Game and Team Balance

[u812ic 1,629]

I've read a lot about the game not being balanced and the teams not being balanced. What I don't see is what is meant by balance. I'm sure different players have different ideas of what "balance" means to them. 

 

What is your beef...game balance or team balance?

 

Updates are here to stay. They may be tweaked, but they are not going away. MM is here to stay, drones and protections are here to stay. Everything you see in Tanki today is here for the duration. 

 

The question I pose to you is: If you were given the ability to balance the game or balance the teams without deleting what is already in place, what would you do? The Devs nerf and buff, so that's fair territory. If you think something added to the game that hasn't already been tried will help, let's hear it. They are not going to add more servers or split the community back to language specific servers. We've already been told "that ain't gonna happen." Personally, that's one of my biggest beefs.  

 

Be creative and be specific. I'm not looking for rants and raves, I can go anywhere on the forum to see that. I want to see intelligent discussions that are well thought out, reasoning behind your suggestions and how your suggestions would balance the game or balance the teams. 

 

I suggest lowering the gap between ranks would make battles more tolerable. Four ranks above is plenty. Captains battling Marshals and Field Marshals is extremely unbalanced. It's very difficult for M1s to compete against M3s. 

[Maf 32,307]

 

If you were given the ability to balance the game or balance the teams without deleting what is already in place, what would you do?

I'd probably implement some features that help the losing team catch up in an unfair game. CP does this pretty well, where even if you are losing 0-29 with 2 minutes left, you can still bring it back and win, and I've seen it happen. This, in my opinion, is what makes CP so much fun compared to some other modes.

 

So I'm talking about things like:

• Losing team gets overdrive quicker
• Larger team has restricted supplies
• Different equipment change times
• And perhaps some other similar ideas with the balance tag
  

 

I suggest lowering the gap between ranks would make battles more tolerable. Four ranks above is plenty. Captains battling Marshals and Field Marshals is extremely unbalanced. It's very difficult for M1s to compete against M3s.

I agree, but it's a compromise between waiting times and rank balance. If Tanki had, say, 10x more active players than now, then every battle would probably just have one or two ranks in it. But because the number of players is lower, MM has to group players with a larger rank range, otherwise the wait would be too long.

 

I'm sure they've done their analysis and came to the conclusion that more people prefer a less balanced battle as opposed to much longer waiting times, but it would be nice to perhaps also have a setting where you can choose whether you want shorter waiting time or more balanced ranks.

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

I'd probably implement some features that help the losing team catch up in an unfair game. CP does this pretty well, where even if you are losing 0-29 with 2 minutes left, you can still bring it back and win, and I've seen it happen. This, in my opinion, is what makes CP so much fun compared to some other modes.

 

So I'm talking about things like:

• Losing team gets overdrive quicker
• Larger team has restricted supplies
• Different equipment change times
• And perhaps some other similar ideas with the balance tag

 

 

I agree, but it's a compromise between waiting times and rank balance. If Tanki had, say, 10x more active players than now, then every battle would probably just have one or two ranks in it. But because the number of players is lower, MM has to group players with a larger rank range, otherwise the wait would be too long.

 

I'm sure they've done their analysis and came to the conclusion that more people prefer a less balanced battle as opposed to much longer waiting times, but it would be nice to perhaps also have a setting where you can choose whether you want shorter waiting time or more balanced ranks.

No one is asking for rank-range of 1-2.  But 8+ is just ridiculous.  It creates terrible battles which causes many players to abandon partial battles.

And part of Match-Makers MO is to drop players into empty slots in ongoing battles.  These slots are mostly empty because of unbalanced battles. Guess what the player dropped in here will do...

 

I really do not believe more ppl prefer less balanced battle in favor of less waiting time. 

There may be some impatient players but this is really a tool to sell supplies and equipment.

 

Waiting times can remain constant and rank-ranges dropped a bit if you move non-core (JUG, RGBY, ASSLT) modes to Pro-Battles.

Currently there are too many modes in MM for the # of available players. They are spread too thin.

 

If you have quality battles players will play more and stay in battles longer.  It is a positive-feedback-loop.

[u812ic 1,629]

•  
• Different equipment change times
•  

 

I clicked the link. Why would a player want to change equipment every 3 minutes? Before going into battle, I pick the turret and hull I want to use for that particular mode or mission. It's a rare occasion that I change equipment at all. Sometimes I'll change protection modules. For instance, if I have protection against Magnum and there are any Magnums in the battle, I change it to another module. Is that what you are referring to?

 

 

 

 

 

No one is asking for rank-range of 1-2.  But 8+ is just ridiculous.  It creates terrible battles which causes many players to abandon partial battles.

And part of Match-Makers MO is to drop players into empty slots in ongoing battles.  These slots are mostly empty because of unbalanced battles. Guess what the player dropped in here will do...

 

I really do not believe more ppl prefer less balanced battle in favor of less waiting time. 

There may be some impatient players but this is really a tool to sell supplies and equipment.

 

Waiting times can remain constant and rank-ranges dropped a bit if you move non-core (JUG, RGBY, ASSLT) modes to Pro-Battles.

Currently there are too many modes in MM for the # of available players. They are spread too thin.

 

If you have quality battles players will play more and stay in battles longer.  It is a positive-feedback-loop.

 

On my lower accounts, I think I would wait a little longer for a smaller gap. 

 

I diffidently would move JUG, RGB and ASL to Pro battles. These seem to be the least popular modes.  

[u812ic 1,629]

Another thing I think would be helpful is giving the MM a little more intelligence in assigning players to losing battles with extremely wide gaps with less than 2 minutes until the end of the battle. Since there is such a big emphasis on stars, this would make better sense. There is no way 3 players entering into a battle with a wide score gap can possible make a difference in the outcome with so little time left. Many players leave such battles anyway, so why put them there in the first place?   

[wolverine848 13,097]

Another thing I think would be helpful is giving the MM a little more intelligence in assigning players to losing battles with extremely wide gaps with less than 2 minutes until the end of the battle. Since there is such a big emphasis on stars, this would make better sense. There is no way 3 players entering into a battle with a wide score gap can possible make a difference in the outcome with so little time left. Many players leave such battles anyway, so why put them there in the first place?   

And... the threshold needs to be dropped even more.

 

I've seen battles end with half (or more) of losing team getting squat.  They participated, stayed to the end - and were not rewarded.

Guess what - those on winning team only get stars because they have someone to play against.  No opponents - no battle - no stars.

 

Threshold should be more akin to 10 points per minute played.  In battle entire time? 70 pts.

In battle 5 minutes?  50 pts.

Thrown in battle by MM with just 2 min left?  1 kill should suffice.

 

GIVE THE PLAYERS A REASON TO STAY IN THE BATTLE.

Edited March 27, 2019 by wolverine848

[GorgoBlesk 831]

1. Slower energy consumption for Isida

2. Incendiary Fire damage nerf

3. +10% range for Twins and Rico

4. -25% impact force for Twins and Rico

5. Incendiary Vulcan nerf

6. More impact force for Assault Smoky

7. Smoky critical hit rebalance

8. Splash damage rebalance

9. 100% penetration for every Rail

10. Shaft arcade shot rebalance

11. +100% base speed of Striker rockets

12. -25% acceleration of Striker rockets

13. +10% weight for Mammoth

14. Better hitboxes for hulls

[u812ic 1,629]

And... the threshold needs to be dropped even more.

 

I've seen battles end with half (or more) of losing team getting squat.  They participated, stayed to the end - and were not rewarded.

Guess what - those on winning team only get stars because they have someone to play against.  No opponents - no battle - no stars.

 

Threshold should be more akin to 10 points per minute played.  In battle entire time? 70 pts.

In battle 5 minutes?  50 pts.

Thrown in battle by MM with just 2 min left?  1 kill should suffice.

 

GIVE THE PLAYERS A REASON TO STAY IN THE BATTLE.

I've been in some of those battles. I start at the very beginning and the opposing team takes over the battlefield very quickly. In the end, I've gotten 0 stars for my efforts. The only reason to stay is if I have a mission to finish (x number) battles in (whatever) mode. That's my only incentive.

[u812ic 1,629]

 

1. Slower energy consumption for Isida

2. Incendiary Fire damage nerf

3. +10% range for Twins and Rico

4. -25% impact force for Twins and Rico

5. Incendiary Vulcan nerf

6. More impact force for Assault Smoky

7. Smoky critical hit rebalance

8. Splash damage rebalance

9. 100% penetration for every Rail

10. Shaft arcade shot rebalance

11. +100% base speed of Striker rockets

12. -25% acceleration of Striker rockets

13. +10% weight for Mammoth

14. Better hitboxes for hulls

 

Please explain what type of rebalance in #s 7, 8, 10. Be a little more specific.

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

1. Slower energy consumption for Isida

2. Incendiary Fire damage nerf

3. +10% range for Twins and Rico

4. -25% impact force for Twins and Rico

5. Incendiary Vulcan nerf

6. More impact force for Assault Smoky

7. Smoky critical hit rebalance

8. Splash damage rebalance

9. 100% penetration for every Rail

10. Shaft arcade shot rebalance

11. +100% base speed of Striker rockets

12. -25% acceleration of Striker rockets

13. +10% weight for Mammoth

14. Better hitboxes for hulls

 

 

I second the need for elaboration on Smoky critical...

 

Also 11 & 12... what is the net effect?  The missiles are quite slow and currently can be avoided by faster hulls on SB.

[Maf 32,307]

I clicked the link. Why would a player want to change equipment every 3 minutes? 

Yeah, good point. That idea is quite outdated as it was posted back when the equipment change cooldown was 5 minutes. But changing equipment is a valuable feature at higher ranks, where most players have near-full garages and are able to choose the best turret and modules based on the enemy's turrets and modules.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

I would bring back the battle termination system when teams are unbalanced by a ratio of at least 5 to 3 and the feature that allows you to stay in the battle after it has ended.

[u812ic 1,629]

I would bring back the battle termination system when teams are unbalanced by a ratio of at least 5 to 3 and the feature that allows you to stay in the battle after it has ended.

At first there wasn't an auto-termination feature. The battles were 30 minutes long and if the other team left you could either wait out the 30 minutes or quit and lose the crystals you earned in that battle. Some waits were were 15 or 20 minutes. Enough players complained and the auto-termination feature was added. Then the battles were reduced to 15 minutes and players felt cheated out of crystals they could have earned had the battle played out. So, the auto-termination was removed. Now that the battles are 7 minutes long, the Devs don't think it's necessary to bring it back. 

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

At first there wasn't an auto-termination feature. The battles were 30 minutes long and if the other team left you could either wait out the 30 minutes or quit and lose the crystals you earned in that battle. Some waits were were 15 or 20 minutes. Enough players complained and the auto-termination feature was added. Then the battles were reduced to 15 minutes and players felt cheated out of crystals they could have earned had the battle played out. So, the auto-termination was removed. Now that the battles are 7 minutes long, the Devs don't think it's necessary to bring it back.

 

So you're basically saying the people that are often in the winning team were butt hurt because they didn't get to spawn kill the other team longer?

[CooperO 7,956]

I'd probably implement some features that help the losing team catch up in an unfair game. CP does this pretty well, where even if you are losing 0-29 with 2 minutes left, you can still bring it back and win, and I've seen it happen. This, in my opinion, is what makes CP so much fun compared to some other modes.

 

So I'm talking about things like:

• Losing team gets overdrive quicker
• Larger team has restricted supplies
• Different equipment change times
• And perhaps some other similar ideas with the balance tag

I would like to nuance this a bit. While I agree with the second point being a fair measure, I do not agree with the first one, at least not entirely. It's also the reason I have my reservations about the CP scoring system.

I don't think we should strive for perfect balance (team balance that is) in the first place. If we were to do that, then the incentive to try your hardest, improve your skills, grow your garage etc. will become far less. If there are all kinds of mechanics in place to penalize the winning team in favor of the losing team simply because the losing team is losing, then what's the point of really trying? In CP you try your hardest to get ahead of the other team and secure the win, only for it to be taken away in the last minute because the losing team can catch up so easily if even one little thing goes wrong in your team. That doesn't really seem fair to me either.

So, instead of putting restrictions on the winning team, I'd rather see an improved way of distributing players over the teams. Something like a rating that takes into account battle performance as well aside from just rank. I don't even think wider rank brackets are a cause of imbalance between teams IF the ranks are evenly distributed. Whether it's fun for the low ranks is an entirely different discussion though.

It'd also be great if equipment could be taken into account, but unfortunately that can easily be sabotaged.

 

I also agree with @wolverine848, players in the losing team need an incentive to stay. Nowadays losing a game doesn't mean a bad crystal reward at the end (compared to score and compared to the winning team), but if one team is far stronger than the other team, players will leave. That makes the balance even worse, and that is where the idea to restrict the larger team's supplies for example comes in. Or giving the smaller team overdrive quicker.

 

Little take home message: there are pros and cons for pretty much all possible measures to 'improve' balance and the question is how fixed do we really want to have the outcome of battles and how fair do we want to make it for winning and losing teams/players?

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

I would like to nuance this a bit. While I agree with the second point being a fair measure, I do not agree with the first one, at least not entirely. It's also the reason I have my reservations about the CP scoring system.

I don't think we should strive for perfect balance (team balance that is) in the first place. If we were to do that, then the incentive to try your hardest, improve your skills, grow your garage etc. will become far less. If there are all kinds of mechanics in place to penalize the winning team in favor of the losing team simply because the losing team is losing, then what's the point of really trying? In CP you try your hardest to get ahead of the other team and secure the win, only for it to be taken away in the last minute because the losing team can catch up so easily if even one little thing goes wrong in your team. That doesn't really seem fair to me either.

So, instead of putting restrictions on the winning team, I'd rather see an improved way of distributing players over the teams. Something like a rating that takes into account battle performance as well aside from just rank. I don't even think wider rank brackets are a cause of imbalance between teams IF the ranks are evenly distributed. Whether it's fun for the low ranks is an entirely different discussion though.

It'd also be great if equipment could be taken into account, but unfortunately that can easily be sabotaged.

 

I also agree with @wolverine848, players in the losing team need an incentive to stay. Nowadays losing a game doesn't mean a bad crystal reward at the end (compared to score and compared to the winning team), but if one team is far stronger than the other team, players will leave. That makes the balance even worse, and that is where the idea to restrict the larger team's supplies for example comes in. Or giving the smaller team overdrive quicker.

 

Little take home message: there are pros and cons for pretty much all possible measures to 'improve' balance and the question is how fixed do we really want to have the outcome of battles and how fair do we want to make it for winning and losing teams/players?

 

This is why I don't play team battles except for missions, because computers will often make mistakes, and a dev, admin or mod manually trying to balance the teams will take too long and too much time out of their life.

 

And we can't just go back to the old system, because many will just try to get a spot into the winning team.

 

Team balance is a very sensitive thing, one slip, and it can easily turn into a blowout.

[u812ic 1,629]

Overdrive between the winning teams and losing teams needs to be tweaked, a lot. 

 

This is taken from the WIKI:  Overdrive begins to charge slowly after you have joined the battle. Deaths and weapon changing don’t interrupt or reset this constant charging. You can speed up the charging by earning battle points from killing enemies, healing your teammates with Isida, capturing flags and points. 

 

This is where Overdrive fails. It's completely dependent on the players' activity during battle. If the winning team is spawn killing early in the battle, the losing team has very little chance of recovering. When being spawn killed your only activity in battle is spawn and die, spawn and die. Dying is not listed as part of the activities that will increase the chances of getting Overdrive. 

 

If a losing team is to have a fair chance at recouping, then give them a the tools to do so. I think if a losing team is getting spawn killed or are OP'ed by the opposing team, then the Overdrive cooldown should be sped up to give them a fighting chance. Make dying one of the activities needed to speed up Overdrive. Yes, yes, I know this can be easily exploited. A mechanism can be implemented to sense when a team is in deep trouble. When they are dying less as a team, or the sensor senses the team is on its way to recovery, then the cooldown decreases back to normal. 

 

Think back to the times when you were on the losing team and on the winning team. On the losing team, how many players have a white star over their tanks? Very few if any at all. Now look at the winning team. How many have a white star over their tanks? Nearly everyone.  

[wolverine848 13,097]

Overdrive between the winning teams and losing teams needs to be tweaked, a lot. 

 

 

 

This is taken from the WIKI:  Overdrive begins to charge slowly after you have joined the battle. Deaths and weapon changing don’t interrupt or reset this constant charging. You can speed up the charging by earning battle points from killing enemies, healing your teammates with Isida, capturing flags and points. 

 

This is where Overdrive fails. It's completely dependent on the players' activity during battle. If the winning team is spawn killing early in the battle, the losing team has very little chance of recovering. When being spawn killed your only activity in battle is spawn and die, spawn and die. Dying is not listed as part of the activities that will increase the chances of getting Overdrive. 

 

If a losing team is to have a fair chance at recouping, then give them a the tools to do so. I think if a losing team is getting spawn killed or are OP'ed by the opposing team, then the Overdrive cooldown should be sped up to give them a fighting chance. Make dying one of the activities needed to speed up Overdrive. Yes, yes, I know this can be easily exploited. A mechanism can be implemented to sense when a team is in deep trouble. When they are dying less as a team, or the sensor senses the team is on its way to recovery, then the cooldown decreases back to normal. 

 

Think back to the times when you were on the losing team and on the winning team. On the losing team, how many players have a white star over their tanks? Very few if any at all. Now look at the winning team. How many have a white star over their tanks? Nearly everyone.

 

 

I've posted this many times in the past...

 

OverDrive has the effect of turning slightly unbalanced battles into very unbalanced battles. 

 

OverDrive is a postive-feedback-loop.  The strong just keep getting stronger.

[GorgoBlesk 831]

I second the need for elaboration on Smoky critical...

 

Also 11 & 12... what is the net effect? The missiles are quite slow and currently can be avoided by faster hulls on SB.

Smoky crits are too OP at low ranks. For all M-levels, crit chance should be fixed at 10% or 12,5% and it should always do 1,75* damage of an average normal shot.

 

Net effect of my Striker rebalance? Better at medium range, worse at long range (it has no weak damage, unlike Thunder and Smoky), more predictable.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Smoky crits are too OP at low ranks. For all M-levels, crit chance should be fixed at 10% or 12,5% and it should always do 1,75* damage of an average normal shot.

 

Net effect of my Striker rebalance? Better at medium range, worse at long range (it has no weak damage, unlike Thunder and Smoky), more predictable.

Smoky crits are powerful at low ranks yes - but - the % is low.  Wouldn't be end of world if m0 and m1 damage was dropped a bit.

Fixed at 10%-12.5%?  Too low at upper ranks.  Much too random and player has to rely more on luck.  That just won't fly.

 

Missiles... buff "Min projectile speed" but lower "Shell acceleration time"?

Your suggestion might end up nerfing both "Shell acceleration time" and "Max projectile speed"

Maybe a better solution is to raise "Min projectile speed" and lower "Max projectile speed" slightly.

 

But really...

If a player can't currently avoid a missile at long range that player needs to work on awareness and/or driving skills.

[u812ic 1,629]

 

But really...

If a player can't currently avoid a missile at long range that player needs to work on awareness and/or driving skills.

There's a couple factors involved, here. Speed of tank and lag. Speed: I use Titan mostly. I can see the salvo coming and I try to duck out of the way, but the rockets are a bit faster than Titan. Lag: In the heat of battle, sometimes a lag is not perceivable until split timing is necessary. There have been many times I've seen a salvo or single rocket coming and duck behind a building. According to my camera, I'm well behind the building but I still get a solid hit. Lag has nothing to do with skill or speed, it's just something we have to put up with.

 

At long distance, Striker rockets used to have a homing device and will curve slightly towards a tank if it slips behind a building. I've killed a few that way because the enemy tank didn't duck far enough.  Does it still have that effect?

[wolverine848 13,097]

There's a couple factors involved, here. Speed of tank and lag. Speed: I use Titan mostly. I can see the salvo coming and I try to duck out of the way, but the rockets are a bit faster than Titan. Lag: In the heat of battle, sometimes a lag is not perceivable until split timing is necessary. There have been many times I've seen a salvo or single rocket coming and duck behind a building. According to my camera, I'm well behind the building but I still get a solid hit. Lag has nothing to do with skill or speed, it's just something we have to put up with.

 

At long distance, Striker rockets used to have a homing device and will curve slightly towards a tank if it slips behind a building. I've killed a few that way because the enemy tank didn't duck far enough.  Does it still have that effect?

Throw out lag - everyone suffers from that and it affects every weapon.

 

Heavy hulls... well yes... they are prime targets for Striker because... they are slow and easily locked on.  Hopefully your protection module helps you survive.  No module?  R.I.P.

 

The missiles still have lateral movement - but - if target ducks behind a wall/building and if flush against it there is a good chance the missiles just hit harmlessly against the wall.  On the other hand, if target keeps moving beyond the wall there is a chance the missiles follow and hit.

[u812ic 1,629]

Throw out lag - everyone suffers from that and it affects every weapon.

 

Heavy hulls... well yes... they are prime targets for Striker because... they are slow and easily locked on.  Hopefully your protection module helps you survive.  No module?  R.I.P.

 

The missiles still have lateral movement - but - if target ducks behind a wall/building and if flush against it there is a good chance the missiles just hit harmlessly against the wall.  On the other hand, if target keeps moving beyond the wall there is a chance the missiles follow and hit.

Yeah, I know everyone suffers from it and nothing can be done. I just threw that in. 

 

I have Striker module and can survive a salvo that isn't boosted with a DD, but the next one will take me out. 

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

Yeah, I know everyone suffers from it and nothing can be done. I just threw that in. 

 

I have Striker module and can survive a salvo that isn't boosted with a DD, but the next one will take me out. 

Ha! M4 Cyclone vs M4 Titan Orka.... saps 88% of your HP of in average. Or 3,520 average damage per salvo. You can survive, but won't last long boi!

[C.O.N.Q.U.E.R.O.R 3,845]

Increased crystal income from battles = better equipment + more incentive to stay in battles = better battles