[Declined] Balanced teams

[KolorfishKoolBoy 7]

We all know the bitter truth of earning crystals in tanki online.. join the WINNING team no matter what.

We need to stop this soon.

 

How this occurs:The team which is stronger... in terms of assets.. wins. eg.m3 players vs m1 players.. no matter who is really skilled,m3 will win.(just for an instance)

 

Sometimes in battles.. druggers and buyers appear.This is not appreciated by non buyers at all.

 

One system..that can solve almost all problems in tanki is.. balanced teams!

 

Balanced teams make exciting matches! eg. if there are 2 buyers in a game, both should be placed in opposite teams.

This makes the game interesting. More interesting a match, more battle funds and eventutally more GOLDS!!!

 

non buyers would stop hating buyers..Problems solved for tanki!

 

 

[Maf 32,333]

Declined

 

We get a lot of ideas about how to make battles more balanced, and this one is definitely flawed. You can't determine balance simply by the checking whether a player spent money on the game or not. There are experienced free players, who have great skills and saved up on equipment in order to get the biggest upgrades - they're not buyers, but nevertheless they can destroy anyone in any battle. And then there are newbies who bought a single Gold box for $1 and nothing else. They are already considered "buyers" because they bought something with real money, but it doesn't make them any stronger than others.

 

So even though this is just one example, this whole idea won't work out due to the number of different types of buyers the game has. Simply put: "buyer" does not necessarily mean "strong player".

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

Declined

 

We get a lot of ideas about how to make battles more balanced, and this one is definitely flawed. You can't determine balance simply by the checking whether a player spent money on the game or not. There are experienced free players, who have great skills and saved up on equipment in order to get the biggest upgrades - they're not buyers, but nevertheless they can destroy anyone in any battle. And then there are newbies who bought a single Gold box for $1 and nothing else. They are already considered "buyers" because they bought something with real money, but it doesn't make them any stronger than others.

 

So even though this is just one example, this whole idea won't work out due to the number of different types of buyers the game has. Simply put: "buyer" does not necessarily mean "strong player".

Good point, why didn't I think of that, I'm stupid, duh -__-

[redlinezak 11]

Possibly a more workable idea would be to only allow players to join the losing side in a game.

In a tied Game then either 'Join' button is available but if a team is leading then only the losing side 'join' button can be selected.

Note that player numbers on each team would take priority over this so this feature would only be available when the team numbers were equal.

 

Just a thought?

[KolorfishKoolBoy 7]

Sir, I think you got me wrong. I did not classify players according to funds they have spent on the game, but on KD ratio, Equipment, Number of Supplies used,etc. Whether its a buyer or not. I never wanted to classify them. I didnt mention the basis above before  because i thought you would know it.

 

This idea may seem hard to be put into the game, but... i think these are more important than just adding new turretsand hulls to tanki.

 

With due Respect,

Sure do correct me if Iam wrong.

:)

[railguniz4noobz 2,394]

Sir, I think you got me wrong. I did not classify players according to funds they have spent on the game, but on KD ratio, Equipment, Number of Supplies used,etc. Whether its a buyer or not. I never wanted to classify them. I didnt mention the basis above before  because i thought you would know it.

 

This idea may seem hard to be put into the game, but... i think these are more important than just adding new turretsand hulls to tanki.

 

With due Respect,

Sure do correct me if Iam wrong.

:)

The better team wins, thats the whole point.

[KolorfishKoolBoy 7]

The better team wins, thats the whole point.

Well.. You could say that.. But,Unfortunately in tanki, The better EQUIPPED team wins.. Not the better skilled one.I want to change that.

[railguniz4noobz 2,394]

Well.. You could say that.. But,Unfortunately in tanki, The better EQUIPPED team wins.. Not the better skilled one.I want to change that.

You cant change that, buyers have to have complete domination over the game or else the idea gets rejected.

[Maf 32,333]

Sir, I think you got me wrong. I did not classify players according to funds they have spent on the game, but on KD ratio, Equipment, Number of Supplies used,etc. Whether its a buyer or not. I never wanted to classify them. I didnt mention the basis above before  because i thought you would know it.

In that case you should always put as much detail as you can to explain your idea better. "Balanced teams" is a very generic term and could bean a lot of different things. From what I understood, the only criteria you wanted to use was buying crystals.

 

Anyway, we already have multiple ideas where players suggest balancing teams based on other factors. At this point we're just waiting for developers to implement this, as they are definitely aware of the general idea of balancing teams this way.

[Phoenix.Raised 5,992]

I have an idea how to balance mults B)

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

Its not true that the team with more buyers or more skilled players or better teamwork will win.  It's usually the team with more druggers.  Sure, they can be beaten with skill, strategy, and good teamwork, but what if the other team has that too?  More druggers generally means a winning team.  I have yet to see a massively one-sided battle in which the result wasn't because of drug spamming.

[NoobTanker18 63]

Declined

 

We get a lot of ideas about how to make battles more balanced, and this one is definitely flawed. You can't determine balance simply by the checking whether a player spent money on the game or not. There are experienced free players, who have great skills and saved up on equipment in order to get the biggest upgrades - they're not buyers, but nevertheless they can destroy anyone in any battle. And then there are newbies who bought a single Gold box for $1 and nothing else. They are already considered "buyers" because they bought something with real money, but it doesn't make them any stronger than others.

 

So even though this is just one example, this whole idea won't work out due to the number of different types of buyers the game has. Simply put: "buyer" does not necessarily mean "strong player".

The highest profile K/D I ever had was a day ago at 23.50 on an account I made since im done with thi one, being ruined with the rebalance. Instead of titan and shaft im using viking and rail, but i just got really lucky. with my skill im able to maintain a 6.00, but im currently at 7.20 on that account. The beginners pass is helping a LOT for new players around this time! I'll be able to actually buy M1 rail when it is available! :D

[jdc20181 213]

Declined

 

We get a lot of ideas about how to make battles more balanced, and this one is definitely flawed. You can't determine balance simply by the checking whether a player spent money on the game or not. There are experienced free players, who have great skills and saved up on equipment in order to get the biggest upgrades - they're not buyers, but nevertheless they can destroy anyone in any battle. And then there are newbies who bought a single Gold box for $1 and nothing else. They are already considered "buyers" because they bought something with real money, but it doesn't make them any stronger than others.

 

So even though this is just one example, this whole idea won't work out due to the number of different types of buyers the game has. Simply put: "buyer" does not necessarily mean "strong player".

Yea you can't punish someone for buying as the same for non buyers

[comerpickles 27]

Thats very true. I beat several generalissimo's even when drugging, and I'm not a buyer

[KolorfishKoolBoy 7]

Its not true that the team with more buyers or more skilled players or better teamwork will win.  It's usually the team with more druggers.  Sure, they can be beaten with skill, strategy, and good teamwork, but what if the other team has that too?  More druggers generally means a winning team.  I have yet to see a massively one-sided battle in which the result wasn't because of drug spamming.

I have seen bro.. many..

 

Majority Polygon CP matches in my rank are one sided because of drug spamming.Its very hard to find an interesting battle which is not one sided. Its not that i dont want to lose. I want to play a fair game where i share the equal chance of losng every every player in the game. Even if i lose, let the game be fun.

[KolorfishKoolBoy 7]

You cant change that, buyers have to have complete domination over the game or else the idea gets rejected.

 

Not complete domnation... All Iam asking is for a fair match. Not stripping buyers off their Equipment

[KolorfishKoolBoy 7]

The highest profile K/D I ever had was a day ago at 23.50 on an account I made since im done with thi one, being ruined with the rebalance. Instead of titan and shaft im using viking and rail, but i just got really lucky. with my skill im able to maintain a 6.00, but im currently at 7.20 on that account. The beginners pass is helping a LOT for new players around this time! I'll be able to actually buy M1 rail when it is available! :D

Well done!

But I dont see  your point of posting this here.