly nerfed but more importantly their acceleration. It makes no sense whatsoever why they can get to their top speeds so fast. Hulls like Viking make Hornet and the like pretty much obsolete. Why would anyone use a Hornet for 20-25% higher speed when they can get very competitive speed and 50% more HP?

Depends on what M-level you are talking about.

At m1 Hunter is clearly better > acceleration, > health, > stability. Viking only better at top speed.

At m2 Viking overtakes Hunter - but - has a higher unlock.

At m3 it's a wash - acceleration+stability versus top speed.  Who is to say what is better?

 

As for Hornet... it has > top speed and > acceleration.  So it definitely gets to it's target significantly faster.

This can be important when getting under cover with flag is more important than taking hits.

A Viking without shaft protection is no safer than a hornet - both would die if hit once.  Maybe that Hornet gets under cover just in time while the Viking does not.

 

There are lots of hornets in battles so tankers must find them useful.

[CrimsonComet 15]

Depends on what M-level you are talking about.

At m1 Hunter is clearly better > acceleration, > health, > stability. Viking only better at top speed.

At m2 Viking overtakes Hunter - but - has a higher unlock.

At m3 it's a wash - acceleration+stability versus top speed.  Who is to say what is better?

 

As for Hornet... it has > top speed and > acceleration.  So it definitely gets to it's target significantly faster.

This can be important when getting under cover with flag is more important than taking hits.

A Viking without shaft protection is no safer than a hornet - both would die if hit once.  Maybe that Hornet gets under cover just in time while the Viking does not.

 

There are lots of hornets in battles so tankers must find them useful.

Difference in reverse acceleration is 16% at M3 between Viking and Hornet. The difference in acceleration is 22%. The difference between top speeds is 13.2%. But the difference between HP is 50%. Still it's not even worth it. Hunter doesn't really matter because they're very identical. Viking is better than a Hornet 9 times out of 10. You can barely notice the acceleration difference and frankly it's not worth the 50% lost HP. (which is about 900 difference in HP) And I have where you even got the idea that any hull is somehow better than Viking at Stability. Viking is always the most stable. Just because players use Hornet doesn't mean it's good. Have you looked at those players' stats? 90% of them will be below 1 K/D. And no, Hunter's acceleration at M1 isn't better than Viking's because you probably looked at lateral acceleration and just assumed that's the acceleration when moving forwards.Double check your facts next time.

Edited June 6, 2018 by CrimsonComet

[splitterpoint 10,986]

But you don't simply base skill on K/D ratio Mr.Wikigoo.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Difference in reverse acceleration is 16% at M3 between Viking and Hornet. The difference in acceleration is 22%. The difference between top speeds is 13.2%. But the difference between HP is 50%. Still it's not even worth it. Hunter doesn't really matter because they're very identical. Viking is better than a Hornet 9 times out of 10. You can barely notice the acceleration difference and frankly it's not worth the 50% lost HP. (which is about 900 difference in HP) And I have where you even got the idea that any hull is somehow better than Viking at Stability. Viking is always the most stable. Just because players use Hornet doesn't mean it's good. Have you looked at those players' stats? 90% of them will be below 1 K/D. And no, Hunter's acceleration at M1 isn't better than Viking's because you probably looked at lateral acceleration and just assumed that's the acceleration when moving forwards.Double check your facts next time.

Viking is not always the most stable.  Possibly at M2 - it's stats all increase a lot because of the higher unlock rank.  If you played against a Hunter at M1 with all else being equal the Hunter would dominate your Viking.

 

Hornet is used for different purposes - it seems you ignored most of what I posted before. Shaft will kill both Viking and Hornet with 1 shot.  So... if carrying the flag and you need to get under cover quicker to avoid even that 1 shot, Hornet can easily be the better choice.

 

K/D?   LOL - you just invalidated your entire post.

[GunslingerMongoose 198]

K/D?   LOL - you just invalidated your entire post.

You mentioned K/D

 

 

YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID

[C.O.N.Q.U.E.R.O.R 3,845]

You mentioned K/D

 

 

YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID

Yay, you're back ^_^

[CrimsonComet 15]

Viking is not always the most stable.  Possibly at M2 - it's stats all increase a lot because of the higher unlock rank.  If you played against a Hunter at M1 with all else being equal the Hunter would dominate your Viking.

 

Hornet is used for different purposes - it seems you ignored most of what I posted before. Shaft will kill both Viking and Hornet with 1 shot.  So... if carrying the flag and you need to get under cover quicker to avoid even that 1 shot, Hornet can easily be the better choice.

 

K/D?   LOL - you just invalidated your entire post.

If something cannot get a K/D above 1 then usually it's not worth it unless you don't mind having terrible stats(except for isida only). It'd be fine if you care about "team effort" but it's mostly meaningless nobody cares about how the team does, they just care about their own benefit. Besides all you do is avoid the comparison and move the goal post because you can't actually come back with actual facts and throw around completely wrong claims like "Hunter M1 has higher acceleration than M1 Viking". You also assume the game is overrun by shafts or something. Besides, if we're talking about M2s (which matters to me, M3s don't just yet) then an M2 Shaft cannot actually one shot a stock M2 Viking. (you can check the stats) Micro upgrades will either be disabled or Viking has upgrades as well. (or even protection)

Edited June 6, 2018 by CrimsonComet

[wolverine848 13,097]

If something cannot get a K/D above 1 then usually it's not worth it unless you don't mind having terrible stats(except for isida only). It'd be fine if you care about "team effort" but it's mostly meaningless nobody cares about how the team does, they just care about their own benefit. Besides all you do is avoid the comparison and move the goal post because you can't actually come back with actual facts and throw around completely wrong claims like "Hunter M1 has higher acceleration than M1 Viking". You also assume the game is overrun by shafts or something. Besides, if we're talking about M2s (which matters to me, M3s don't just yet) then an M2 Shaft cannot actually one shot a stock M2 Viking. (you can check the stats) Micro upgrades will either be disabled or Viking has upgrades as well. (or even protection)

So...

 

1) you are not a team player (even though 5 of 6 modes are Team-based)  - understood.

2) you are basing everything off M2 performances.  Good luck in the future.

[CrimsonComet 15]

So...

 

1) you are not a team player (even though 5 of 6 modes are Team-based)  - understood.

2) you are basing everything off M2 performances.  Good luck in the future.

Good luck to YOU. I'm doing pretty well so far.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Besides all you do is avoid the comparison and move the goal post because you can't actually come back with actual facts and throw around completely wrong claims like "Hunter M1 has higher acceleration than M1 Viking".

Hunter M1 does have greater acceleration than Viking M1. 

 

https://en.tankiwiki.com/Hunter

https://en.tankiwiki.com/Viking

 

Look at the power statistic.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Hunter M1 does have greater acceleration than Viking M1. 

 

https://en.tankiwiki.com/Hunter

https://en.tankiwiki.com/Viking

 

Look at the power statistic.

#factsareforsukkas

 

 

This person is just trolling... look at his/her garage.  Hunter M2=84hrs, Hornet M2=66hrs, Viking M1=26hrs

 

Must have been a hardship putting those 66 hrs into Hornet...   :blink:

Edited June 7, 2018 by wolverine848

[gokuMI6 1,290]

^^^^

Mult account alert ?

:unsure:  :wacko:  :blink:  :ph34r:  :o

[CrimsonComet 15]

#factsareforsukkas

 

 

This person is just trolling... look at his/her garage.  Hunter M2=84hrs, Hornet M2=66hrs, Viking M1=26hrs

 

Must have been a hardship putting those 66 hrs into Hornet...   :blink:

You are just an immature person who gets defensive as hell when someone says something you don't agree with. I played Hornet until it became obvious that it's simply incompetent in most cases.

Edited June 7, 2018 by CrimsonComet

[wolverine848 13,097]

You are just an immature person who gets defensive as hell when someone says something you don't agree with. I played Hornet until it became obvious that it's simply incompetent in most cases.

Pointing out facts is not defensive - it's just, well, pointing out facts.

 

"Viking is clearly the most versatile and useful hull in the entire game."

Let me guess - you've just realized this and will soon be ditching that Hunter M2 and using your Viking M1...

[CrimsonComet 15]

Pointing out facts is not defensive - it's just, well, pointing out facts.

 

"Viking is clearly the most versatile and useful hull in the entire game."

Let me guess - you've just realized this and will soon be ditching that Hunter M2 and using your Viking M1...

No genius, I'm buying the M2 Viking on sale and will play almost nothing but Viking until I can get an M3 hull. (with the exception of XP/BP I guess) Besides what's the point of such a silly question? "Oh do you want to have more HP or less HP?" Of course I'll use the M2 Hunter over the M1 VIking, but once I get my M2 then Hunter can go in the trash can.

Edited June 7, 2018 by CrimsonComet