Pros vs Noobs

[lssimo 1,559]

Most battles are unbalanced and I think many would agree with me.

 

It feels like one side is full of stronger tanks and the other full of weaker tanks.

 

And in my case I feel like most of the time I end up with the weaker team.

 

Here is one example...

 

 

I'm not "justifying my failure". like someone said to someone else, by saying battles aren't balanced. I stayed in battle and fought back hard, finish tied for first place, but the enemy was just more powerful from beggining to end.

 

If you think I'm wrong or you are finding balanced battles, feel free to share your results.

Edited August 4, 2019 by lssimo

[Musa 5,352]

Umm why I don't see any nicknames?

[lssimo 1,559]

Umm why I don't see any nicknames?

 

You need glasses.

 

No, I don't think we need nicknames to see how bad some battles are.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

Umm why I don't see any nicknames?

He simply erased their names, probably to protect their info.

[Merovingian 656]

I feel that you are wrong. And yes I feel that you try to avoid responsibility of the loss, and sway it on your teammates.

What would be the point of having a system that create unbalanced team on purpose?

[TheCongoSpider 8,957]

What I've noticed is an imbalance in player equipment. Some teams may have more light hulls than the other, resulting in many easy one-shots. 

 

One team may have faster internet, load into the battle before others and capture early, changing the mindset of the losing team from "Try to win by capturing" to "Try to get as many points before we inevitably lose". 

 

One player may have taken the Overdrive box early and used it to their team's advantage rather than their personal advantage and the 2nd point repeats itself. 

 

But something that is very important in Legend battles is protection modules. I notice that MM lumps all of the Legend players with 30% protection, 1 protection module equipped or no protection modules at all on one team while the other has 50% on almost every player. And those 50% are on the turrets we have while the ones the weaker team has doesn't match the turrets the enemies use. 

 

Something like this:

 

 

  

 

 

I looked at the enemy team and almost all of them have 50% protection against our turrets , but look at the protection modules we have on my team. I look at this every time I'm placed in a Legend battle, and it's mostly the same. 

 

Sometimes, all of the pro players are put on one team and the other team is filled with players that can't turn their turret. Some teams have 2 professional Dictators that share their Overdrives with their teammates while the other has 3 Dictators that all use it on themselves. 

 

Sometimes, one team has many unaltered turrets while the others have all of the OP alterations equipped and that is an instant decider on who wins. 

 

---

 

Many factors, but they all add up.  

 

I feel that you are wrong. And yes I feel that you try to avoid responsibility of the loss, and sway it on your teammates.
What would be the point of having a system that create unbalanced team on purpose?

To fuel the incentive for retribution after losing? That's my take on it. 

[TheCongoSpider 8,957]

Further expanding on the difference in player equipment, I see many times where a player with upgraded equipment of a higher tier placed with players of lower tiers. For example, a player with M4s placed with players with M2/3 equipment, like this battle. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, he fits the rank requirement, but that GS allows him to compete with Legends and win. MM probably does that so the players can have easy kills regularly to fuel their desire to dominate, then they buy more to keep that desire sated. 

[The-Operator219 1,929]

I think the sudden influx of people actually trying is because of the War's "do this 100000000 times" missions, which require both kills and objectives. And also stealing Nuclear Power when you have a full overdrive charge. It's almost like these missions do nothing but promote rampant tryhardism in places it shouldn't be.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

All this goes back to the BRS.

[wolverine848 13,097]

I feel that you are wrong. And yes I feel that you try to avoid responsibility of the loss, and sway it on your teammates.

What would be the point of having a system that create unbalanced team on purpose?

ISSIMO never used the words "on purpose" - you did.

 

The point was, the system does not do enough to create balance.  Might be totally random.  But that can easily result in very unbalanced teams.

System should do whatever it can do avoid that to provide a decent battle experience for all players in the battle.

Edited August 3, 2019 by wolverine848

[Merovingian 656]

Umm why I don't see any nicknames?

I have the feeling that it is because he doesn't want the guys from his team to come here and ask why he call them noob. ;)

[Merovingian 656]

ISSIMO never used the words "on purpose" - you did.

 

The point was, the system does not do enough to create balance. Might be totally random. But that can easily result in very unbalanced teams.

System should do whatever it can do avoid that to provide a decent battle experience for all players in the battle.

Yes I did said that, I had the feeling it was related.

The system might do it randomly with no intent go create decent balance like it was random when we had the choice to join freely. If was purely on rank range entry. Maybe it is currently like that because that the variefy and randomness that the developers wants and not to have formatted battle.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Merovingian

[u812ic 1,629]

Over the short years, the Devs designed this game to prevent team work. I have no idea why they decided this would make everyone happy.

 

I wonder if this has anything to do with it:

 

This End User License Agreement (“EULA”) constitutes and governs the contractual relationship between the parties; APL Publishing Ltd,  a company duly registered under the laws of Malta bearing registration number C 85285, and having its registered address at 60/2 Melita Street, Valletta VLT 1122 (hereinafter referred to as “Tanki Online” or “Company”); and you, as the user, hereinafter referred to as “You” or “User”.

 

What happened to AlternativePlatform? Is Tanki under new ownership?

Edited August 4, 2019 by u812ic

[XxStriker 519]

Over the short years, the Devs designed this game to prevent team work. I have no idea why they decided this would make everyone happy.

 

I wonder if this has anything to do with it:

 

This End User License Agreement (“EULA”) constitutes and governs the contractual relationship between the parties; APL Publishing Ltd,  a company duly registered under the laws of Malta bearing registration number C 85285, and having its registered address at 60/2 Melita Street, Valletta VLT 1122 (hereinafter referred to as “Tanki Online” or “Company”); and you, as the user, hereinafter referred to as “You” or “User”.

 

What happened to AlternativePlatform? Is Tanki under new ownership?

I'm quite sure APL is the short form of AlternativaPLatform...  :mellow:

Edited August 4, 2019 by XxStriker

[lssimo 1,559]

@ Mods. Please change the title to "Unbalanced Battles", because the word 'Noobs' could be read in a negative way. Thanks

 

I feel that you are wrong. And yes I feel that you try to avoid responsibility of the loss, and sway it on your teammates.
What would be the point of having a system that create unbalanced team on purpose?

 

I don't think I'm responsible for my team's loss, I and another player tied for first place. It's not like I was multing or sabotaging my team, if that were the case I'd have ended last.

 

---

 

Now the opposite case, for me. Some stronger players in my team, me not in a Group, and I ended up first. I got killed once for being too greedy, and I was greedy because I needed to complete a Finish Top 3 mission.. and I was not checking the score.

 

 

 

---

 

You can say "what's the problem if you lose one battle and win another?".

 

The problem is that more battles I end up with the weaker team, and there's an explanation for that.

 

Me not playing in Groups increases my chances of ending up in the team with no Group.

 

Me not planting mults increases my chances of ending up with the mults.

 

Simple math.

[wolverine848 13,097]

@ Mods. Please change the title to "Unbalanced Battles", because the word 'Noobs' could be read in a negative way. Thanks

 

 

 

I don't think I'm responsible for my team's loss, I and another player tied for first place. It's not like I was multing or sabotaging my team, if that were the case I'd have ended last.

 

Now the opposite case, for me. Some stronger players in my team, me not in a Group, and I ended up first. I got killed once for being too greedy, and I was greedy because I needed to complete a Finish Top 3 mission.. and I was not checking the score.

 

 

 

You can say "what's the problem if you lose one battle and win another?".

 

The problem is that more battles I end up with the weaker team, and there's an explanation for that.

 

Me not playing in Groups increases my chances of ending up in the team with no Group.

 

Me not planting mults increases my chances of ending up with the mults.

 

Simple math.

But... but... groups only play against other groups... right?      :D  :lol:

[Guest]

What would be the point of having a system that create unbalanced team on purpose?

MM does not create balanced battles, but balances your wins and losses. According to Hazel, this increases playtime.

 

There's a reason why the devs keep responding "sometimes you win and sometimes you lose" every time someone says that MM is broken.

[Merovingian 656]

MM does not create balanced battles, but balances your wins and losses. According to Hazel, this increases playtime.

 

There's a reason why the devs keep responding "sometimes you win and sometimes you lose" every time someone says that MM is broken.

Surpass your limit.

And it is true the purpose of MM is to create battles of mixed ranks and as the human factor is not (and cannot be) weighted, you will end up with mixed players.

If one still play one still find interest, I guess it does provide good playtime afterall.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Merovingian

[Legacy 754]

"justifying your failure" :lol:

Well, it's impossible to win every match you play and do you think that tanki gives you noob teammates everytime on porpuse?

[lssimo 1,559]

This is what I'll be doing from now on:

 

In a fresh team battle I'll just wait and see how the rest of the team plays. If the enemy captures the flag or scores easily and my team mates didn't even try to defend, that will mean that my team is full of noobs and I'll quit. If my team starts defending or attacking well from the beginning, I'll stay.

 

"justifying your failure" :lol:
Well, it's impossible to win every match you play and do you think that tanki gives you noob teammates everytime on porpuse?

 

I think the system puts me with the noobs most of the time for some reason. Maybe they have to give buyers better teams so they are happy, who knows.

[Merovingian 656]

Hum, maybe because that is where you belong. Hé

Edited August 20, 2019 by Merovingian

[The-Operator219 1,929]

I see it the opposite way. Each team has a few decent players, a somewhat bad player, and a really good player. Sometimes by virtue of your experience and rank you count as the really good player. Are you going to flee with your tail between your legs like a puppy or stay and give your team a fighting chance? Unless there's a numerical imbalance I always stay. Even a loss is good experience for you, and leaving instills a quitter's mindset.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

I see it the opposite way. Each team has a few decent players, a somewhat bad player, and a really good player. Sometimes by virtue of your experience and rank you count as the really good player. Are you going to flee with your tail between your legs like a puppy or stay and give your team a fighting chance? Unless there's a numerical imbalance I always stay. Even a loss is good experience for you, and leaving instills a quitter's mindset.

I just stay because I know that if I leave and try to play the same game mode, it'll just put me back in the battle that I left.

[TheCongoSpider 8,957]

What about the ranks of the players? That indicates possible equipment they may have. I had this battle close to the server update some days ago:

 

 

 

That battle looks like a classic:

 

3,3,3,2,2,1,1,1

 

        VS

 

3,3,2,2,2,2,2,1

 

One team has an almost equal number of strong players and weak players while the other team has many members that are in between. And taking ranks that unlock equipment into account, it can be worse for either team. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

What about the ranks of the players? That indicates possible equipment they may have. I had this battle close to the server update some days ago:

 

 

 

 

 

 

That battle looks like a classic:

 

3,3,3,2,2,1,1,1

 

        VS

 

3,3,2,2,2,2,2,1

 

One team has an almost equal number of strong players and weak players while the other team has many members that are in between. And taking ranks that unlock equipment into account, it can be worse for either team. 

Hard to evaluate from end-of-battle screen-shot.  Battle does not seem balanced based on outcome.  Add up ranks on each side and it's not like you suggest above - the ratios favor blue - by a LOT.

Those 2 Marshals on Red did not contribute much - maybe they joined late? And Red was short AT LEAST 1 player - I suspect more than 1 during course of battle.

 

But for me, what stands out most was the Rank-spread.  ELEVEN?   :o    That's just pathetic.