Jump to content
EN
Play

Forum

The War Begins


r_Nives5
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nives, on 01 Aug 2018 - 16:06, said:snapback.png

We’ve analyzed your feedback from the first 2 days of the War and made some changes to how the stars are earned.

 
Now the stars in battles are earned like this:
 
  • 1st place on the winning team or in individual mode (DM/JGR) -- 3 stars;
  • 2nd and 3rd places on the winning team or in individual mode (DM/JGR) -- 2 stars;
  • 1st, 2nd and 3rd places on the losing team -- 2 stars;
  • Any other placement -- 1 star, with the requirement you have been active in battle.
 
Earning stars, and this means also earning prizes, has become easier!
 

 

QUESTION

 

I think "active" means a score of 100+.  Is this correct?  I just played two games on my alt account and in one match I had 80 and the other 90 (less than 100) and didn't get any stars for either match.  The 80 match I got in on the last three minutes of the losing team.  The 90 was a full 10 minute game in RGB on Massacre where I laid mines all over our base and didn't want to get killed...it worked, we won with me killing 3 tanks with my mines, but I came in last place with only a score of 90.

 

I didn't a star from either battle.

 

So is 100 score the threshold for "active"?  Or might not getting a star have something to do with being put into a partially completed battle?

Edited by ByeByeBye
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 pts is my best guess but TO will not tell us.

 

I just played two games where were were beat so fast I did not get to 100 pts. No strar. NExt game I got 103 pts and got a star. So now I have had two 103 pt games and got a star each time. So I would say 101 just to make sure TO did not set it to equal t or below100

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 pts is my best guess but TO will not tell us.

 

I just played two games where were were beat so fast I did not get to 100 pts. No strar. NExt game I got 103 pts and got a star. So now I have had two 103 pt games and got a star each time. So I would say 101 just to make sure TO did not set it to equal t or below100

OK, thanks, this is my guess too.  No more mine-field strategy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 pts is my best guess but TO will not tell us.

 

I just played two games where were were beat so fast I did not get to 100 pts. No strar. NExt game I got 103 pts and got a star. So now I have had two 103 pt games and got a star each time. So I would say 101 just to make sure TO did not set it to equal t or below100

it's 100

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guyyyss! Why are bears more in number then the other two factions. Any why are lions soo less?? This is so unfair

Bears are loosing to wolves .-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great that they widened the levels to earn stars...vry good for everyone and it makes staying in the game more attractive even if you are losing.

 

BUT...The criteria for "active in battle" needs to be adjusted also.  It looks like it is a score of 100 and this SOUNDS reasonable, but many times MM tosses you into a hopeless situation where half the battle is finished and you are the lowest rank.  It is bad enough to get chopped up like a salsa mix, but to add insult to injury if you stick it out, you probably won't get any stars. 

 

Sure six or seven kills sounds easy, but there are times, like when you are the ONLY M2 against all M3s and M4s, that you just can't kill seven tanks.  What the up shot of this is is that EVERYONE bails from the losing team even faster than before the war.  I came in 4th place on the losing team and got no stars...4th...because my score was terrible.  

 

If MM worked properly and actually matched players, it would be fine.  But while MM insists on tossing you into meat grinder battles half finished or more against players 7, 8, 10 ranks above you, the bar needs to be lowered for stars or there is absolutely no reason to EVER endure a partial battle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the minimum number of defending Stars we need to keep a territory that is not being attacked?

I think it should be just superior to the amount of stars gained by the attackers on that territory

im not sure what would happen if there is the same amount of stars tho...  :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[iMPORTANT - LUCKY ?]
I din't buy pass, i mean Booster<<Easy Stars>> pass. But the system gives me double stars sometimes :) 
Why ????
Anyone can explain it please....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how active players are but there should be about 14 - 21 turns. 

This is impossible. Not unlikely. impossible. The maximum number of turns is 12.

 

 

All the provinces added together generate 95 points each turn once they are all captured. At the end of t3 92 of the 95 will be captured and on turn 4 all 95 wil be in possession of one faction or another.

 

This means that as of turn 4 and every turn afterwards the average faction income will be over 30 per turn.

 

At the end of turn 3  the average accumulated score for each faction will be at or near 30.  

 

That leaves 270 pts to go.  Each faction will average  31.67 pts / turn. ---->   270 / 30 = 9.

 

therefore after turn 3 there can not be more than 9 more turns to play.

 

Conclusoin: The game cannot go longer than 12 turns.

 

End Turn 1 = all had 1 pt

End t2 = all 8 pts

End t3 =  AVERAGE will be at or near 30 pts  This is the 1st turn with conflict so there will be a litte difference between factions but not too much

 

End turn 4 average score > 60. Etc.

 

t

Edited by LittleWillie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[iMPORTANT - LUCKY ?]

I din't buy pass, i mean Booster<<Easy Stars>> pass. But the system gives me double stars sometimes :) 

Why ????

Anyone can explain it please....

They have changed it, Now like top 3 players on losing team gets 2 stars.

And 2nd, 3rd, 4th get 2 stars on winning team. I noticed that today as well..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite stupid. I scored double the other team's first place and 5 times my team's second place. Yet, because 6 of the people on my team couldn't even turn their turrets, my team lost. I got over half my team's kills, and still only got two measly stars. Please change the way stars are distributed.4MtnGWW.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is quite stupid. I scored double the other team's first place and 5 times my team's second place. Yet, because 6 of the people on my team couldn't even turn their turrets, my team lost. I got over half my team's kills, and still only got two measly stars. Please change the way stars are distributed.

 

Tanki devs never seem to actually THINK about what they're doing. It's just, "Hey, let's do this cool thing" and next thing you know, you have something REALLY stupid that doesn't work right (like MatchMaker) that completely screws up the game.

 

Why should "WAR" be any different?

 

 


Nives, on 01 Aug 2018 - 16:06, said:snapback.png

 

QUESTION



I think "active" means a score of 100+. Is this correct? I just played two games on my alt account and in one match I had 80 and the other 90 (less than 100) and didn't get any stars for either match. The 80 match I got in on the last three minutes of the losing team. The 90 was a full 10 minute game in RGB on Massacre where I laid mines all over our base and didn't want to get killed...it worked, we won with me killing 3 tanks with my mines, but I came in last place with only a score of 90.

I didn't a star from either battle.

So is 100 score the threshold for "active"? Or might not getting a star have something to do with being put into a partially completed battle?


This hidden requirement which was not disclosed at the beginning of WAR is an example of Tanki developer stupidity. While the steaming pile of excrement "MatchMaker" continues to stuff people into lost games on the losing side, the retch-worthy pile of goat vomit that is the "minimum score" requirement for WAR works quite nicely with MatchMaker to anally rape Tanki players who are doing the right thing.

 

 

1> wait fot a battle
2> MM put you in the losing team against players who are 4-5 levels above you
3> you try hard to make something in the battle
4> battle ends, your score is in the middle but still no stars for you
5> you press battle again while crying
6> return to point 1


MatchMaker is the single worst change to Tanki in the history of the known universe.

 

If the Devs had any brains, they'd get rid of it yesterday.

 

The scenario you describe is just another predictable consequence of a nasty and disgusting change to the game that most players have not yet fully recognized as anathema.

 

 

I have an idea:

 

The Star Counter in the game should read READY when the player has voted in the War site. If the player didn't vote it should read VOTE, and it could be a link that send you to the War site to vote.

 


Question:

 

Has the countdown clock being fixed? Because it was 1 hour ahead in the morning.


NO! No! No! No! No! NO!!!!

 

That would make sense and would therefore be against the Rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1> wait fot a battle

2> MM put you in the losing team against players who are 4-5 levels above you

3> you try hard to make something in the battle

4> battle ends, your score is in the middle but still no stars for you

5> you press battle again while crying

6> return to point 1

That's not true. MM does not always put you in the losing team. Sometimes yeah, it sends you in a battle with 5 minutes left, but it happens because there are not enough players online.

 

I played a few hours today. Most of the time, it sent me in battles with 10-9 minutes left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...