Score cap for standard battles (Updated on August 28)

[Fatal-Attraction 80]

I played several hours after my last post. I've warmed up to this point cap.

Sometimes the game ends when I don't like it to, but most of the time

it better with the cap.

 

Still think they creator of the game should make his choice of point cap or no point cap.

[Baby_Sam 614]

The idea is to get rid of mults just looking for gold boxes - people who join and have scores of 0 or very tiny scores compared to the average of the active players.

 

Either win or lose if the gold box is added to the battle fund it partially nerfs the mults.

 

You know who most of them are - the ones constantly asking "Did gold drop yet?" or "gold plz admin!!!!"

 

Usually when I see this in battle chat  I quickly hit tab and most of the time players who put that in chat have very low or absent scores.

 

A good balanced team will have scores similar to one another - it means everyone playing is active in the battle.

 

The only time I see scores that are hideously out of norm are extreme druggers or players doing nothing.

Yesterday, I played a Kolhoz CTF battle. I normally do not play CTF battles because mostly those who capture flags get most of the rewards, and I have a medium hull. You would not find me have captured five flags or something. After playing for 11 minutes, we lost 0:2. I got 42 crystals. I usually earn 40-50 crystals in 2 minutes in Polygon CP on the losing team. On the winning team, I earn anywhere between 40 and 70 crystals a minute. Does it now make sense why I never play CTF, TDM, or DM? (That is why people think I am a buyer.)

 

Now, imagine someone thinking, I am going to play for 15 minutes a tedious battle to earn 50 crystals, and there is no hope of a gold box? Seriously? To earn 1000 crystals, I need to play for 5 solid hours. Really?

 

The reason why this happened is because if you lose, you get raped. You get nothing.

 

So, if you want to remove the gold box, you need some other way to attract "losers," e.g. if you are on the losing team, you have a 1/100 chance of getting a consolation prize of 1000 crystals! (That is an average of 10 crystals per loser, which is nothing.)

[Baby_Sam 614]

I played several hours after my last post. I've warmed up to this point cap.

Sometimes the game ends when I don't like it to, but most of the time

it better with the cap.

 

Still think they creator of the game should make his choice of point cap or no point cap.

What? You got bored out of your skin after playing for 5 minutes?

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Yesterday, I played a Kolhoz CTF battle. I normally do not play CTF battles because mostly those who capture flags get most of the rewards, and I have a medium hull. You would not find me have captured five flags or something. After playing for 11 minutes, we lost 0:2. I got 42 crystals. I usually earn 40-50 crystals in 2 minutes in Polygon CP on the losing team. On the winning team, I earn anywhere between 40 and 70 crystals a minute. Does it now make sense why I never play CTF, TDM, or DM? (That is why people think I am a buyer.)

Ultimately the main reason why Polygon CP is most popular is because the number of kills in one round is insanely high trying to capture that one point compared to any CTF map in the game. For example I take screenshots of every round I play. In a typical CTF round about 100 kills are made. In the most recent Polygon CP round I played over 500 kills were registered. This is why the battle fund is so high. So even if you are on the losing team the battle fund is so high that you're likely to get several hundred at least.

Edited August 30, 2015 by creeperskelly

[Fatal-Attraction 80]

What? You got bored out of your skin after playing for 5 minutes?

I cried foal at first, but after a few hours of play, I think I like the point cap.

 

I think if everyone played for a few hours they would warm up to this update.

 

 

Back in the day, one could set his own  point cap. I think the creator should choice point cap or no point cap.

       ∩＿＿＿∩     |ノ      ヽ    /   ●    ● |    |     (_●_) ミ  彡､     |∪|  ､｀＼/ ＿＿    ヽノ /´>   )(＿＿＿）     /  (_／  |        /  |   ／＼  ＼  | /     )   )   ∪     （   ＼           ＼＿)

Edited August 30, 2015 by Fatal-Attraction

[Bydo 20,121]

       ∩＿＿＿∩     |ノ      ヽ    /   ●    ● |    |     (_●_) ミ  彡､     |∪|  ､｀＼/ ＿＿    ヽノ /´>   )(＿＿＿）     /  (_／  |        /  |   ／＼  ＼  | /     )   )   ∪     （   ＼           ＼＿)

love the bear..and i have played for a long time with new set up and still not into it ..we still have players going only for gold or just staying for points and talking to there friends

[JamesAnchower 6]

The CP cap needs to be based on the number of points in the map.  I'm guessing this has already been mentioned, but the Devs seriously missed this detail when they raised the cap.  A 15/30/60 minute Polygon or Sandbox CP cannot reach 100/200/400 points, so the cap does nothing.  Likewise, a map with 5 points needs a much higher cap than 100 points per 15 minutes. 

[dfoofnik 341]

The CP cap needs to be based on the number of points in the map.  I'm guessing this has already been mentioned, but the Devs seriously missed this detail when they raised the cap.  A 15/30/60 minute Polygon or Sandbox CP cannot reach 100/200/400 points, so the cap does nothing.  Likewise, a map with 5 points needs a much higher cap than 100 points per 15 minutes. 

I suggested 4 x CP x minutes as a flexible and appropriate score, as this is 2/3 of the total CP points. Still no comprehension from the PTB.

[genak138 950]

uh... how did u get that spectactor button???

I didn't get it, but I saw that picture in a chat mod's post before, and that post is quoted in my post :)

 

Guys, just play War Thunder...

Only a small download is needed, and it's free.

Also the devs made it more realistic, and it has next to no lag.

See you there.

If you're going for realism, go do a war simulator. Obviously you don't want to be playing a game if you want realism...

Meanwhile, we're going to be playing TO because we prefer arcade style games :)

[dfoofnik 341]

       ∩＿＿＿∩     |ノ      ヽ    /   ●    ● |    |     (_●_) ミ  彡､     |∪|  ､｀＼/ ＿＿    ヽノ /´>   )(＿＿＿）     /  (_／  |        /  |   ／＼  ＼  | /     )   )   ∪     （   ＼           ＼＿)

Chris Hansen said he would call you. He is suspicious of guys who get bear...

Edited August 30, 2015 by dfoofnik

[Lex_Talionis 40]

Dear Tanki, please, just simply remove this update, it has brought nothing positive, only more troubles and confusion. Or at least make a poll, and let us decide if wheter it should be removed or not.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Thanks for the score caps!!!

 

 

Just more dead battles to choose from.

 

It's true - developers don't care and don't listen.

[Link_1119 183]

a 15 min madness game ended in 5 minutes

[Helindu_2014 830]

:(

[vienaaki_pabaisa 8]

Hello,

 

 

First of all, the idea to make uneven battles to end sooner is not actually about even or uneven battles, but about those battles where there are 8+ players vs 5 or less players (or so..) Because if there is even battle in number of players, (8 vs 8; 10 vs 10 etc..), but one team is dominating the other, the battle is still fun to play and does not need to end sooner. When the battle is not fun anymore the loosing team starts leaving the battle, that is where some action should be taken. 

If the battle starts with 8 vs 8 players and after ~5 minutes the loosing team is only left with 5 or less players, and now it is 8 vs 5(or less), it is not interesting for both winning and loosing teams anymore. After few more minutes the loosing team is left with only 1-2 players, and winning team also starts leaving battle because the match is not interesting anymore, only those players who have highest scores and have invested most in that round are staying till the end of round to get pay out..

 

So my suggestions is not to make any caps, but to look only at number of players, And make round end sooner (for example in 2 minutes), if one team has ~40% less players than the other.

4vs2 or less;

5vs3 or less;

6vs4 or less; 

7vs4 or less;

8vs5 or less;

9vs5 or less;

10vs6 or less;

11vs7 or less;

12vs7 or less;

13vs8 or less;

14vs8 or less;

etc..

Also I think this should not apply to very small teams, like 2vs2 or 3vs3, because one player's absence/presence has much bigger influence than to bigger teams.

 

And this should only start working after ~3-4 minutes from the start of the round, because at the very start, the score gap between teams are not that big and players are still entering the game, hoping to change the scenario.

 

Also if "round ends sooner" is initiated, and gap between number of players is balanced again, the round timer should be set back to normal again.

 

Cheers!

[Mabler 0]

Regarding CP with three or more points:

 

I don't understand how the devs can be so blind to the negative effects this update is having on good games.

 

Do they not understand that in their quest to 'improve' the game they are killing off great games with close scores and plenty of players on both sides within just a few minutes of starting?!!!

 

Who can be bothered to keep starting over? When the round restarts the teams are more unbalanced than before so it's not worth staying waiting for new people as the score heads towards the cap so fast - and it's not worth new people joining when they know it's going to end so quickly.

 

Also, when you scan down the list of 15 minute battles, what's the point of joining a battle to try to help the losing team?  Even with a whole 12 minutes left on the clock, it's not possible to turn the tide anymore as the score shows it will be almost finished by the time you join.  It's like continually joining games with only a minute left - what's the point?!!! You have taken away my opportunity to join losing sides (which I prefer to do) and try to help balance the game, and maybe even turn it around.

 

In a survey done by the Devs a few months ago it clearly showed that the 15 minute battle was the most popular.  Devs, you are killing off the most popular battle time!!!

 

Do I really need to repeat myself and what many others have said that score caps do not address imbalances, but much much worse, they are killing off good close (or potentially close) games too soon!  And they were really hard to find in the first place!

 

Before the update, even if a game wasn't winnable, you could still have fun and plenty of kills if there were a similar number of players on both sides.  If nothing else, it was useful practice - but that opportunity has gone too...

 

It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

 

I repeat, I am talking about multi-point CP only!  I do not play enough CTF or TDM to know how those are affected.

 

The current flag cap completely ruins CTF battles in small maps.

The battle could end within 4-5 minutes.

[The-Operator219 1,929]

"We've removed the cap for DM battles...".

(Sigh)...

Just...

No...

You have failed me yet again...

Allow me to repeat myself;

DM is fine, I don't play it EVER...

And I couldn't care less what you did to it.

Just REMOVE the cap and I'll come back to the game.

"Tweaking" it has only gotten you backlash so far, so naturally I would expect you to stop "tweaking" it.

Why do you continue to make me want to crush bricks in my fists?

Edited August 30, 2015 by The-Operator219

[ugin-dude 22]

this is a very bad idea

[ugin-dude 22]

The current flag cap completely ruins CTF battles in small maps.

The battle could end within 4-5 minutes.

so right hill isnt fun anymore

[manofbelgium 18]

The concept of this update is good, but there need to be some improvements.

-The size of the map should matter. 40 flags in Dusseldorf is a LOT and 40 flags in island takes 5 minutes.

-The number of points in a map should matter. 100 points in Serpuhov takes 100:(5:10)=200 seconds (3:20min) if points are captured immediately. In Sandbox this is 100:(1:10)=1000 seconds (16:40min, more than 15 min total)...

With these things improved, this update would already be way better.

The different sizes of maps matter a lot in this update.

 

A final summary of this post: You can not get 100 points in Sandbox CP in 15 minutes --> Useless

[Baby_Sam 614]

The concept of this update is good, but there need to be some improvements.

-The size of the map should matter. 40 flags in Dusseldorf is a LOT and 40 flags in island takes 5 minutes.

-The number of points in a map should matter. 100 points in Serpuhov takes 100:(5:10)=200 seconds (3:20min) if points are captured immediately. In Sandbox this is 100:(1:10)=1000 seconds (16:40min, more than 15 min total)...

With these things improved, this update would already be way better.

The different sizes of maps matter a lot in this update.

 

A final summary of this post: You can not get 100 points in Sandbox CP in 15 minutes --> Useless

You are making it complicated. If you want them to solve it well, propose a solution that involves no thinking.

[The-Operator219 1,929]

Solution that involves little to no thinking...

Okay.

Remove it.

Simple, effective, and will make life go on.

[justin_the_prosurfer 1,116]

TBH , idc about non format battles , so this is a useless update to me , xp/bp is all that matters to me now and learning xp/bp 

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Waste of time to continue posting feedback. They simply do not care. They don't listen. They could care less what we think.

[sunhawk 93]

Waste of time to continue posting feedback. They simply do not care. They don't listen. They could care less what we think.

 

That is right.

 

Nevertheless...