Completed Limit players on some maps

[Nicola_M 1,563]

Early this morning I went on Deathmatch DM and there were only about ten of us on there.

It was great - you could actually stalk your target and have a proper battle of skills.

 

I just went on the same battle now - in the evening - and it was full and it was just horrible.  You spawn, you die.  You spawn, you die.

You don't get a chance to do anything.... but die.

This is not pleasant or even fun.

 

Partly this is down to the godawful horribly bad update which means everyone is now on drugs - even the M3 guys.

But much of it is also down to there being just too many players for the map size.  You can't move.

 

Most maps have dead space in them such as pits and buildings.

But on the larger ones it would be nice to have some maps that limit players to a smaller number so the map isn't so crowded and you don't have this constant drugfest spawn-die going on.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Under Review

Completed

 

Do I assume correct, that you mean only a reduction of players in DM mode, isn't it?

Which maps are you thinking about?

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

You do know that less players in a battle means that the battle fund won't grow as fast, right?

[dilsharox 2,395]

maps lie what? polygon?

[Pink_Legacy 269]

Under Review

 

Do I assume correct, that you mean only a reduction of players in DM mode, isn't it?

Which maps are you pthinking about?

I think it would be cool on all modes. I miss playing on Sepurhov 4 vs 4.

[Crimson_Tank 285]

Less players mean less deaths but also mean less kills making the game slow paced. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

You do know that less players in a battle means that the battle fund won't grow as fast, right?

So only consideration is battle-fund?

What about play-ability?

Sure you might get crystals... but it has now become only about farming crystals?

 

Would be nice to have a compromise sometimes... fun game while earning crystals.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

So only consideration is battle-fund?

What about play-ability?

Sure you might get crystals... but it has now become only about farming crystals?

 

Would be nice to have a compromise sometimes... fun game while earning crystals.

 

I hear it's xpbp and xc these days :ph34r:

[CODY2AWESOME4U 20]

So only consideration is battle-fund?

What about play-ability?

Sure you might get crystals... but it has now become only about farming crystals?

 

Would be nice to have a compromise sometimes... fun game while earning crystals.

of course you would say that your generalissmo, crystals mean nothing to you.

[wolverine848 13,097]

of course you would say that your generalissmo, crystals mean nothing to you.

Oh my.

 

What makes you think I don't need crystals? 

 

Does it look like I have a full garage? 

Do you understand what it costs to MU M3 equipment to just stay competitive?

 

Maybe - just maybe I like to use tactics and strategy in some of the battles I play. Crowded maps where you die every 20 seconds kind of prevents that.

 

Try again.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

of course you would say that your generalissmo, crystals mean nothing to you.

I think you have the wrong idea here, just because he's a gissmo doesn't mean he's at the legend ranks yet. So he still has to make the best out of his crystals earnings, which is literally his last chance to play with lower modifications.

 

Anyway, sorry for going off topic, please, continue the discussion of the topic.

[Fresh 2,390]

The whole point of the DM battles is to find a suitable location to kill and not die. It is very hard since it is a free for all battle. Here is an example, there is no need to decrease the amount of players in DM battles.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

The whole point of the DM battles is to find a suitable location to kill and not die. It is very hard since it is a free for all battle. Here is an example, there is no need to decrease the amount of players in DM battles.

Again, I totally agree again, if a player doesn't want to die over and over, the simplest thing to do is to create a pro battle and adjust the number of players that can be in the battle.

 

Now if they need to do their missions, all I can say is "good luck with that".

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=359549

---

Honestly, you are right at this point. The 'regular' battles are 'the only way' to make massive amount of players play in that battle if it is a unusual map as a pro-battle. Furthermore, regular battles cannot be edited and they always allow the max. amount of players there. In custom (pro) battles you can edit many things, as well as number of places (Max players) available for that battle. As you can see in the topic I stated above, you can read what about I wrote.  ;)

[Aunty_Entity 245]

I hear it's xpbp and xc these days :ph34r:

Still waiting for VT... :P Viking/Thunder...

[Aunty_Entity 245]

I like this idea somewhat.  On most maps, if they're fully populated I think they tend to get a bit crowded, but its not to far away from being ok.  If you shaved 2 from each team in team battles, where I have the most experience, then its very nice.  Presumably that would make 4 shaved from DM battles, but, Some of the small maps like sandbox, only want 2 shaved off them, at the most.

 

Aunty

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

I think it is not a good idea to do this in all gamemodes.

I also like to play with a limited amount of players (like kungur 6vs6) but I think this works only in higher ranks with well experienced players. In those ranks they switch autonomously between attack and defense; and in times of defense the defense of experienced players forms very fast and very well. They simply know the map and the game.

 

As lower ranks miss that experience and knowledge, they will have hard times, if there ain't enough players to fill the gaps on one side, while on the other side the defenders bulk up.

 

 

DM is some kind of exception to this, as there is no team coordination necessary.

It just has to be assured, that it does not turn into a full camper battle (extreme example: DM, Kungur, 4 players = sit, wait, decide for initiative, sneak up, get killed from across the map by someone with more patience). This would become boring. But with 10..12 players on Kungur the tides change.. suddenly you have not only a camper infront of you, but infront and besides you.. so chose and move well.

 

So I would think about it in DMs, while I would not do it in Team battles.

[wolverine848 13,097]

I think it is not a good idea to do this in all gamemodes.

I also like to play with a limited amount of players (like kungur 6vs6) but I think this works only in higher ranks with well experienced players. In those ranks they switch autonomously between attack and defense; and in times of defense the defense of experienced players forms very fast and very well. They simply know the map and the game.

 

As lower ranks miss that experience and knowledge, they will have hard times, if there ain't enough players to fill the gaps on one side, while on the other side the defenders bulk up.

 

 

DM is some kind of exception to this, as there is no team coordination necessary.

It just has to be assured, that it does not turn into a full camper battle (extreme example: DM, Kungur, 4 players = sit, wait, decide for initiative, sneak up, get killed from across the map by someone with more patience). This would become boring. But with 10..12 players on Kungur the tides change.. suddenly you have not only a camper infront of you, but infront and besides you.. so chose and move well.

 

So I would think about it in DMs, while I would not do it in Team battles.

Kunger usually not that crowded - big map.

 

Polygon, on the other hand...  will be interesting to see if the expanded map is actually implemented.

 

But - why do they insist on all 10 vs 10?

Why not smaller numbers on small and medium-sized maps?

Some of us still like tactics and strategy.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

Kunger usually not that crowded - big map.

 

Polygon, on the other hand...  will be interesting to see if the expanded map is actually implemented.

 

But - why do they insist on all 10 vs 10?

Why not smaller numbers on small and medium-sized maps?

Some of us still like tactics and strategy.

If I would have to guess, I would say that 10vs10 makes it less critical if a player or two leave from one team.

in 10vs10 playing 10vs8 until the matchmaking fills someone in, is bearable.

in 6vs6 playing 6vs4 is .. well you are doomed.

[Maf 32,339]

Completed

 

Most maps have been re-designed to be suitable for 10 vs 10 gameplay, so it shouldn't be too crowded now. Tanki Online is a dynamic MOBA, so by default the gameplay assumes fairly crowded maps where there's always someone to shoot at.

 

If you don't like that kind of gameplay, there's always PRO battles, in which you can set a limit for the maximum number of players in a map to as low as 2.