invalid Matchmaking: deserter penalties and loyalty perks

[jaydevjaydev 343]

IDEA IS BEING REWORKED

 

Players don't like to be sent as reinforcements . The main reason for reinforcement is that other players leave the match which causes the system to send player reinforcements.

 

So there should be some penalties for leaving battles and bonus perks for being a player which plays full battles.

 

There are 3 categories depending on your last 10 battles played:-

 

DESERTER:  In case your % battles completed are 40% or less , you will be put under deserters. Deserters are forced to play with other deserters.

 

Loyals: In case your % battles completed are 61%-100% , you will be put under Loyals. Loyals do not play with deserters unless there are less deserters to match. They get an additional bonus in case they are sent as reinforcements

 

 Tankers : Who do not come in any of the above category would feel it same as the current MMS system.

 

NOTE: Tankers and loyals are different only in terms of bonus , MMS will consider them as one while putting them in battles

 

PENALTIES & BONUS

 

Deserter: A deserter will be matched with other deserters. Deserters can play normally in these games. However leaving any game would penalize you . --SUGGESTIONS NEEDED--

Note: In case deserters are less they are sent in battles of Tankers and Loyals. Leaving such battles need a heavier penalty 

--SUGGESTIONS NEEDED--

 

Loyals: Special bonus on being sent as reinforcements - SUGGESTIONS NEEDED

 

[Maf 32,348]

Valid

 

Idea is decent, but needs different values. It's not that hard to stay in battles with the current fund distribution, so the "loyals" category is not necessary, IMHO. However, there could be another category for players, who never (or rarely) leave battles even when they are put into a half-finished game. In those cases the players really do deserve a bonus.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

I like the basic idea, but I think the concept as it is now has a few drawbacks:

 

• to use deserters mainly as reinforcement, will make them face even more battles which they would like to leave. This is self propelling.
• players that quit games right away because of an unliked map, will be badly punished for that, even if they play bravely in their beloved maps
• I doubt that there is enough space available, so that loyals will be never sent as reinforcements. So this will lead to an increase of the waiting time for those group.

[CabbageRoll 3,018]

So yeah look at this, is it more useful to:

1.Leave battle and be deserter, release place for new player to come

2.Do something else and smash P every 2 minutes

[LittleWillie 3,199]

Penalties for leaving a bad game. The forum has not seen this suggestion before. Not above 1,000 time before at least.

 

Dress up a pig and it remains a pig.

[LittleWillie 3,199]

So yeah look at this, is it more useful to:

1.Leave battle and be deserter, release place for new player to come

2.Do something else and smash P every 2 minutes

Agreed.  Punitive measure always are the first idea for some people. Punish punish punish. That doesn't fly well in a hobby. Well, most hobbies outside of Pulp Fiction back rooms.

 

The better approach to hopeless battles is to realize they are hopeless. In chess this is done by tipping over one's king. It is the merciful thing to do.  TO can implement something like that either from player selection or an automatic test in the MM system.

[sensei_tanker 3,098]

[SIMOKO1000 14]

How bout no.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Agreed.  Punitive measure always are the first idea for some people. Punish punish punish. That doesn't fly well in a hobby. Well, most hobbies outside of Pulp Fiction back rooms.

 

The better approach to hopeless battles is to realize they are hopeless. In chess this is done by tipping over one's king. It is the merciful thing to do.  TO can implement something like that either from player selection or an automatic test in the MM system.

There are a number of people that don't understand the concept of "concede".

 

Or they've never played chess.  Or monopoly. Or Risk. Or etc, etc, etc...

 

They insist on finishing everything to the bitter end. 

I assume they would execute any prisoners in a war, since surrendering is dishonorable.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

So you want to force players with m1s or m2s to face legends with m4s? And if they leave they lose 40% of the fund that they could have earned from the next battle? This is basically saying, that players with lesser equipment shall face against players with equipment that is 15x better.

[wolverine848 13,097]

So you want to force players with m1s or m2s to face legends with m4s? And if they leave they lose 40% of the fund that they could have earned from the next battle? This is basically saying, that players with lesser equipment shall face against players with equipment that is 15x better.

Not quite...

"DESERTER:  In case your % battles completed are 40% or less , you will be put under deserters."   Leave 6-in-10 battles = deserter.

 

Doubt that happens often - unless some low-rankers get terrible matches all the time.  (coughbattlegroupcough)

 

Punishing never works though.  Just have early termination for battles obviously out of hand.

[jaydevjaydev 343]

Under review

 

Idea is decent, but needs different values. It's not that hard to stay in battles with the current fund distribution, so the "loyals" category is not necessary, IMHO. However, there could be another category for players, who never (or rarely) leave battles even when they are put into a half-finished game. In those cases the players really do deserve a bonus.

I have made changes in the idea , I just remembered that increase in funds is not allowed, so I need suggestions on what bonus we can give.

 

 

I like the basic idea, but I think the concept as it is now has a few drawbacks:

 

• to use deserters mainly as reinforcement, will make them face even more battles which they would like to leave. This is self propelling.
• players that quit games right away because of an unliked map, will be badly punished for that, even if they play bravely in their beloved maps
• I doubt that there is enough space available, so that loyals will be never sent as reinforcements. So this will lead to an increase of the waiting time for those group.

 

 

1. Reinforcement idea is dropped , check the idea again

2. I believe that you are not sent on the *unliked map* 6 times in last 10 battles played. If you leave 6 times, then is the case when you become a deserter

3.Yep and that is why dropped reinforcement idea

So yeah look at this, is it more useful to:

1.Leave battle and be deserter, release place for new player to come

2.Do something else and smash P every 2 minutes

Reinforcement idea dropped , can you provide some suggestions on penalties which can't be bypassed with the deserters

 

 

 

 

How bout no.

Both of you , i have reworked the idea , check it.

 

So you want to force players with m1s or m2s to face legends with m4s? And if they leave they lose 40% of the fund that they could have earned from the next battle? This is basically saying, that players with lesser equipment shall face against players with equipment that is 15x better.

I believe that you are not sent in the *m4 legends battles* 6 times in last 10 battles played. If you leave 6 times, then is the case when you become a deserter

---------------------------------------------

[Delta_Rail 142]

So I cant leave a battle because its 9-3, the whole opposing team is M4 druggers with fully MUed Drones, meanwhile my team is just some plain M2s including my self, I think that would make even more players leave tanki, maybe they have to leave battle due to the main reason stated above, or maybe other reasons in IRL for example having angry parents barge in 

[Delta_Rail 142]

So you want to force players with m1s or m2s to face legends with m4s? And if they leave they lose 40% of the fund that they could have earned from the next battle? This is basically saying, that players with lesser equipment shall face against players with equipment that is 15x better.

Only ranks between lt.colonel and major general will understand our points, this new era of tanki, it is in favor of most buyers and really helps out people with ranks like commander, field marshall, general issimo, legend, etc; and the most negatively effected group is our ranks, this "suggestion" will put our ranks in more grief, and will probably end up in another gigantic loss in in players, tanki already lost a lot of people, and trust me, me, along with other ranks close to mine, probably feel very miserable about tanki right now if they dont buy

[sensei_tanker 3,098]

This update only benefits buyers. Non-buyers who often leave when they are being steamrolled by buyers will quit the game. Adding punishments to the game will guaranteed be an update hated by the players, therefore if we implement this, playerbase will be as tiny as a tic-tac.

[u812ic 1,629]

NO Penalties, Please!!! During the Tanki  War 1, I may have quit 6 out of 10 battles, because one's K/D was at stake. If I was put into a battle where I knew I was outpowered either by turrets or rank and I knew I would have a lot more deaths than kills, then I left the battle. I don't know if I left 6 in a row, but I know I left many. Outside of TW 1, I've never quit 6 in a row. But that's me. How about life's commitment plus a rash of bad luck with MMS? 

 

A player is running a small business from home. There are interruptions because of phone calls, customers ringing the doorbell, children need your attention (whether it be emotional, psychological or physical) and as a good parent, you know your children comes before Tanki. 

 

Don't forget MMS mismatch. You enter into a battle with less than 3 minutes left (happens quite often) and the score gap is so big, there is no way that gap can be breached in less than 3 minutes. Example: RGB score 8-0. All you can do is play TDM in RGB. How many crystals do you think you would acquire? Less than 100. 

 

Next match, you are the only one on the low end of the rank spectrum, battling Lt. Generals, Generals, Marshals and maybe a Field Marshal thrown in for good measure. The only one of the lowest rank. Do you stay or leave? I leave because I know I would not be an asset to my team. So I leave to make room for someone who would be more of an asset. 

 

Now go back to asaid player above. In 8 hours (work day) this player has logged into 10 battles and logged out of 6 for reasons mentioned above. Should this player be penalized for taking care of business, Kids and MMS mismatch? I think not. 

[r_Issimo2 1,495]

I have a better idea.

[Person_Random 4,991]

Well I like this idea but I don't.  What if I need to leave in the middle of battle?

[u812ic 1,629]

I have a better idea.

We-e-e-l-l-l-l let's hear it. I have better ideas, too, but none that Tanki would ever consider for various reasons. What's your better idea? Or start a new post with your better idea. 

[jaydevjaydev 343]

Well I like this idea but I don't.  What if I need to leave in the middle of battle?

You can leave 5 battles out of each 10 battles without any hesitation however leaving the 6th battle will put you in deserter. But wait , complete your next match and you will be on safer side again! 

 

NO Penalties, Please!!! During the Tanki  War 1, I may have quit 6 out of 10 battles, because one's K/D was at stake. If I was put into a battle where I knew I was outpowered either by turrets or rank and I knew I would have a lot more deaths than kills, then I left the battle. I don't know if I left 6 in a row, but I know I left many. Outside of TW 1, I've never quit 6 in a row. But that's me. How about life's commitment plus a rash of bad luck with MMS? 

 

A player is running a small business from home. There are interruptions because of phone calls, customers ringing the doorbell, children need your attention (whether it be emotional, psychological or physical) and as a good parent, you know your children comes before Tanki. 

 

Don't forget MMS mismatch. You enter into a battle with less than 3 minutes left (happens quite often) and the score gap is so big, there is no way that gap can be breached in less than 3 minutes. Example: RGB score 8-0. All you can do is play TDM in RGB. How many crystals do you think you would acquire? Less than 100. 

 

Next match, you are the only one on the low end of the rank spectrum, battling Lt. Generals, Generals, Marshals and maybe a Field Marshal thrown in for good measure. The only one of the lowest rank. Do you stay or leave? I leave because I know I would not be an asset to my team. So I leave to make room for someone who would be more of an asset. 

 

Now go back to asaid player above. In 8 hours (work day) this player has logged into 10 battles and logged out of 6 for reasons mentioned above. Should this player be penalized for taking care of business, Kids and MMS mismatch? I think not. 

Well if this thing happens in 6 out of 10 battles , then just play 1 of these 6 mismatched battles apart from the 4 battles which were matched properly. And I think I am planning to add an improvement to idea , you can leave battle within first 60-90 seconds of battle since MM is superquick in sending reinforcement in the initial stage of battle. Leaving a battle later should be penalized

AND yes YOU ARE TELLING MMS is 40% EFFICIENT which I don't think is correct/

 

So I cant leave a battle because its 9-3, the whole opposing team is M4 druggers with fully MUed Drones, meanwhile my team is just some plain M2s including my self, I think that would make even more players leave tanki, maybe they have to leave battle due to the main reason stated above, or maybe other reasons in IRL for example having angry parents barge in 

You can leave 5 battles out of each 10 battles without any hesitation however leaving the 6th battle will put you in deserter. But wait , complete your next match and you will be on safer side again! 

-----------

 

The motive of my idea is to remain in the battle till the end because even if one player leaves , everyone starts leaving. That "one player" must be a "deserter" but because of it more 2 ,3 players leave , make the game unbalanced , the opponents get an advantage and what we are left is with 2,3 players against a team of 8.

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

The motive of my idea is to remain in the battle till the end because even if one player leaves , everyone starts leaving. That "one player" must be a "deserter" but because of it more 2 ,3 players leave , make the game unbalanced , the opponents get an advantage and what we are left is with 2,3 players against a team of 8.

 

There will always be players leaving battles.  ALWAYS.

There are many reasons why players might leave a battle - some have nothing to do with choice.

 

As big a problem of players leaving is players staying in battle and doing nothing to help the team.

It's actually worse as they don't leave to create a vacancy for a player who wants to contribute.

 

Punishing players is not the answer.  It is never the answer.

The carrot works better than the stick.

 

Maybe you should campaign to have the WAR tweaked.

Currently they reward more stars to top scorer(s) of winning team than they do to top scorer(s) of losing team.

How does that make sense?

[jaydevjaydev 343]

 

Maybe you should campaign to have the WAR tweaked.

Currently they reward more stars to top scorer(s) of winning team than they do to top scorer(s) of losing team.

How does that make sense?

Well it is easy to get in the top position in a losing team(MOSTLY) since most of the players are not contributing enough to win.(I am not talking about games which are close like winning by 1-5 kills in tdm , by one flag in ctf or a few points in cp or rugby)

[wolverine848 13,097]

Well it is easy to get in the top position in a losing team(MOSTLY) since most of the players are not contributing enough to win.(I am not talking about games which are close like winning by 1-5 kills in tdm , by one flag in ctf or a few points in cp or rugby)

Players on winning team need less encouragement than players on losing team - they are much less likely to bolt.

Second or Third place players on "losing team" should be rewarded for staying.  WAR rewards do not o this.  Gives them exact same reward as last-place on losing team.

 

You are missing my point.  This is about encouraging players to stay in the battle.

[sensei_tanker 3,098]

Deserters already lose their battle fund and efficiency. 

[u812ic 1,629]

 

You can leave 5 battles out of each 10 battles without any hesitation however leaving the 6th battle will put you in deserter. But wait , complete your next match and you will be on safer side again! 

 

Well if this thing happens in 6 out of 10 battles , then just play 1 of these 6 mismatched battles apart from the 4 battles which were matched properly. And I think I am planning to add an improvement to idea , you can leave battle within first 60-90 seconds of battle since MM is superquick in sending reinforcement in the initial stage of battle. Leaving a battle later should be penalized

AND yes YOU ARE TELLING MMS is 40% EFFICIENT which I don't think is correct/

 

You can leave 5 battles out of each 10 battles without any hesitation however leaving the 6th battle will put you in deserter. But wait , complete your next match and you will be on safer side again! 

-----------

 

The motive of my idea is to remain in the battle till the end because even if one player leaves , everyone starts leaving. That "one player" must be a "deserter" but because of it more 2 ,3 players leave , make the game unbalanced , the opponents get an advantage and what we are left is with 2,3 players against a team of 8.

 

What if I get busy and lose count? Guess I'll have to keep a piece of paper handy to keep accurate count.

 

If those 2-3 players against 8 want to stay or leave, is their choice. Some players don't mind getting spawn killed, I suppose. For me, it gets rather boring. Respawn....die....respawn....die.....respawn....die. For some players, they leave an obvious losing battle with the note....You are better than me. I concede. Bye. OR...This team doesn't know teamwork from Shinola. They are individuals playing an individual battle. They don't know what is going on and could care less. (Example: Playing TDM in CP and all the cp points are in the opposing team colors. While this team plays TDM, the other team is collecting points.) Been there, done that, went around the block and did it again. Nope, not doing it again. Bye.

 

There used to be a lot of players who knew the meaning of teamwork, especially when we could communicate with each other and set battle plans. We can't do that anymore, so that learning curve is no longer available. I learned a lot about creative techniques back then. 

 

Even if there was a penalty imposed, it doesn't matter to some players. The "Deserters" will just come back to the forums complaining or actually giving good, reasonable facts about why they had to leave the battles and ask for the label to be lifted. Now comes the influx of emails to the help desk.