declined Gear score

[cosmic666 1,055]

5 minutes ago, DageLV said:

-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 ****ty 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.

Your still missing the point, g/s is just a word to describe how advanced your combo is you were always gonna do well in that mismatch of a battle. ITS MM THAT'S AT FAULT the rank differences are just to great and couple that with those players that can buy and its game over.

[DageLV 71]

2 minutes ago, cosmic666 said:

Your still missing the point, g/s is just a word to describe how advanced your combo is you were always gonna do well in that mismatch of a battle. ITS MM THAT'S AT FAULT the rank differences are just to great and couple that with those players that can buy and its game over.

thats why im suggesting to add meaning to the gear score, cause currently it exists without any purpose.
And whats your suggestion to fix MM then? One rank below me there are people with more than twice worse tanks than me. Friend who is 4 ranks above me has worse tank than i do.

[cosmic666 1,055]

Just now, DageLV said:

thats why im suggesting to add meaning to the gear score, cause currently it exists without any purpose.
And whats your suggestion to fix MM then? One rank below me there are people with more than twice worse tanks than me. Friend who is 4 ranks above me has worse tank than i do.

like i said buyers dominate MM which is flawed greatly in their favour.

[Benefactor 6,889]

1 hour ago, cosmic666 said:

like i said buyers dominate MM which is flawed greatly in their favour.

I like your theory.

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 hour ago, DageLV said:

-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

Players would mind if they were punished for having better gear - your suggesting otherwise is just self-serving for your idea.

It is very unlikely that a player with 2000 GS would perform as someone with GS of 4800. Nor should they expect to.  If a player has such a crappy GS they better learn how to manage cystals better or start over.  It's not up to the game to make up for players deficiencies. 

Why bother keeping score?  Let's award participation medals and split the batte-fund evenly no matter what you did - right?

1 hour ago, DageLV said:

thats why im suggesting to add meaning to the gear score, cause currently it exists without any purpose.
And whats your suggestion to fix MM then? One rank below me there are people with more than twice worse tanks than me. Friend who is 4 ranks above me has worse tank than i do.

I've already pointed out to TWICE - narrow the rank-brackets.  There will always be a difference in power in tanks - cant have a game like this without it.  But narrower rank-brackets will reduce the difference.  Especially after they created 7 mk splits.

[cosmic666 1,055]

44 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

Players would mind if they were punished for having better gear - your suggesting otherwise is just self-serving for your idea.

It is very unlikely that a player with 2000 GS would perform as someone with GS of 4800. Nor should they expect to.  If a player has such a crappy GS they better learn how to manage cystals better or start over.  It's not up to the game to make up for players deficiencies. 

Why bother keeping score?  Let's award participation medals and split the batte-fund evenly no matter what you did - right?

I've already pointed out to TWICE - narrow the rank-brackets.  There will always be a difference in power in tanks - cant have a game like this without it.  But narrower rank-brackets will reduce the difference.  Especially after they created 7 mk splits.

He can't grasp it mate looks like your fighting a losing battle trying  to get him to understand its the MM that delivers unbalanced battles.

[DageLV 71]

1 hour ago, wolverine848 said:

Players would mind if they were punished for having better gear - your suggesting otherwise is just self-serving for your idea.

It is very unlikely that a player with 2000 GS would perform as someone with GS of 4800. Nor should they expect to.  If a player has such a crappy GS they better learn how to manage cystals better or start over.  It's not up to the game to make up for players deficiencies. 

Why bother keeping score?  Let's award participation medals and split the batte-fund evenly no matter what you did - right?

I've already pointed out to TWICE - narrow the rank-brackets.  There will always be a difference in power in tanks - cant have a game like this without it.  But narrower rank-brackets will reduce the difference.  Especially after they created 7 mk splits.

Currently in tanki if you bring a tank to a gun fight, if tank wins, he is equally treated as the guy who stabbed the tank to death... But the guy with knife worked way harder than the guy in tank...

Im asking not to reward equipment, but skill. If youre skilled, you get more score than you get now. If youre trash, you get less score. From what im understanding, youre against this, because youre low skill player with high gear score, right? Cause only then this idea draws your score gained down a little bit.

Narrow rank brackets.... How it balances my 4800 gear score against others with 2000 gear score? Im almost guaranteed to get a good score, just because io have the equipment.
With this, even if u dont have best gear in the map, you stand a chance to someone who bought basically immortallity.
If godmode_on joins a newbie battle, with his 10000 gear score, he is considered as good player as the recruit tanker he is battling.
If recruiter kills him, recruiter gets only 10 score, thats it. if Godmode on kills him, then he gets 10 score as well.

[cosmic666 1,055]

8 minutes ago, DageLV said:

Currently in tanki if you bring a tank to a gun fight, if tank wins, he is equally treated as the guy who stabbed the tank to death... But the guy with knife worked way harder than the guy in tank...

Im asking not to reward equipment, but skill. If youre skilled, you get more score than you get now. If youre trash, you get less score. From what im understanding, youre against this, because youre low skill player with high gear score, right? Cause only then this idea draws your score gained down a little bit.

Narrow rank brackets.... How it balances my 4800 gear score against others with 2000 gear score? Im almost guaranteed to get a good score, just because io have the equipment.
With this, even if u dont have best gear in the map, you stand a chance to someone who bought basically immortallity.

Seriously .....you are not even in the same galaxy never mind the same page.

[DageLV 71]

Just now, cosmic666 said:

Seriously .....you are not even in the same galaxy never mind the same page.

no, if people dont seem to understand realistic examples, i tend to give extreme examples, such as, knife and tank threated as same skill equipment.

[wolverine848 13,097]

6 minutes ago, DageLV said:

Im asking not to reward equipment, but skill.

No you are not.  Your suggestion only punishes players with high GS.

Why do you assume the player with high GS does not have equal or more skill than the player with low GS?  Maybe he attained the high GS by using skill to win more battles and used the proceeds from those wins to ... surprise - buy better equipment.

In your world players with low GS are "skilled" and those with high GS are ... "buyers"?   WHY?

 

Go back to my hypothetical... Same skill, same crystals... Player A buy 5 combos Player B 2 combos.  Player A will have lower GS because spread out crystals more.

Answer me this - why should Player B be punished with lesser reward per action?

[cosmic666 1,055]

Tell you what vote on this lets see what you put.

[wolverine848 13,097]

13 minutes ago, DageLV said:

no, if people dont seem to understand realistic examples, i tend to give extreme examples, such as, knife and tank threated as same skill equipment.

If you bring a knife to a gunfight you deserve to lose.     Go watch the Untouchables.

[DageLV 71]

23 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

If you bring a knife to a gunfight you deserve to lose.     Go watch the Untouchables.

Yes, but if you manage to destroy the tank with your knife, it shouldnt be threated the same as if the tanker killed you.

[DageLV 71]

35 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

No you are not.  Your suggestion only punishes players with high GS.

Why do you assume the player with high GS does not have equal or more skill than the player with low GS?  Maybe he attained the high GS by using skill to win more battles and used the proceeds from those wins to ... surprise - buy better equipment.

In your world players with low GS are "skilled" and those with high GS are ... "buyers"?   WHY?

 

Go back to my hypothetical... Same skill, same crystals... Player A buy 5 combos Player B 2 combos.  Player A will have lower GS because spread out crystals more.

Answer me this - why should Player B be punished with lesser reward per action?

no. If you have high GS, youll need to put in a lil bit more effort to stay on first place, and thats it. If youre lower end of the GS, youll have to work harder to kill people, but the score will grow slowly more. And to my understanding, you think that the score difference will be massive.
If youre skilled player, who also has high gear score, youll still earn score and be on the top. if matchmaking throws you in the battle where youre the lower gear score, youll be given more score for doing good.
because its easier for him to perform such action.
Same example as you give, different values.
Godmode_ON joins recruit battle. Recruit kills Godmode who has 10 000 gear score and is threated the same way as he killed another random recruit player. Why should recruit player even try to fight Godmode, if he gains nothing from it?

[wolverine848 13,097]

6 minutes ago, DageLV said:

Yes, but if you manage to destroy the tank with your knife, it shouldnt be threated the same as if the tanker killed you.

Yes it should.  That's like saying capping a flag without drones or supplies should be worth more.  Um... nope.

[DageLV 71]

1 minute ago, wolverine848 said:

Yes it should.  That's like saying capping a flag without drones or supplies should be worth more.  Um... nope.

Well, first off, drones shouldnt exist at all. Theyre simply pay2win. Same as alterations, first they started as.... alterations, now theyre just plain buffs.

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 minute ago, DageLV said:

no. If you have high GS, youll need to put in a lil bit more effort to stay on first place, and thats it. If youre lower end of the GS, youll have to work harder to kill people, but the score will grow slowly more. And to my understanding, you think that the score difference will be massive.
If youre skilled player, who also has high gear score, youll still earn score and be on the top. if matchmaking throws you in the battle where youre the lower gear score, youll be given more score for doing good.
because its easier for him to perform such action.
Same example as you give, different values.
Godmode_ON joins recruit battle. Recruit kills Godmode who has 10 000 gear score and is threated the same way as he killed another random recruit player. Why should recruit player even try to fight Godmode, if he gains nothing from it?

It's not the same thing at all.  Player A & Player B had exact same opportunity but chose different paths. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest they should be rewarded differently.

[DageLV 71]

3 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

It's not the same thing at all.  Player A & Player B had exact same opportunity but chose different paths. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest they should be rewarded differently.

The recruit player shouldve became godmode_on. Its ridicious he didnt do it.

And there is multiple sets of gear, each costing different ammounts, so people would buy the gear. If people are told to not do it, that its just worse for them, why would they? I have multiple m2 gears on my legend account. Why would i want to upgrade them, if i have my almost-wasp m4 and magnum?

[wolverine848 13,097]

2 minutes ago, DageLV said:

The recruit player shouldve became godmode_on. Its ridicious he didnt do it.

And there is multiple sets of gear, each costing different ammounts, so people would buy the gear. If people are told to not do it, that its just worse for them, why would they? I have multiple m2 gears on my legend account. Why would i want to upgrade them, if i have my almost-wasp m4 and magnum?

What?  it's like. you are starting a different conversation.

 

Try to answer this if you can... if not - don't bother with a another tangent reply.

Same skill, same crystals... Player A buy 5 combos Player B 2 combos.  Player A will have lower GS because spread out crystals more.

Why should Player B be punished with lesser reward per action?

[DageLV 71]

4 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

What?  it's like. you are starting a different conversation.

 

Try to answer this if you can... if not - don't bother with a another tangent reply.

Same skill, same crystals... Player A buy 5 combos Player B 2 combos.  Player A will have lower GS because spread out crystals more.

Why should Player B be punished with lesser reward per action?

As i answered before, but you obviously didnt read it, because its easier to perform such action.

[wolverine848 13,097]

5 minutes ago, DageLV said:

As i answered before, but you obviously didnt read it, because its easier to perform such action.

What?  Never mind - you just argue in circles to support your suggestion.  It's obvious you have no understanding of the concept of crystal management.  Good Day.

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

GS is useful in knowing how hard your battle is. It is not supposed to be a high or quirky number, but occasionally it happens: 

[r_trooll15 827]

6 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

Players would mind if they were punished for having better gear - your suggesting otherwise is just self-serving for your idea.

It is very unlikely that a player with 2000 GS would perform as someone with GS of 4800. Nor should they expect to.  If a player has such a crappy GS they better learn how to manage cystals better or start over.  It's not up to the game to make up for players deficiencies. 

Why bother keeping score?  Let's award participation medals and split the batte-fund evenly no matter what you did - right?

I've already pointed out to TWICE - narrow the rank-brackets.  There will always be a difference in power in tanks - cant have a game like this without it.  But narrower rank-brackets will reduce the difference.  Especially after they created 7 mk splits.

yep, that wont help when you have people like this:

https://ratings.tankionline.com/en/user/PudingosKekszesTorta

[DageLV 71]

4 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

What?  Never mind - you just argue in circles to support your suggestion.  It's obvious you have no understanding of the concept of crystal management.  Good Day.

if i dont know how to manage crystals... Explain mk5 and mk6 gear in WO5 without buying. And this Pudingos guy is even more extreme. Tanki thinks the battle is the same difficulty for him and any other average WO4 player. Thats not true...
Youre saying im arguing in circles to support my suggestion, ehh, kinda. Why? Cause u havent been able to provide anything decent against it.

[Benefactor 6,889]

2 hours ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

GS is useful in knowing how hard your battle is. It is not supposed to be a high or quirky number, but occasionally it happens: 

Spoiler

 

 

I think it is the incorrect weight of the augments that are throwing the GS out of whack. A GS of 200 doesn't tell the whole story. I created an alt to test out the obvious combination of Heat Immunity + Incendiary Band (Hunter/Vulcan - Mk1 only). Hunter does not have self-heal like Mammoth or Dictator, but it is the only hull that can neutralize almost everything at close range other than the Wasp nuke. I allowed myself drugging but no modules whatsoever. It is an OP combo at GS 200 and end up top 3 almost every time. Imagine what carnage it can do in the hands of an expert player.