invalid Auto Termination CountDn: lock Flags, CPs and TDM kills

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

When the Auto Termination CountDown starts, then the loosers are far too less players to continue the battle. So it would make sense to lock down the following things:

- lock the CP point counter from increasing / decreasing (you can still cap the points.. but it wont help you)

- lock the TDM kill counter from increasing / decreasing

- lock the flags from beeing taken from the base (flags that are not on base are unaffected)

 

[Maf 32,300]

Valid

[gmpl]

What's the purpose of this? The disadvantaged team already lost, so what difference does it make if points and flags are capped? Besides, if the limit is almost reached, then why stop the players from reaching it to end the game sooner rather than wait 30 more seconds?

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Under review

[gmpl]

What's the purpose of this? The disadvantaged team already lost, so what difference does it make if points and flags are capped?

It makes a direct difference in the fund share, the loosers get.

[Maf 32,300]

It makes a direct difference in the fund share, the loosers get.

Not that big of a difference, but ok. Fair point, I guess.

[Spit_Fyre 334]

IMHO it's just bad spirit that leads players to quit a losing battle. Very few brave the odds and try to win it back. The rest go on pause or leave as soon as one team has a lead. That's human nature. And just because it's human nature, we're all susceptible to overlook it as being harmless. But really, don't the winners already lose out on some part of their winnings in this manner?

 

Why does a winning team keep hoarding? Because they want to cement their obvious victory. What do they have to lose? Quite a lot. Meanwhile, what do the losers have to gain? Not much. Unless they have raiding plans. My question is, if losers have obviously lost, why not take either of these options - try again in round 2 OR go find another battle?

 

You can argue that the loss of morale of the losers are being taken advantage of by the winners. But really, there is a reason some games like football(soccer) for example don't stop just because a player gets injured. Similarly a loss in tempo in a game like tanki is big. The start-stop-play-stop-start-play-stop model will get frustrating.

 

A better way to address the underlying issue is to first balance out the start of a battle so the mid-term crisis situation does not arise.

 

Needless to say, as long as mults/saboteurs are around, this idea creates a loophole that can be used to "fix" a battle, even with autobalance on. The loosing team can already manipulate the battle timer triggering to frustrate the winning team. Ofcourse, it's also arguable that the winners could be planting mults among the enemy. Battles that go into auto-termination are ripe targets for raiding and losers never get raided.

 

EDIT: If this topic gets merged with another ideas topic, and I am unaware of the transition, all of what I've said above stands nullified in relation to the merged content.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

I agree to you on most of the psychological parts.. but not on all.

 

Games like basketball do stop.. and they are way more fast-paced then soccer.

This model change does not stop the game. Flags that are on the run can be delivered, just to pick up new ones will not work.

CP points can be fought for and captured, but the counter does not increase any more.

So believe me, the winners will continue their "usual doing" of camp the spawn locations.. they will not halt.

 

 

Regarding abuse by mults I kindly ask you to craft a scenario, where this mechanism can be abused and(!) it means a disadvantage for the loosing team in terms of crystals. Please also think of the positive effect in terms of crystals for the loosing team.

 

 

ps:

for me the way the fund is shared betweeen winners and loosers is one of the main reasons, why players get greedy, cruel, and lose all respect and honor of the enemy. Or in other words: spawnkills in 10vs4 situations, intentional flag caps in small xp/bp's before the "go", no stop if in sandbox a player announces(!) to be AFK.

It is also the reason, why players leave loosing sides: they learned they have to win in order to be economical successfull in the game. 

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

Lossers don't reserve more crystals if they can't even handle to protect a flag at least for that 30 seconds.

 

 

 

However today I have experienced one scenario. I have joined the battle, 2v2 Island 150 CPs.

So I have joined it. 2 enemies versus me and the.. teammate which was planted by  the enemy. Both that enemy and my teammate have had similar nicknames, and while enemy played as my enemy, my teammate wasn't moving, just keeping respawning. I guess that he used 2 PCs to handle both accounts, without getting banned because obviously not same IPs by using accounts by that. I have reported my teammate. It shows "Your report has been sent" and next 10 minutes nothing. Well I fought both enemies 1 on 2 and I was winning. I don't know how to call this.

 

Ik that this is the different scenario from your own. But why my teammate wasn't disconnected? It doesn't matter that I was takeover-ing battle alone on 2. What's the point?

 

 

 

That's why there are more than just "a team" in the Tanki. You can't control your Team. Accept the lose if your team don't want to work. Team vs Team, in which Team means the one unity, one thing vs other thing. Team inside isn't the part of the Battle, but the part of the Team which is part of the Battle. Mults are just a part of a Team.

 

 

for me the way the fund is shared betweeen winners and loosers is one of the main reasons, why players get greedy, cruel, and lose all respect and honor of the enemy. Or in other words: spawnkills in 10vs4 situations, intentional flag caps in small xp/bp's before the "go", no stop if in sandbox a player announces(!) to be AFK.

It is also the reason, why players leave loosing sides: they learned they have to win in order to be economical successfull in the game. 

One or other team doesn't need to care about gameplay. The only thing is that when you want battles in which you can all agree on the start or the stop when a player is AFK or missing, is the Agreement, which can we describe like the habit of our old Pros which gave it to us. Then teams can play with honor all again and friendly.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Congratulations that you stood tall alone vs two enemies.

When I look at your profile.. am I right that this is an alternative account of yours and you have way more experience then usual for your ranks?

 

 

Lossers don't reserve more crystals if they can't even handle to protect a flag at least for that 30 seconds.

 

In those automatic battle termination scenarios the teamsize is already down to 50% of the enemy.

You can't protect a flag or CPs with 50% of the players, if they all already spawntrap your team. In 90% of those cases you are chanceless. You spawn and 3 tanks pound on you.. you are lucky to place a shot. The spawntime of 12sec gives them enough time to handle your mates before they await you again.

 

The battle is already over. Why should the winners be able to take away _even_ more? They won, they stood tall, they get the main part of the battle fund. Any single crystal that they gain additionally, comes from the "art(?)" of spawntrapping in an massively disbalanced battle.

[Spit_Fyre 334]

I agree to you on most of the psychological parts.. but not on all.

 

Games like basketball do stop.. and they are way more fast-paced then soccer.

This model change does not stop the game. Flags that are on the run can be delivered, just to pick up new ones will not work.

CP points can be fought for and captured, but the counter does not increase any more.

So believe me, the winners will continue their "usual doing" of camp the spawn locations.. they will not halt.

 

 

Regarding abuse by mults I kindly ask you to craft a scenario, where this mechanism can be abused and(!) it means a disadvantage for the loosing team in terms of crystals. Please also think of the positive effect in terms of crystals for the loosing team.

 

 

ps:

for me the way the fund is shared betweeen winners and loosers is one of the main reasons, why players get greedy, cruel, and lose all respect and honor of the enemy. Or in other words: spawnkills in 10vs4 situations, intentional flag caps in small xp/bp's before the "go", no stop if in sandbox a player announces(!) to be AFK.

It is also the reason, why players leave loosing sides: they learned they have to win in order to be economical successfull in the game. 

The quoted looks like a response directly to me. In that case, I kindly ask that you quote me so I can follow. Especially when you are requesting a direct response of me. You don't have to agree with my views ofcourse. I just state mine because there could be other people who see it the way I do and I want to bring to the table all the pieces I think are being left out of this picture. Don't get me wrong, I can definitely see the positive in this idea (an increase in income for the losers) and I totally agree it's a plus. All I'm saying is it should not be at the expense of the winners.

 

I lose many games. I win too. Even when winning, my reward just barely crosses the level of my score (experience). So, I don't think fund sharing is as much a problem as the base fund being less. It does not make sense to me to have less reward than experience for a win. This will just make it harder all round for everyone to progress.

 

Also a point worth noting - not everyone plays with the aim of "economic success". Not everyone leaves a battle because they are losing. People  leave because -

 

a) Real life interrupts

b) They are losing

c) Because they think the game (even if wit's a win) is boring...

d) they can? #mult.

e) whatever else

 

Regarding your request for crafting a scenario, I did not understand the conditions laid out; to be more precise - the intention of placing such conditions. I think we agree that there definitely is a benefit for the losers. So, if you can be clearer, rephrase maybe?

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Don't get me wrong, I can definitely see the positive in this idea (an increase in income for the losers) and I totally agree it's a plus. All I'm saying is it should not be at the expense of the winners.

 

I lose many games. I win too. Even when winning, my reward just barely crosses the level of my score (experience). So, I don't think fund sharing is as much a problem as the base fund being less. It does not make sense to me to have less reward than experience for a win. This will just make it harder all round for everyone to progress.

As an average tanker has... 50% wins and 50% losses, the game gets not harder or easier. this levels out.

 

 

Also a point worth noting - not everyone plays with the aim of "economic success". Not everyone leaves a battle because they are losing. People leave because -

 

a) Real life interrupts

B) They are losing

c) Because they think the game (even if wit's a win) is boring...

d) they can? #mult.

e) whatever else

Sure all those apply too.

I use to pick my battles carefully, so beeing in the Lobby I see a lot of battles going on, fwd and back. There is a strong, very, very strong correlation between the dropout rate of a team after this team seems loosing. On the other hand is is quite rare that a player of the winnin team leaves. If he does, his place is almost immediatly taken by someone. This winning slots are taken so fast, that you can almost bet someone waits for them (I use to do that too).

 

IMHO if the players in the loosing team will get a higher share, then they will be more likely to stay.

 

 

Regarding your request for crafting a scenario, I did not understand the conditions laid out; to be more precise - the intention of placing such conditions. I think we agree that there definitely is a benefit for the losers. So, if you can be clearer, rephrase maybe?

you originally wrote

Needless to say, as long as mults/saboteurs are around, this idea creates a loophole that can be used to "fix" a battle, even with autobalance on. The loosing team can already manipulate the battle timer triggering to frustrate the winning team. Ofcourse, it's also arguable that the winners could be planting mults among the enemy. Battles that go into auto-termination are ripe targets for raiding and losers never get raided.

..and I understood that in a way, that this new system can be abused by some way. I do not get how it can be abused.. if you could outline a scenario of abuse to me, it would be quite helpfull :)

[Spit_Fyre 334]

As an average tanker has... 50% wins and 50% losses, the game gets not harder or easier. this levels out.

 Yeah, levels out the earnings of a class (like higher skilled players) to a lower chance of ever getting equal exp vs crystals. So almost everyone (except the total noobs) will need to be more careful in spending. Or just buy more. Hey, Voila! We actually have a hidden tanki benefit here. Long live communism!

 

 This winning slots are taken so fast, that you can almost bet someone waits for them (I use to do that too).

 I pick battles that way too. What I usually see at my rank - when the timer gets triggered, losing team starts leaving, no more can join the winning side. The winners get bored. Atleast 2-3 of them leave. Some try to switch and balance. There are quite a lot of empty slots open on the losing side. A clan or bunch of people suddenly fill em up in the space of a second. I've been in such battles to know what happens afterward. The tempo swing is so strong, the team that was initially winning has no idea what hit em. This is a defined as a raid. This is a norm(!) at higher levels - an unspoken rule. Only inexperienced/lower ranked players are naive/bold enough to step into an outrageously uneven battle on the winning side.

The slots for "good" battles where the score gap is not huge (more than 1 or 2 flags for eg) are most in demand and filled fast. Believe it or not, but the bigger the score gap is, the slower they are filled - at least at my rank.

IMHO if the players in the loosing team will get a higher share, then they will be more likely to stay.

Yes, they will be be more likely to stay if the increase is significant.  And irrespective of how much the loser's share is increased, they will always feel like they got less than deserved compared to the winners. That's human nature. By default.

 

you originally wrote

..and I understood that in a way, that this new system can be abused by some way. I do not get how it can be abused.. if you could outline a scenario of abuse to me, it would be quite helpfull.

Sure, np. I was wondering why you placed an extra condition that required stating a disadvantage for the losers. A bit like asking me to prove the universe is finite, lol ;)

 

Also, before you dissect the below scenario, remember what I said in it's entirety ("As long as mults/saboteurs are around, this creates a loophole...").

 

CTF game; 15 minutes/no flag limit; Map:Rio; 10 vs 10; auto balance on

Mult's named x

 

12:00 Score Team Red - 1; Team Blue - 0

----> 2 blue players leave. Mult X joins and is idle ----> Red (10)/ Blue (9) with 1 idle

 

10:00 Red -2; Blue - 0

----> 1 blue player leaves, 2 go idle/on pause/garage (not X) ----> Red (10)/ Blue (8) with 3 idles

 

9:00 Score Red - 4; Blue - 0

----> In effect, 5 blues fighting 10 reds.

----> Red team player#4 sends invites; goes idle waiting for friend to join ----> Red (10) 1 idle/ Blue (8) with 3 idles

----> 3 frustrated blue players leave, 1 goes idle ----> Red (10) 1 idle/Blue (5) with 4 idles.

----> mult X leaves. ----> Red (10) 1 idle/Blue (4) with 3 idles who are just starting to play.

 

TIMER TRIGGERS

 

8:00 Score Red - 5; Blue - 0

----> Red team player#10 #9 switch teams to balance, player #8, #7 leaves due to boredom ----> Red (6) 1 idle/Blue(6)

----> Red team players #6, #5 go on pause----> Red (6) with 3 idle/ Blue (6)

 

TIMER RESETS

 

 

7:00 Score  Red - 5; Blue -1

----> Mult X joins red side; is idle----> Red (7) with 4 idle/Blue (6)

----> Effectively 3 reds vs 6 blues.

----> Red player #4's friend #1 joins blue side; ----> Red (7) with 4 idle/Blue (7)

 

6:00 Score  Red - 5; Blue -3

----> Some random noobs #1 (smelling victory going by score) joins Red side. ----> Red (8) with 4 idle/Blue (7)

----> Red player #4 switches to join friend. ----> Red (7) with 3 idle/Blue (8)

----> Some random noob #2 joins red side ----> Red (8) with 3 idle/Blue (8)

 

5:00 Score  Red - 5; Blue -4

----> whoever planted the mult X joins blue ----> Red (8) with 3 idle/Blue (9)

----> Red player #5 & #6 who were on pause get kicked out. ----> Red (6) with 1 idle/Blue (9)

 

4:00 Score  Red - 5; Blue -6

 

3:00 Score  Red - 5; Blue -7

 

2:00 Score  Red - 5; Blue -8

 

1:00 Score  Red - 5; Blue -9

 

00:00 Score  Red - 5; Blue -10

 

Pretty sad for player #1 and #2 on the red team huh? All it required was 1 mult :wacko:  Just 1 real mult who knew what he was doing.

 

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

@1cr/xp:

 

 

For each point a Major scores, 0.66 crystals are added to the fund.

For each point a Generalissimo scores, 0.96 crystals are added to the fund.

 

 

So a player with average results (same number of wins and losses) will only be able to earn that 0.66cr/xp per battle at Major or the 0.96cr/xp per battle at Generalissimo. Add missions and Goldboxes, and there you are.

The only chance that they receive about 1cr/xp is playing only missions and no battles; or -> winning, winning, winning.

 

Winning takes you close to 1cr/xp, but of course it goes on the costs of others.

So this proposal levels out the income if high earning players to low earning players - but _only_ by minimizing the effects of those outnumbered situations.

 

 

I know about raids.. still they do not happen so often to me. I am just 2 ranks below you and the battles I've palyed the last days (poly CP) where almost always with legend ranks. Raids were completely seldom. Do you play battles with enabled drugs? I faced a lot of raids in the past in drug-enabled battles.

 

 

@scenario: I can see no disadvantage of disabling flag caps in that autotermination timeframe of 30sec timeframe for the loosing team. Have I missed something?

[Spit_Fyre 334]

@scenario: I can see no disadvantage of disabling flag caps in that autotermination timeframe of 30sec timeframe for the loosing team. Have I missed something?

You completely missed the tempo swing? Hmmm.

 

I think the time is right to let you know of an idea just like this that has already been suggested before and is in fact planned. See here. The difference between your suggestion and the one I mentioned (which I support btw <-- link to discussion) is -

1. The emphasis it places on fairplay (player signals and timing factors) - for teams irrespective of them being winners/losers.
2. The inclusivity of the whole and the weighted prioritization of the 3 phases of a battle -  commencement,middle ground and termination.

What I like about it is that It takes nothing for granted(read uncertain raids). All the loopholes are plugged. In a sense, it's a more evolved form of your suggestion. If you are inclined to, you can read and hopefully take away from it that which I seem inept at explaining or otherwise convincing you of. And if you chose to follow, you'll discover my suggestion of a "buffer time" aspect being introduced to battle rounds as part of a measure to standardize battle commencement. I'm quite happy the game has moved in that direction with the continue button + extra time. I think there is scope yet to rectify an imbalanced start before tackling the middle.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Thanks for pointing me to this other proposal. The idea you refered to is nice and features a lot of usefull parts (battle starts with unevan teams are a real issue in CTF battles). Unfortunately the lockdown of battle progress (flags, points, ..) has not been inplemented for 2 years now. I think it is worth to have this part finished earlier, as it is only a small enhancement to the existing early battle termination logic.

[Spit_Fyre 334]

In the past in tanki (like in any young scaleable project), I've seen devs admit they are unable to push a "simple" idea through because of ramifications on the existing system/code. This is primarily due to the initial lack of planning and foresight.

 

When you execute a project in phases, you cannot blindly implement a phase in any order - it becomes a maintenance issue. When shortcuts like that are taken, more risks are introduced. There'll be a lot of extra effort required just to keep up with monitoring,fixing and working around issues that crop up (not to mention the ire of players receiving a half-baked pie). This is primarily a matter of software principles over possibilities. I think tanki devs have enough experience to know this by now and will weigh the decision carefully before attempting random "easy fixes".

 

 

 

I'm done adding more views to this topic :P

 

 

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

You're absolutely right, they have to make a design that takes more issues into account.. and then they can start to work one by another, having the overall design in mind.

:)