declined Balancing Rewards for Supply-using Players

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

Hi folks;

Many players have complained about supplies and that it benefits buyers. I understand that Tanki will not remove them since they are a big source of revenue, but I do not think it would hurt too much to up the stakes on supplies.

I am suggesting that whenever a player makes a kill on a player with all three supplies in action, the kill should be worth 16 or 17 points in battle score, instead of 15 points. If a kill will be increased by 2 points, then assists while all 3 supplies are going should be worth 6 points, up 1 point from 5.

I think this idea does not take away from the large amount of power that buyers will still get, it just equates the reward standard players get from making a harder kill.

Thank you effort in reading this, please leave your thoughts down below.

[Maf 32,324]

Declined

 

Similar things have been suggested before and the reply from devs remains the same - they do not intend to penalise players for taking advantage of intentional game mechanics.

[r_Given6 859]

Supplies are literally thrown at you from every direction, Challenges, Missions, Weekly Containers, Containers, etc. You are meant to use them. It's not that old scenario when "druggers" were yelled at for playing only with the number keys. 

In fact, I feel that soon drones and even Tankoins will become normal, non-P2W aspects of the game. It would just take some time for Tanki to make such resources more accessible, and players to accept them.

The market today is not for simple battle games, but for intense action, with equipment, ODs, supplies and all contributing to the complexity of competition. Supplies are so trivial, I won't say they affect buyer/non-buyer balance.

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

It is not penalizing the player who used them, they do not lose anything if you got a slightly bigger reward, even if the supplies were from overdrives, at the end of the day you protected your team more.

[Potdindy 866]

On 1/26/2020 at 2:49 PM, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

It is not penalizing the player who used them, they do not lose anything if you got a slightly bigger reward, even if the supplies were from overdrives, at the end of the day you protected your team more.

Your best bet is to use supplies since youre getting many many of them...use them. If someone isnt using supplies...thats mostly on them

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

On 1/28/2020 at 10:22 PM, Potdindy said:

Your best bet is to use supplies since you're getting many many of them...use them. If someone isn't using supplies...that's mostly on them

I agree that there is nothing wrong with using supplies, and

 

On 1/26/2020 at 2:49 PM, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

at the end of the day you protected your team more

so why should you not got a slightly higher reward? Remember game play will remain the same and the same boosts will be given by supplies. It is just since your team is benefiting more by you killing a player who has more drugs on than a player who is entirely in a cool down.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

49 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

I agree that there is nothing wrong with using supplies, and

 

so why should you not got a slightly higher reward? Remember game play will remain the same and the same boosts will be given by supplies. It is just since your team is benefiting more by you killing a player who has more drugs on than a player who is entirely in a cool down.

That might motivate players to use supplies less often and devs can't have that. That's less revenue they'll be making.

 

Gotta catch them $$.

[r_Given6 859]

54 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

It is just since your team is benefiting more by you killing a player who has more drugs on than a player who is entirely in a cool down.

A much, much, much bigger benefit would be you killing a heavily-drugged buyer with extreme GS and who is using powerful drones. But rewarding players more for killing such guys is like tagging someone as a better target, just because they invest in the game. 

If you prevented an enemy with high GS from capturing the flag or scoring a goal, you benefit in the sense that you are helping your team win; which is a general bonus for your team.

 

I find inspiration to fight hard against such enemies just to protect my team, there's no need for any bonus for motivation. if I go on and kill other enemies that don't present much of a challenge;

1. I'm depriving myself of the thrill of fighting a good battle.

2. I'm leaving myself and my teammates exposed to the wrath of such a dangerous enemy.

3. I'm deviating from the objective of the Team battle. I have to prevent enemy captures/killing of Juggernauts/teammates.

 

In this sense, I feel that, however hard it may be to kill an enemy, there's no need for a bonus in any form.

[Benefactor 6,888]

I still think there needs to be some distinction in scoring between destroying a Wasp and destroying a Mammoth.

[wolverine848 13,097]

3 hours ago, Benefactor said:

I still think there needs to be some distinction in scoring between destroying a Wasp and destroying a Mammoth.

There is some merit in this... it is usually harder to kill a heavy than a light.

 

Just like there should be (modest) bonus points for killing the flag/ball carrier vs killing any other tanks.  On average that is the more important kill.

[Potdindy 866]

4 hours ago, Benefactor said:

I still think there needs to be some distinction in scoring between destroying a Wasp and destroying a Mammoth.

Maybe then, wasps wouldnt always get focus fired or followed like they do now. 

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

12 hours ago, Given said:

A much, much, much bigger benefit would be you killing a heavily-drugged buyer with extreme GS and who is using powerful drones. But rewarding players more for killing such guys is like tagging someone as a better target, just because they invest in the game. 

I would support such a bonus, but GS does not always tell you who is more threatening. I think such a bonus should be a +1for killing the one of the final top 3 in the game.

12 hours ago, Given said:

If you prevented an enemy with high GS from capturing the flag or scoring a goal, you benefit in the sense that you are helping your team win; which is a general bonus for your team.

That is a good point, but often the battle has already been won due to score or time and there should be some motivation for helping your team even when you will lose.

12 hours ago, Given said:

I'm depriving myself of the thrill of fighting a good battle.

Often a player is put into battle with players who have a big advantage in rank and GS. You can try for the equal hard-fought battle or you can help your teammates.

 

5 hours ago, Benefactor said:

I still think there needs to be some distinction in scoring between destroying a Wasp and destroying a Mammoth.

Speed also makes it harder to make a kill, so armor can't be a factor.

 

1 hour ago, wolverine848 said:

Just like there should be (modest) bonus points for killing the flag/ball carrier vs killing any other tanks.  On average that is the more important kill.

On average yes, but a player should not get a reward for a player that barely held the ball. But within 25 meters from the base it is important. So I would agree that within 25 meters (A Viking is 5.2 meters) all kills on a ball/flag carrier should be +2 or +3, and outside of that the carrier must have traveled 25 meters since picking up the ball. But it was not the idea of this topic.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

2 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

There is some merit in this... it is usually harder to kill a heavy than a light.

 

Just like there should be (modest) bonus points for killing the flag/ball carrier vs killing any other tanks.  On average that is the more important kill.

At the same time, it's easier to hit a heavy hull than it is to hit a light hull because they have more surface to hit and are slower.

[wolverine848 13,097]

31 minutes ago, DieselPlatinum said:

At the same time, it's easier to hit a heavy hull than it is to hit a light hull because they have more surface to hit and are slower.

True.