Declined Place people in MM battles according to GS And not ranks

[BouDy 115]

Hi

I am field marshal and i have 8K GS , i've noticed while playing that in the battle i meet People with 9K GS or 7K GS , and i think it's not enough to have a good balance with this.

So I've decided to give you this idea , you can remove rank limits from MM , and instead place GS limit , so if i am 8000 GS , i'll be placed with a battle full of 8K GS.

Even if a rank like brigadier have it , he needs to be replaced with people that has his same GS , so he'll be replaced with me instead of being replaced with m2 brigadiers .. 

 

So , for now players are being placed according to their rank , and this is not quite fair enough , some brigadiers have m3 bought from shop or m4, while others just have m2 .. so if a brigadier have M4 then he has 9K GS so he needs to replaced with 9K GS Legend ranks.

 

I've better recommend to remove rank limits , and make the MM distribution depend on the GS ..

While GS also need to be applied for groups , for example i have 8K GS so my friend needs to have also around 8K GS..

With this, the amount of domination battles will be reduced and simply the battle will be more exciting and teams will have the same power too.

 

What do you guys think about this ?

 

Actually if the Current MM battles are placing according to GS , then you need to make the GS limit very small , so for example if i have 8K GS , all of the battle will have around 8K GS .. but for now i see 7K GS and 9K Gs while playing and this might not be fair sometimes..

[Maf 32,857]

Declined

 

GS is not a good enough indicator to be used as a sole value for team balance. You can have players with 9999 GS, but if they have unfitting modules, or they change their tank to a weaker one, then the GS won't help them much. On the other hand. 1000 points of GS difference isn't that much, while limiting it so that only players with around 8000 GS can be in your battle would cause wait times to increase substantially.

 

MM already takes GS into account, but also uses a number of other factors for balance. According to Hazel Rah, the balancing system works just as intended, but it's possible that other improvements will be made in the future.

[Zekrom 331]

 

 

Declined

 

GS is not a good enough indicator to be used as a sole value for team balance. You can have players with 9999 GS, but if they have unfitting modules, or they change their tank to a weaker one, then the GS won't help them much. On the other hand. 1000 points of GS difference isn't that much, while limiting it so that only players with around 8000 GS can be in your battle would cause wait times to increase substantially.

 

MM already takes GS into account, but also uses a number of other factors for balance. According to Hazel Rah, the balancing system works just as intended, but it's possible that other improvements will be made in the future.

 

Hi

I am field marshal and i have 8K GS , i've noticed while playing that in the battle i meet People with 9K GS or 7K GS , and i think it's not enough to have a good balance with this.

So I've decided to give you this idea , you can remove rank limits from MM , and instead place GS limit , so if i am 8000 GS , i'll be placed with a battle full of 8K GS.

Even if a rank like brigadier have it , he needs to be replaced with people that has his same GS , so he'll be replaced with me instead of being replaced with m2 brigadiers .. 

 

So , for now players are being placed according to their rank , and this is not quite fair enough , some brigadiers have m3 bought from shop or m4, while others just have m2 .. so if a brigadier have M4 then he has 9K GS so he needs to replaced with 9K GS Legend ranks.

 

I've better recommend to remove rank limits , and make the MM distribution depend on the GS ..

While GS also need to be applied for groups , for example i have 8K GS so my friend needs to have also around 8K GS..

With this, the amount of domination battles will be reduced and simply the battle will be more exciting and teams will have the same power too.

 

What do you guys think about this ?

 

Actually if the Current MM battles are placing according to GS , then you need to make the GS limit very small , so for example if i have 8K GS , all of the battle will have around 8K GS .. but for now i see 7K GS and 9K Gs while playing and this might not be fair sometimes..

 

 

 

MM already places the people with no alterations against people with alterations. Also, GS also can make people with an animated paint, XT skin and a different-from-default shot color get up to 9k GS, even know their "actual GS" is at 8900 or something. btw i have faced M2s with over 300 higher GS (not bragging, but listing the facts) and still won, which proves that GS is irrelevant.

[Maf 32,857]

MM already places the people with no alterations against people with alterations. 

What do alterations have to do with this? They're meant to be balanced. Having an alteration does not (or at least should not) make you more powerful and there are multiple turrets which are, in my opinion, better in their stock form rather than with any alteration.

[BouDy 115]

Declined

 

GS is not a good enough indicator to be used as a sole value for team balance. You can have players with 9999 GS, but if they have unfitting modules, or they change their tank to a weaker one, then the GS won't help them much. On the other hand. 1000 points of GS difference isn't that much, while limiting it so that only players with around 8000 GS can be in your battle would cause wait times to increase substantially.

 

MM already takes GS into account, but also uses a number of other factors for balance. According to Hazel Rah, the balancing system works just as intended, but it's possible that other improvements will be made in the future.

Anyway , there is still a problem .. I think MM needs some improvements , There is a lot of domination in battles , especially in Control Points Mode and the whole loser team can't even get 70xp per battle so at least the 1st and 2nd only get stars and the others get 0 stars.

[Maf 32,857]

Anyway , there is still a problem .. I think MM needs some improvements , There is a lot of domination in battles , especially in Control Points Mode and the whole loser team can't even get 70xp per battle so at least the 1st and 2nd only get stars and the others get 0 stars.

According to Hazel Rah this may actually be an intentional mechanic. He says that having battles be 100% balanced is tedious for most players, causing them to play less. For this reason the MM balance is intentionally not perfect in order to mix some "blowouts" and total domination rounds along with difficult, fair matches.

[TheCongoSpider 9,049]

Didn't @OKDad70 go into detail many times as to why GS being the main filter is bad? Somewhere on the forum, he did. 

[wolverine848 13,152]

According to Hazel Rah this may actually be an intentional mechanic. He says that having battles be 100% balanced is tedious for most players, causing them to play less. For this reason the MM balance is intentionally not perfect in order to mix some "blowouts" and total domination rounds along with difficult, fair matches.

This is a load of crap.   I have a really, really hard time believing anyone above the age of 7 finds "balanced battled" tedious.

 

I believe H-R said that - I just don't believe it's indicative of actual peoples opinions.

 

The reason TO wants unbalanced battles is to encourage buying with $$.  This would actually make sense.

[Maf 32,857]

I just don't believe it's indicative of actual peoples opinions.

It's not about opinions. It's about your subconscious attitude towards the game. I have a hard time believing it too, but I think I know how it works.

 

If you have a bunch of even, balanced battles, you enjoy every one of them and end up satisfied after a fairly small amount - let's say 5-7 rounds. Then you feel content about the play session and leave. But the target for any business is to keep people using the service (in this case playing the game) for as long as possible, so that they raise the number of online users and spend more of their in-game resources. So if your battles aren't all balanced, you are likely going to be left unsatisfied longer, so you are more likely to spend more time in the game in order to play "just one more battle", hoping that will be the perfect battle you'll enjoy.

 

It also adds some variety to your play session, stimulating the brain more and helping to keep you interested.

 

I want to emphasise that this is just my theory and I don't know what the actual logic is behind intentionally skewing balance, but I think this is it.

[wolverine848 13,152]

It's not about opinions. It's about your subconscious attitude towards the game. I have a hard time believing it too, but I think I know how it works.

 

If you have a bunch of even, balanced battles, you enjoy every one of them and end up satisfied after a fairly small amount - let's say 5-7 rounds. Then you feel content about the play session and leave. But the target for any business is to keep people using the service (in this case playing the game) for as long as possible, so that they raise the number of online users and spend more of their in-game resources. So if your battles aren't all balanced, you are likely going to be left unsatisfied longer, so you are more likely to spend more time in the game in order to play "just one more battle", hoping that will be the perfect battle you'll enjoy.

 

It also adds some variety to your play session, stimulating the brain more and helping to keep you interested.

 

I want to emphasise that this is just my theory and I don't know what the actual logic is behind intentionally skewing balance, but I think this is it.

OK.

 

I think it's a terrible practice if that is indeed why they do it - but maybe it's true.

[The-Operator219 1,962]

Hmm yes. I certainly play this game I spent money on to be put in crappy situations to validate some Ivan's theory. If you really want to keep people in the game, maybe don't ruin it with pointless additions and a robot that intentionally screws them over half the time? Just my two cents, since rubles are the only thing that gets past the thoughts of vodka and Adidas.

[BouDy 115]

It's not about opinions. It's about your subconscious attitude towards the game. I have a hard time believing it too, but I think I know how it works.

 

If you have a bunch of even, balanced battles, you enjoy every one of them and end up satisfied after a fairly small amount - let's say 5-7 rounds. Then you feel content about the play session and leave. But the target for any business is to keep people using the service (in this case playing the game) for as long as possible, so that they raise the number of online users and spend more of their in-game resources. So if your battles aren't all balanced, you are likely going to be left unsatisfied longer, so you are more likely to spend more time in the game in order to play "just one more battle", hoping that will be the perfect battle you'll enjoy.

 

It also adds some variety to your play session, stimulating the brain more and helping to keep you interested.

 

I want to emphasise that this is just my theory and I don't know what the actual logic is behind intentionally skewing balance, but I think this is it.

Actually , players are leaving in both cases .. The Game is Losing its players , and actually we are waiting to see developers reaction

The game had so much players , but the amount of players have been slightly decreased .. and so the revenue of the game has been decreased of course. I don't know why developers are doing some updates that make players leave.... Even since daily missions are easy , i don't understand why players aren't happy with 3 tankoins since the Game said that " challenges " and " contests " will drop tankoins .....

 

My main question is : Why players are always writing bad reviews to the game , always in every update , saying dead game or even pay to win ...and leaving?

 

And how tanki will fix this thing ?

Please Guys i don't want players review because i already know what they will say .. 

[The-Operator219 1,962]

Because everyone here is too cynical and pessimistic, myself especially. Don't take this place to mean every player, I doubt we make up 1℅ of the game population.

[Maf 32,857]

My main question is : Why players are always writing bad reviews to the game , always in every update , saying dead game or even pay to win ...and leaving?

 

And how tanki will fix this thing ?

Please Guys i don't want players review because i already know what they will say .. 

I addressed this many times before. Please follow the Newspaper Section for an upcoming article that myself and Hexed are writing (will most likely be published tomorrow), which explains a lot of the questions you just asked and much more.

 

But to answer you briefly, developers are working to improve the game and keep the players, and although they made some mistakes in the past, if they didn't release all these "bad" updates, the game would have been forced to shut down long ago.

[lssimo 1,582]

Tanki is now a "real game".

 

Drones, MM, Overdrives, OP alterations, OP turrets and Tankoins, to reach 16k peak players.

 

Looks like doing the opposite of what's reasonable update after update works.