Implosion of Battles

[austen_pierce 1,948]

 

 

For the most part, you would be right. But eliminate the problem? The jury is still out on that one. It depends on the types of weapons and tanks with upgrades/modules on the other team.

 

Consider this situation (which I've seen a few times on other maps):

 

Map is Barda, TDM, 8 man teams. 15 minute battle.

 

I was on red, losing team. I started out with Isida/Hornet, but later changed to Titan. The rest of our team had one Shaft/Mammoth, and the rest were Hornets, Wasps and one Viking. Turrets: 2 Firebirds, 2 Railguns, 1 Freeze, 1 Hammer, 1 Thunder. No Strikers.

 

Blue had: 3 Striker/Mammoth, 2 Hammer/Hornet (working together), 1 Freeze and 1 Firebird (working together...If you didn't freeze to death, you were burned alive), 1 Isida M3/Viking. No Wasps.

 

Some of red were using supplies, some weren't. All of blue were using supplies and went in the battle field for more.

 

Red advanced on blue and were quickly slaughtered. Blue easily over took our base. It was like shooting fish in a rain barrel, with us being the fish. They had all the respawn areas well covered. I'll have to give our team credit, they stuck it out until the bitter end, though I don't know why most didn't leave.

 

We tried to get our kills in, but all the hulls were like impregnable steel walls. I firmly believe that all of blue had both M3's and M2's MU'd to or nearly to M3's in hulls and turrets. Top man on our team got 84 crystals. He got his kills at the beginning of the battle when we tried to raid blue team. I was too busy healing and dying (mostly dying) to notice the battle fund.

 

In a situation like this, your suggestion wouldn't necessarily work. The raid/overtake would still have happened. I think, had there been other players on our team, they still would have left regardless of the crystal distribution. After we were overtaken, I don't think we got any more kills, though shots were delivered. Their Isida did more killing than healing.

 

Blue team worked together so perfectly, it's hard to believe they were random players. (Or maybe they weren't). :ph34r:

 

 

The raiding party effectively steals crystals from the winning team by turning it into the losing team. This works because Tanki disproportionately allocates the battle fund in favor of the winners AND to the detriment of the losing team. I'm honestly surprised Tanki allows this. Moreover the fund inequity directly leads to the multing, raiding, and team collapse problems.

 

Oooh, I've got a devil of an idea. The bonus for winning teams should be paid out in SUPPLIES not crystals. :ph34r: Would raiders still come? Would players on the losing team still leave? If the only thing on the line is a handful of drugs???

 

.

Edited February 1, 2017 by austen_pierce

[Spit_Fyre 334]

I'm surprised that survived. I didn't post this in I&S because I know anything having to do with battle fund, gold box, or crystals in general are rejected outright.

< ... snip ... >

I'm at a loss. How to fix this when changing the fund mechanism won't be considered???

There was also a surrender option floating around the I&S.

[austen_pierce 1,948]

There was also a surrender option floating around the I&S.

I think I remember that. Like Kick2, doesn't it rely on team votes?

[railguniz4noobz 2,394]

Nah i have a better idea which is similar. Keep a solid flat crystal amount per kill cap, but winning team gets 50% more. This means no losers, just some extra-winning-winners.

So then people will leave the losing team to join the winning team so they can get 50% more crystals.

Nice logic.

[DeathByBoss 104]

So then people will leave the losing team to join the winning team so they can get 50% more crystals.

Nice logic.

thx  :D

 

(i love pretending i don't understand sarcasm) 

[enri_chill 265]

When one team finally eeks out an advantage. And everyone on the other team leaves.

 

What can be done about this?

 

.

The battles I bail out of are the ones that have 3-4 players doing absolutely nothing on the team I join. They could even be alternate accounts of the opposing team just to increase their XP for the battle. Couple that with spawn killing and why would I stay in the battle. No fun for me and certainly no fun for the opposing team.

[enri_chill 265]

One more item...in some battles I've had people on my own team actually knocking my aim off and trying to push me off ledges. I can only assume their friends are on the other team and don't think they can win a game without sabotaging the other team too. In those games I tend to drop out.

In other words, if it seems like a rigged game I'm gone.

[railguniz4noobz 2,394]

One more item...in some battles I've had people on my own team actually knocking my aim off and trying to push me off ledges. I can only assume their friends are on the other team and don't think they can win a game without sabotaging the other team too. In those games I tend to drop out.

In other words, if it seems like a rigged game I'm gone.

Welcome to tanki! The devs could care less about sabotage and balance, but looooove microtransactions.

[Spit_Fyre 334]

I think I remember that. Like Kick2, doesn't it rely on team votes?

I can't find the one I was looking for, there are so many duplicates now. But yeah, relying on player votes isn't 100% reliable because of possible abuse. Kick2 had the same problem. Still like the concept of surrender though.

 

The trouble is, everyone thinks mults come in and abuse the surrender by clicking it. They all swim in the one same direction. I think that's not how mults work. Mults will NOT surrender until the planter has an advantage. They are the ones that keep battles alive, ticking against the battle termination trigger. Call me crazy, call me a mult, but if I were multing, that's what I'd do (I can't believe I'm preaching mult psychology around the forum <_< but I've seen and studied enough to know the case).

Edited February 2, 2017 by Spit_Fyre

[austen_pierce 1,948]

I think you're right. Mults exist to maximize winning funds, so I doubt they would abuse a surrender feature. The bigger worry would be too many legit teammates getting frustrated as soon as the battle turns against them and pressing surrender without bothering to see where the battle goes.

[r_carlo1234 118]

I think you're right. Mults exist to maximize winning funds, so I doubt they would abuse a surrender feature. The bigger worry would be too many legit teammates getting frustrated as soon as the battle turns against them and pressing surrender without bothering to see where the battle goes.

If a players click Surrender (or Hold, from one I idea I have about compensation), another player can take his place while he is put in Hold until the end of the Battle so he can get his reward. (hopefully is not a long battle, lol)

 

If all players from one team click Surrender a 10 second countdown will begin to end the Battle.

[wolverine848 13,097]

One more item...in some battles I've had people on my own team actually knocking my aim off and trying to push me off ledges. I can only assume their friends are on the other team and don't think they can win a game without sabotaging the other team too. In those games I tend to drop out.

In other words, if it seems like a rigged game I'm gone.

Or- they are childish morons. 

 

Spawned just ahead of a team-mate and was able to grab a double-damage drop just before him/her. For the rest of the game this loser followed me around raging at me for grabbing the drop that everyone is entitled to. He/she ended up in last place while not even trying to play (or help the team).  One of few times I placed a team-mate on ignore.

[LittleWillie 3,199]

Depends if I am with working-losing-team or if I am with multing-losing-team.

I hate those, I can't wait till I may get "Legend" kit since in XP battles you can find good teams.

This is basically how I see it. There's losing teams and there's LOSING teams.  Call it 5 categories of games.

 

1) Hopeless/inept/sabotaged team loss for you

2) A loss looks likely but the team is fighting hard

3) The ideal - those thrilling close games

4) A win looks likely but the enemy is not giving in

5) You're camping the enemy's spawn sites

 

Cats 1 and 5 are blowouts that may as well end quickly. Get on to te next game.

 

Obviously a player is going to stick around in Cats 3, 4, 5 to claim the Crystal reward.

 

So the problem is is players quitting Cat 2 games thus turning them into Cat 1 games. We want a change that works the other way. We want players to stick around Cat 2 games.  This should also redeem a few Cat 1 games.

 

In my opinion the problem lies in the Crystal reward system. I just finished a game when my team won, but the enemy team had many players with better Exp points than our guys. I know I leave games early because of Crystals not Exp. The payout imbalance is just too extreme. It is a better use of one's time to find a competitive  or victorious game.

 

So the issue becomes finding a system that will reward a good performer on a losing team - while at the same time substantially  rewarding the winning team, That's probably not an easy needle to thread. I certainly do not have an answer.

 

One thought I had earlier was to award every player a fixed amount of Cry / minute played in that game assuming that player stayed until the game ended.  A participation prize so to speak. That fee would be the same win or lose ... Or perhaps the loser whould get somewhat more for the incentive to stay?  

 

Of course that's just one thought , and it'd that would be only one of the factors that'd go into the entire payout formula.

[austen_pierce 1,948]

I played more than a little bit today. Some observations:

 

-most team battles are hopelessly one-sided.

 

-players are showing up with bracketed prefixes, for example [NAZ]SuperTanker - I haven't followed clans closely but expect that's what those names mean

 

-lots of Pro battles either with no time limit or ridiculously high ones. Snooze-fests.

 

-game crashes less, but it still happens

 

I maintain that a Crystal for score approach to battle fund distribution with a bonus for the winning team would help. Maybe not solve battle implosion but it would help.

 

.

Edited February 8, 2017 by austen_pierce

[Spit_Fyre 334]

I maintain that a Crystal for score approach to battle fund distribution with a bonus for the winning team would help. Maybe not solve battle implosion but it would help.

Heads up. They seem to be deducing the player "ratings" from this.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Spit_Fyre

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

The raiding party effectively steals crystals from the winning team by turning it into the losing team. This works because Tanki disproportionately allocates the battle fund in favor of the winners AND to the detriment of the losing team. I'm honestly surprised Tanki allows this.

The reason why the battle funds are so tipped over towards the winners, is that to force players to use more supplies.

[railguniz4noobz 2,394]

The reason why the battle funds are so tipped over towards the winners, is that to force players to use more supplies.

And then you end up using more supplies than what you get from the battle fund so only buyers who dont care about funds can profit.

[austen_pierce 1,948]

And then you end up using more supplies than what you get from the battle fund so only buyers who dont care about funds can profit.

You both make good and accurate points. Desperation (to win) leads to very poor decision making, especially regarding supply utilization.

 

I also thought about another approach to Battle! implosion. (See what I did there?). The infamous Battle button. No one uses it, because we all know it will just put you in one of the half dozen or so random battles you can see below all the PRO ones. You'll most likely end up on the losing side of a battle you wouldn't have chosen anyway. I suspect Tanki is about to make those normal battles DISAPPEAR from the menu. They will still be there, but you will HAVE to click the button to enter a random one.

 

There are countless flaws with the above, but I really think this is where the game is going.

[r_carlo1234 118]

You both make good and accurate points. Desperation (to win) leads to very poor decision making, especially regarding supply utilization.

 

I also thought about another approach to Battle! implosion. (See what I did there?). The infamous Battle button. No one uses it, because we all know it will just put you in one of the half dozen or so random battles you can see below all the PRO ones. You'll most likely end up on the losing side of a battle you wouldn't have chosen anyway. I suspect Tanki is about to make those normal battles DISAPPEAR from the menu. They will still be there, but you will HAVE to click the button to enter a random one.

 

There are countless flaws with the above, but I really think this is where the game is going.

I have a Second Lieutenant account and I just tried the Battle button, look what happened:

 

 

Like always the system makes you the fourth rank, and like always higher ranks are waiting for a lower rank to create a battle like this so they can join and dominate. I quickly got out.

 

I would not play a battle like that, not because I'm afraid of higher ranks necessarily, but because the next player to join will most likely join his team than mine.

 

They system should make us the second or at least third rank in the battle.

Edited February 9, 2017 by r_carlo1234

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

And then you end up using more supplies than what you get from the battle fund so only buyers who dont care about funds can profit.

yes, sure.

Tanki has no problem if players overdo it with supply-vs-supply battles. They earn money by selling supply kits.

therefore they do it.

[austen_pierce 1,948]

Think about this - when was the last time they nerfed supplies? :wacko:

[deathfromabove_tanki 92]

Probably about 2 years ago. Most of my tanki carrier was before smart supplies. You haven't seen druggers, unless you have seen one of those battles

Edited February 13, 2017 by deathfromabove_tanki

[austen_pierce 1,948]

I'm seeing it now. Thanks devs for your weekend experiment

[TheRollingSlab 803]

I'm seeing it now. Thanks devs for your weekend experiment

What do you think of it? I think it helped this problem you have brought up tremendously. The whole weekend, I was only in one battle where everyone on my team quit (I joined late and it was 5-0 to the other team).

[austen_pierce 1,948]

I disliked that I couldn't spawn drug, yet objectively, that's a good move.

 

I liked that I could multi drug.

 

I did not notice a difference in battle implosion but I admit I wasn't playing much that weekend. -> was sick :(