Declined Charge players for leaving matches.

[GunslingerMongoose 198]

The idea is basically this: Charge players a fee of 500 crystals every time they leave a match mid-battle, to prevent people from being a-holes and jumping from battle to battle because the "battle fund is too small" or "it's a drugfest".

The fee will not apply to those who get banned or any community contributors.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Declined

 

Do you really like to lock in players in battles, that they do not like to continue for the next 12 minutes? The missions-in-non-pro-only feature has already driven away quite some players, and I fear your feature proposal would continue to hit that trigger.

At least as long as the early battle termination feature does not improve a lot, this feature will harm the community. And if it would improve, it might render this feature obsolete.

[GunslingerMongoose 198]

Declined

 

Do you really like to lock in players in battles, that they do not like to continue for the next 12 minutes? The missions-in-non-pro-only feature has already driven away quite some players, and I fear your feature proposal would continue to hit that trigger.

At least as long as the early battle termination feature does not improve a lot, this feature will harm the community. And if it would improve, it might render this feature obsolete.

Not "locking them in battle" but rather it prevents players from joining for five seconds, seeing that the match will be a lose and then leaving instantly because they won't receive crystals etc. I feel that by implementing a system like this it prevents players from doing this, "battle hopping". Not to mention that it becomes highly irritating when players do this because it ends up making teams lose harder than they likely will. :p

[andrisrv 96]

So your idea is to give free kills to buyers with drugs and 50% modules, right? Because for free player it is impossible to kill a drugger in 1v1 battle. Not even 2 people against 1 buyer.

[Cyborg 3,189]

Declined

 

Do you really like to lock in players in battles, that they do not like to continue for the next 12 minutes? The missions-in-non-pro-only feature has already driven away quite some players, and I fear your feature proposal would continue to hit that trigger.

At least as long as the early battle termination feature does not improve a lot, this feature will harm the community. And if it would improve, it might render this feature obsolete.

This wouldn't actually "harm" the community if the penalty is something like, the guy can't join any battles for 1 hour or 1 day. Because if this happens, people will play their battles till the end, and the chances of the losing team to lose might be comparatively lower than what it would have been if everyone ran.

 

This is also a popular system in many multiplayer games, penalize players by not letting them play if they ruin others' matches by leaving midway.

And yea, following the exact method the main post suggests is not a very good idea.

[Maf 32,324]

Because if this happens, people will play their battles till the end

And what If I have to go do something? Or if a friend is inviting me to another battle? Or if I simply changed my mind and want to try a different map / game mode. Forcing players to do something in fear of penalty is a really bad move in terms of game design.

[Guest]

Not "locking them in battle" but rather it prevents players from joining for five seconds, seeing that the match will be a lose and then leaving instantly because they won't receive crystals etc. I feel that by implementing a system like this it prevents players from doing this, "battle hopping". Not to mention that it becomes highly irritating when players do this because it ends up making teams lose harder than they likely will. :P

 

This wouldn't actually "harm" the community if the penalty is something like, the guy can't join any battles for 1 hour or 1 day. Because if this happens, people will play their battles till the end, and the chances of the losing team to lose might be comparatively lower than what it would have been if everyone ran.

 

This is also a popular system in many multiplayer games, penalize players by not letting them play if they ruin others' matches by leaving midway.

And yea, following the exact method the main post suggests is not a very good idea.

Have you even SEEN at how this has ruined other games. A prime example of this would be the money-draining game "Pixel Gun 3D"(which is a game that I dislike) 

 

We would then get a lot of situations like this:

You: I need to go

TO: IF YOU LEAVE YOU LOSE 500 CRYSTALS!

You: But I need to go!

TO: THEN YOU LOSE CRYSTALS!

You: *leaves and loses 500 crystals*

You: *later becomes broke and quits TO forever*

 

And if you say ANYTHING like, "lol you don't know anything about game dynamics" take note that I have seen a company make another game, make money off of it, and shut it down without any further notice. I have seen money-grabbing tactics that the TO devs wouldn't even dream of.

[Cyborg 3,189]

And what If I have to go do something? Or if a friend is inviting me to another battle? Or if I simply changed my mind and want to try a different map / game mode. Forcing players to do something in fear of penalty is a really bad move in terms of game design.

Well, I suggested to add a penalty like you can't join other battles for a while.. If you don't want to play that mode, and wish to do something else then just think before joining. If you join, take up space.. Play for a while, lose badly and decide to leave then you will basically put 1 free spot on the losing team which, no one would like to join. If a friend invites you to a battle/if you are expecting an invite then you should not join a battle in the first place and wait instead, of finish the match you started.

 

By leaving midway, you are making things even more harder for the losing team and wasting their team as well. So if you ruin others fun time, you should be penalized as well. And in my opinion, not being able to join for a while is no big deal, at least better than losing crystals. Also, why would you join a battle if you have to go and do something, and don't even have 15-30 minutes to spare for a match to complete.

[Maf 32,324]

 Also, why would you join a battle if you have to go and do something, and don't even have 15-30 minutes to spare for a match to complete.

Things can change. E.g. you join a battle and five minutes later get a call from your parents saying that you need to pack up and go somewhere.

[andrisrv 96]

This wouldn't actually "harm" the community if the penalty is something like, the guy can't join any battles for 1 hour or 1 day. Because if this happens, people will play their battles till the end, and the chances of the losing team to lose might be comparatively lower than what it would have been if everyone ran.

 

This is also a popular system in many multiplayer games, penalize players by not letting them play if they ruin others' matches by leaving midway.

And yea, following the exact method the main post suggests is not a very good idea.

Yes but penaltys for leaving battle are given when teams are being balanced by system which checks and trys to balance stuff.In tanki drugger joins any battle he wants to and steals the fund. and again. I think... there was something called Recruit, or am i wrong? Staff is somehow ALWAYS forgetting about them. 500 crystls for them means equipment! What if player wants to leave in his first battle ever? (Recruit) and dont have 500 crystals? Tanki will not let them quit the battle? Then player will quit the game. What is better for tanki? If player leaves battle or game?

 

If you are low on crystals and you join drugg war and... lets say maf has equiped his mammoth/isida combo and equipment change is off and he dont have 500 crystals, What happens? Drugging m4's against m0 means someone will report him for sabotage because he uses m0 in m4 drugfest. Well... Yea. As maf is threated like admin, he wont have problems, but anyone else would get few months ban because of this system.

[dilsharox 2,395]

dont you think that this will encourage mults? i mean a player could just pause and wait for 2 mins until the timer runs out 

[Cyborg 3,189]

Things can change. E.g. you join a battle and five minutes later get a call from your parents saying that you need to pack up and go somewhere.

 

Exactly why losing crystals is not appropriate, losing the ability to join battle is suitable. Not playing for 1 hour or 6 hours will give you an experience due to which you will think wisely before joining a battle next time.

Yes but penaltys for leaving battle are given when teams are being balanced by system which checks and trys to balance stuff.In tanki drugger joins any battle he wants to and steals the fund. and again. I think... there was something called Recruit, or am i wrong? Staff is somehow ALWAYS forgetting about them. 500 crystls for them means equipment! What if player wants to leave in his first battle ever? (Recruit) and dont have 500 crystals? Tanki will not let them quit the battle? Then player will quit the game. What is better for tanki? If player leaves battle or game?

 

If you are low on crystals and you join drugg war and... lets say maf has equiped his mammoth/isida combo and equipment change is off and he dont have 500 crystals, What happens? Drugging m4's against m0 means someone will report him for sabotage because he uses m0 in m4 drugfest. Well... Yea. As maf is threated like admin, he wont have problems, but anyone else would get few months ban because of this system.

Dude, Im not supporting the crystal penalty.

[Maf 32,324]

 

Exactly why losing crystals is not appropriate, losing the ability to join battle is suitable. Not playing for 1 hour or 6 hours will give you an experience due to which you will think wisely before joining a battle next time.

Definitely not hours. Maybe a 5-10 minute delay.

 

But even then, what if a friend invited me to another battle? Or if I just want to switch teams when I notice that my team is winning by a large margin?

[lukey0 27,543]

Bad idea. Whats more useless?

 

- A bad player in your team (mult) who won't leave because of a penalty?

 OR

- A player who joined a battle thinking it was good but now has to wait out another 12 minutes literally doing nothing good for the team because there is a penalty.

 

In both these situations there would be a chance that if they left the battle, a perfectly good player could join and turn the tide of the battle. Its not a good idea.

[Cyborg 3,189]

Or if I just want to switch teams when I notice that my team is winning by a large margin?

You don't need to be too kind then and just win it all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1 hour should be better, people won't care if its 5-10 mins and then the whole point of the system would fail. Every system has a flaw, can't be perfect. Also for friends, I still think if someone is in a battle then he must finish it. Friend invites can be acceptable if you're in lobby.

[HichigoShiiro 4,378]

Imo its a good idea, its stupid how people just join and leave a battle when ever. Should also be fined if they quit because of internet issues to stop people from going around the fine.  :ph34r:

[andrisrv 96]

You don't need to be too kind then and just win it all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1 hour should be better, people won't care if its 5-10 mins and then the whole point of the system would fail. Every system has a flaw, can't be perfect. Also for friends, I still think if someone is in a battle then he must finish it. Friend invites can be acceptable if you're in lobby.

Lets say, you play any shooting game for the first time. Lets say.. World of tanks. You play first battle but decide to explore. You leave battle and check other equipment pieces, and when you wanna play again, you get to wait 1 hour. Now tell me, when is the next time you will play the game again? Or even remember you had anything like that? I got some games in my pc which i havent played for a while for simmilar reasons what you are suggesting.

REMEMBER RECRUITS! THEY ARE PLAYERS TOO!

[M-axis 589]

I'm totally against this idea. 500 crystals? Like c'mon. Seriously. I could write a whole essay about why this wouldn't work, but I'm not going to. Why? Because this idea's bad points are so bluntly obvious.

[HAPPSHOT 2,029]

:lol:  :D  Never heard a better joke than this  :D

[Cyborg 3,189]

Lets say, you play any shooting game for the first time. Lets say.. World of tanks. You play first battle but decide to explore. You leave battle and check other equipment pieces, and when you wanna play again, you get to wait 1 hour. Now tell me, when is the next time you will play the game again? Or even remember you had anything like that? I got some games in my pc which i havent played for a while for simmilar reasons what you are suggesting.

REMEMBER RECRUITS! THEY ARE PLAYERS TOO!

Why're you getting so triggered  :ph34r: The system could work for mid-high ranks only.

[andrisrv 96]

Why're you getting so triggered  :ph34r: The system could work for mid-high ranks only.

im not triggered. i just gave you example and.. CAPS to hightlight what a lot of staff members forget.

And just now you start to add more details to your idea. Btw this means newbies dont get another update. There are far more better ideas which has been declined just because hazel thinks its pointless idea. _{kkhem better roofs idea.}

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

especially if players join via the battle button (and therefore have no clue where they end up, and whom they will play against) this system will kill all the fun, and will feel like punishment for using an an ingame feature that does not yet work perfectly.

[GunslingerMongoose 198]

*inserts 3rd reich cat meme*

Nien nien nien.

I read through all this craziness (didn't expect a penalization idea to be so contraversial. Didn't see y'all object the paint/protection split or the upgrade MUps and SUps systems.)

 

I saw a post by Mafisio (Yes I remember your old name, mate, good to see you again.) saying that a timer penalty would be a better idea. Thinking through it, I agree with the timer more, and for a couple of reasons. First, timers can't be bought out of. You can't spend X crystals to go back into a match (wallettards say hello to humans) and you can't just log off and back on to circumvent it, because it'll work like a flood ban. Sorta. Second, because it would work like the flood ban system, repeat offenses would make the punishment more severe.

Like, say for example the intial penalty is 10min, then 15, then 30, then an hour, then 2 hours, so on so forth. And also, before you wannabe know it alls say that the anti flood system can't give 1 day bans, it can. I've been auto banned for 1 day for repeat flood (Stupid anti-countdown system needs to be fixed).

[Guest]

Lets say, you play any shooting game for the first time. Lets say.. World of tanks. You play first battle but decide to explore. You leave battle and check other equipment pieces, and when you wanna play again, you get to wait 1 hour. Now tell me, when is the next time you will play the game again? Or even remember you had anything like that? I got some games in my pc which i havent played for a while for simmilar reasons what you are suggesting.

REMEMBER RECRUITS! THEY ARE PLAYERS TOO!

I hate this idea too, but WOT has a COMPLETELY different playing style than TO. In WOT, it is necessary to have the fine because no one can replace you mid-battle. 

[Corporalkiller 145]

Terrible Idea imo.  

 

What if someone needed to eat? What if he had an in real life problem/event that he needs to attend to? then when he comes back he can't join another battle for an hour?