declined Gear score

[DageLV 71]

Now gear score doesnt rly matter You have 5000 gear score, you get thrown in battle with 1000 gear score, doesnt matter.
But whats if the score you earn is influenced by your gear?
Per kill you earn 10 score, your gear score is 2000, average gear score in battle is 1000. That means, if you kill someone, your gear score will be 10/(2000/1000), or just simply 5.


To sum up, if your gear score is better than everyone elses in battle, you gain less score, if your gear is worse, then you earn more, because your gear is a lot weaker therefore the battle is a bit harder for u.

_{I bet someone will decline this because he has facts he cannot prove and it would take too long to add.... am i right, nibbles?}

[Maf 32,328]

Declined

The goal of the game is to obtain the highest possible gear score to give yourself an upper hand in battles. It would be rather contradictory to then punish players for getting that upper hand. For the same reason there will never be penalties for using too many supplies, or similar.

I get the idea, but GS balancing should be done via other methods.

[DageLV 71]

via other methods like?

Now gear score means absolutelly nothing. 
And this would reward people fighting a harder battle. If you bring better gear, you gotta fight better to earn the same score. If you bring trash gear and are able to keep up, you should be rewarded for it.
I saw one guy from WO4 having around 2000 score, but my WO5 account has 4868 score. Now the game thinks this is fair battle, but its not.

[Devoid 2,603]

7 minutes ago, DageLV said:

 

The other idea is to matchmake based on MM, and that would lead to EVEN less fair battles. The system that is in place currently isn't as bad as you think; you only find a max of 1-2 players with very high GS per battle, which is better than seeing 3-4 if battles were based on GS (because people would just change to their lowest-level equipment, and immediately switch to their best GS combo after getting in battle).

[wolverine848 13,097]

5 minutes ago, DageLV said:

via other methods like?

Now gear score means absolutelly nothing. 
And this would reward people fighting a harder battle. If you bring better gear, you gotta fight better to earn the same score. If you bring trash gear and are able to keep up, you should be rewarded for it.
I saw one guy from WO4 having around 2000 score, but my WO5 account has 4868 score. Now the game thinks this is fair battle, but its not.

It all depends on how you spend your crystals.

Player A spreads out crystals and has 5 combos = low to moderate GS because crystals for MUs were spent on new stock items.

Player B only buys 2 combos and has a much higher GS.

Why would you reward player A and punish player B?

 

Biggest problem with MM is not GS - it's rank-spreads.  There are times when that rank-spread reaches 8 or 10.  Far too high - and that is one major reason you are seeing large discrepancies in GS.  The players might have GS commensurate with their rank - but they are playing against opponents far outside a reasonable threshold.

[DageLV 71]

1 minute ago, Mr.Nibbles said:

The other idea is to matchmake based on MM, and that would lead to EVEN less fair battles. The system that is in place currently isn't as bad as you think; you only find a max of 1-2 players with very high GS per battle, which is better than seeing 3-4 if battles were based on GS (because people would just change to their lowest-level equipment, and immediately switch to their best GS combo after getting in battle).

why i think you didnt read my idea?
You say im suggesting matchmaking on GS score...
 

[Devoid 2,603]

Just now, DageLV said:

 

I never said that...I mentioned that is another idea we have gotten from another player, which would be just as suitable to add within the game as your idea.

[wolverine848 13,097]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Nibbles said:

The other idea is to matchmake based on MM

?

[DageLV 71]

1 minute ago, Mr.Nibbles said:

I never said that...I mentioned that is another idea we have gotten from another player, which would be just as suitable to add within the game as your idea.

... but if players current gear score tells how much score player is earning per battle... why would it matter to join battle with low gear score, then switch to high?

[Devoid 2,603]

1 minute ago, wolverine848 said:

?

GS, sorry

[Devoid 2,603]

1 minute ago, DageLV said:

 

I am not going to argue with you about your idea. My superior (administrator) marked your idea is declined, there's no refuting that. Thank you for your idea, but unfortunately, it is not coming out.

[DageLV 71]

1 minute ago, Mr.Nibbles said:

I am not going to argue with you about your idea. My superior (administrator) marked your idea is declined, there's no refuting that. Thank you for your idea, but unfortunately, it is not coming out.

ehh, he mainly declines it cause he hates me a lil, so im not worried about it. Probably main reason why he took your side on the magnum camera you declined

 

[Maf 32,328]

28 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

Why would you reward player A and punish player B?

The idea is that because Player B has a higher GS, their tank is more powerful and therefore they are capable of doing more in-game actions that grant them battle score, such as getting kills. So by that logic it makes sense to balance the difference by giving less score to the more powerful player to give other players a chance to catch up.

The reality, however, is that it would have a bunch of disadvantages:

• Players will be discouraged from spending money due to fear of getting more score penalties
• Players will be confused and angry when they get more kills but less score than another guy on their team
• The system won't even be 100% accurate because higher GS doesn't always mean more powerful tank. A 9000 GS Mammoth Firebird on Highways will almost certainly be weaker than a 5000 GS Hornet Vulcan.

[Viking4s 10,791]

Nice socialist idea, reward the weak and penalise the strong. No need to get higher equipment. This is flawed from the start.

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 hour ago, Maf said:

The idea is that because Player B has a higher GS, their tank is more powerful and therefore they are capable of doing more in-game actions that grant them battle score, such as getting kills.

You completely ignored my example.

Hypothetically both players spent the same amount of crystals.  One chose a different way to spend them vs the other.

So no - it does not make sense since it was Player A's choice to spend the crystals that way.

[XxStriker 519]

1. Get as low GS as possible

2. equip support nanobots and isida

3. ???

4. PROFIT!

 

Imagine me going in a battle with people at 9999 gs with isida m3 mued and literally everything else m0 or unequipped (Which is what, 4000 gs max?). Mega score!

[DageLV 71]

1 hour ago, Maf said:

• Players will be discouraged from spending money due to fear of getting more score penalties
• Players will be confused and angry when they get more kills but less score than another guy on their team
• The system won't even be 100% accurate because higher GS doesn't always mean more powerful tank. A 9000 GS Mammoth Firebird on Highways will almost certainly be weaker than a 5000 GS Hornet Vulcan.

No, not rly. If i know i can make my hull go faster, ima get the upgrade no doubts.
Tanki players get mad that they lost even tho they have a lot of kills, but they forgot they play CTF, those people are beyond saving, just leave them be.
9000 GS mammoth/fire will shred in 5000 GS battles, (Taking my WO5 account as a reference with 4800 GS)

[wolverine848 13,097]

2 hours ago, DageLV said:

via other methods like?

Now gear score means absolutelly nothing. 
And this would reward people fighting a harder battle. If you bring better gear, you gotta fight better to earn the same score. If you bring trash gear and are able to keep up, you should be rewarded for it.
I saw one guy from WO4 having around 2000 score, but my WO5 account has 4868 score. Now the game thinks this is fair battle, but its not.

It does not work because legends will still be playing recruits.  Does not matter if they get lower rewards - the recruits will get nothing because they will get absolutely destroyed and will spend most of the game re-spawning.  The battle would be an absolute disaster.

[DageLV 71]

16 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

You completely ignored my example.

Hypothetically both players spent the same amount of crystals.  One chose a different way to spend them vs the other.

So no - it does not make sense since it was Player A's choice to spend the crystals that way.

Wolverine, but the player who bought a lot of gear cant equip all of his hulls and turrets at the same time. Thats why the gear isnt counted in gear score.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Just now, DageLV said:

Wolverine, but the player who bought a lot of gear cant equip all of his hulls and turrets at the same time. Thats why the gear isnt counted in gear score.

And... ?

[DageLV 71]

1 minute ago, wolverine848 said:

It does not work because legends will still be playing recruits.  Does not matter if they get lower rewards - the recruits will get nothing because they will get absolutely destroyed and will spend most of the game re-spawning.  The battle would be an absolute disaster.

i gotta ask... Where u got the idea i said to make the MM GS based? Cause i didnt.

[cosmic666 1,055]

2 hours ago, DageLV said:

via other methods like?

Now gear score means absolutelly nothing. 
And this would reward people fighting a harder battle. If you bring better gear, you gotta fight better to earn the same score. If you bring trash gear and are able to keep up, you should be rewarded for it.
I saw one guy from WO4 having around 2000 score, but my WO5 account has 4868 score. Now the game thinks this is fair battle, but its not.

G/S does not help out in every battle, iv'e went up against legends with all the 9s and dominated and my gear score was only in the high 8s. To maximise your high g/s you also need to be a good player and actually no what to do in battle at any given time. With are without g/s the outcome will always be the same you either have a strong combo are you do not. If the ranks look a bit tasty then get out of dodge asap and move onto the next battle where hopefully the ranks are closer to your own and you can be more competitive and have a better chance of coming away with a good placing in your team.   

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 minute ago, DageLV said:

i gotta ask... Where u got the idea i said to make the MM GS based? Cause i didnt.

So you want current rank-based MM but with penalties to higher GS?

Many things wrong with that...

- no incentive to upgrade as you just get penalized for it.

- my example of Player A & Player B still stands... if both spent same crystals why should player B get penalized becuase they chose a different path?

- why would anyone spend money on the game when they will be handicapped for it - come out of battle with same crystals as someone who did not buy.

I will repeat:

Biggest problem with MM is not GS - it's rank-spreads.  There are times when that rank-spread reaches 8 or 10.  Far too high - and that is one major reason you are seeing large discrepancies in GS.  The players might have GS commensurate with their rank - but they are playing against opponents far outside a reasonable threshold.

[cosmic666 1,055]

2 hours ago, DageLV said:

... but if players current gear score tells how much score player is earning per battle... why would it matter to join battle with low gear score, then switch to high?

lol your really not getting it are you.

[DageLV 71]

26 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

- no incentive to upgrade as you just get penalized for it.

- my example of Player A & Player B still stands... if both spent same crystals why should player B get penalized becuase they chose a different path?

- why would anyone spend money on the game when they will be handicapped for it - come out of battle with same crystals as someone who did not buy.

I will repeat:

Biggest problem with MM is not GS - it's rank-spreads.  There are times when that rank-spread reaches 8 or 10.  Far too high - and that is one major reason you are seeing large discrepancies in GS.  The players might have GS commensurate with their rank - but they are playing against opponents far outside a reasonable threshold.

-Incentive to upgrade gear is to get better gear. I dont think anyone would mind to loose on average what... 2 score per kill or something close to that? ofc, there are exceptions.

- I have Isida mk5 and Viking mk6 on WO5 rank. Guy from WO4 with 2000 Gear score is expected to perform as good as im performing with my 4800 Gear score? Not happening. 
Also, upgrades shouldnt mean "i have better tank, i win" but just a lil bit of skill added as well.

If player with bad equipment plays the same as player with OP equipment, then the OP player will earn the same score as guy who had to play a lot harder.

 A bit old video, but still. The battle is a lot easier for me if i have the better gear.