Devs+poll

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

Be a good way to no what the majority think of all the changes over the last couple of years

[Blutaar 1,904]

You mean that developers announce the concept of a certain change/implementation in the game, and that players can decide whether they would like that update or not? 

I agree and disagree on this idea. It would be pleasant if players can share their voice and opinion about such changes, it gives the idea that players are heard and taken seriously. On the other hand, certain updates may need to happen regardsless of peoples opinions or may be too complex for the regular tanker to understand; some updates can have consequenes and effects that are not known well at that moment. Aditionally, players should not completely decide what changes should be made or not,

[Spy 14,757]

Removed CAPS from the title.

[Maf 32,306]

The problem is that not all updates are meant to benefit all players directly. Some updates are released even though it's certain that the feedback will be negative, but the update is necessary to keep the game alive. So for that reason it's not up to players to decide whether or not something should be implemented.

[Momentary 396]

On 12/23/2020 at 6:17 PM, Maf said:

The problem is that not all updates are meant to benefit all players directly. Some updates are released even though it's certain that the feedback will be negative, but the update is necessary to keep the game alive. So for that reason it's not up to players to decide whether or not something should be implemented

But then maybe a lot of players will leave if the updates are bad and the game will eventually die. Can atleast devs hear our feedback? they just making updates that are bad for the majority of the players.

[alkyng 3,080]

I confidently assume if that happened, 90% of the updates wont be implemented. Drones - Hull Augments - EMP Gauss - AP turrets.. those all I think have more than 90% of agree by players that it's not a good thing.

Look at the official topic for introducing MM. it had more than 102 pages. Made a lot of controversy in the forums in that time, ruined the game too much. Forced us in playing with the developers choices, poor 7 minutes matches, just a seconds of rush, boring.

EDIT: To elaborate my opinion more, Devs don't need to make a poll before any update, everything is obvious, developers know about the game and players opinions more than me and you. If devs implement your opinion, most of the updates wont happen. the logical thing is the developers implementing updates and we evaluate it later. not just zapped them with opposite poll to stop them to implement the update!

Edited December 23, 2020 by asem.harbi

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

You got me all wrong....what i mean is all the changes the devs have brought out so far.....make a poll and let players decide (as a majority) which they like and dislike

Then maybe some of these changes could be reworked are ditched altogether ......like hopper. 

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

39 minutes ago, asem.harbi said:

I confidently assume if that happened, 90% of the updates wont be implemented. Drones - Hull Augments - EMP Gauss - AP turrets.. those all I think have more than 90% of agree by players that it's not a good thing.

Look at the official topic for introducing MM. it had more than 102 pages. Made a lot of controversy in the forums in that time, ruined the game too much. Forced us in playing with the developers choices, poor 7 minutes matches, just a seconds of rush, boring.

EDIT: To elaborate my opinion more, Devs don't need to make a poll before any update, everything is obvious, developers know about the game and players opinions more than me and you. If devs implement your opinion, most of the updates wont happen. the logical thing is the developers implementing updates and we evaluate it later. not just zapped them with opposite poll to stop them to implement the update!

On a technical level, yes the devs no more about the game than me.

on a playing level, not a chance. In battle i see what all these changes do, not a stupid test server but in real battle terms.

And if they do it never influences their choices when bringing new updates for the game.

They are always bad and generally involve lots of cash for them (the company) balance gets thrown to one side.

[alkyng 3,080]

34 minutes ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

On a technical level, yes the devs no more about the game than me.

on a playing level, not a chance. In battle i see what all these changes do, not a stupid test server but in real battle terms.

And if they do it never influences their choices when bringing new updates for the game.

They are always bad and generally involve lots of cash for them (the company) balance gets thrown to one side.

Yes, it's horrible. Most of new updates are horrible bad, but I mean developers know that, so no need of a poll. Just we have to criticize

And no I don't think it generate more cash for them than in the past, I think before five years, players base was more than 40K, and now it's just 10K.

For sure in the past it was way more better than now (even if it was generate less money) because it was vibrant with players, videos, commentaries.

And I think this type of games like Tanki, tend to have a period then vanish. so I think it's a normal thing with bad or good updates, the game will end one day. Except for known popular games like GTA or FIFA...

In the past there was many people who using PC/Laptops, nowadays I think more than 60% converted to mobile phones, so its hurts tanki directly.

[mjmj5558 2,346]

@SONIC-BOOM I have a question: what do you think, what would have happened to hornet if devs had asked: should we nerf hornet? The majority of the playerbase uses hornet often, so it's not hard to guess the result.

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 hour ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

You got me all wrong....what i mean is all the changes the devs have brought out so far.....make a poll and let players decide (as a majority) which they like and dislike

Then maybe some of these changes could be reworked are ditched altogether ......like hopper. 

I think the Devs know pretty much how many of their changes would affect the game.  And even if they did not, does not seem to make a difference.  I mean look how long Hornet OD went before they changed it.  Was years.

I think they purposely leave OP changes in the game so

1) players will flock to the new META and spend $ to get it and...

2) players will spend $ to combat the new META.

They seem to like the game being unbalanced.  In long run this WILL hurt them as the player base keeps shrinking.  That ends up being a negative feedback loop,

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

3 hours ago, Maf said:

The problem is that not all updates are meant to benefit all players directly. Some updates are released even though it's certain that the feedback will be negative, but the update is necessary to keep the game alive. So for that reason it's not up to players to decide whether or not something should be implemented.

@Maf Without players, no game. So we the players should have a imputt as to what stays and what does not in the game, (within reason) 

Bringing in mega OP hulls like hopper is just downright greed and indirectly is giving favour to a minority of players, who far the most part would be average at best.   

It is getting increasingly more expensive to play. And yes i no you don't have to spend cash, but without spending you are just a regular joe in battle getting wiped out on a daily basis.

Players of most games are by nature competitive, hence the OP updates to entice players, (buyers in particular) to enhance their garage and gain a very strong advantage.

I reckon i play about 75% less across all my accounts because of these OP updates the devs have brought out.

I personally do not mind spending on occasion to upgrade at least 2 accounts i play regularly. They have both been shelved until this flying hack is removed are seriously nerfed.

Generating cash within the game is a must, and without buyers there would be no game at all, but to install such hyper OP HULLS / ALTS / AUGMENTS/ etc that get such negative feedback in less than a few hrs of it coming out, is in itself OTT and will only result in more players like myself doing missions and then calling it a day, which i have been doing for months now.

Emp gauss, hopper, ap, hornet (still) are the worst offenders in battle. I usually leave if i see 1 or more of them in enemy team, just not worth the grief taken on such OP gear in the game.

So in my opinion this poll is the right way to go, especially if the devs want respect from those it affects the most when bringing in such crazy OP updates that affects gameplay in a drastic and unfair way.

They are letting cash cloud their judgement when it comes to doing the right thing by the players who make TO possible.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Whenever these sort of questions pop up I think back to the time the developers created a poll regarding Overdrive (which at the time was Zero Supply), and the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. So no, I don't think the entire playerbase should be polled.

Many changes have ramifications which are not always immediately apparent. I myself have initially reacted negatively to some changes and then changed my mind later, and vice versa.

Edited December 24, 2020 by ThirdOnion

[Maf 32,306]

4 hours ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

@Maf Without players, no game. So we the players should have a imputt as to what stays and what does not in the game, (within reason) 

Without profit also no game.

Players do have influence on how the game develops, but "influence" is not equivalent to absolute rule. I don't know to what extent your feedback actually affects the development process, but it's definitely necessary to keep the players interested. It's about finding the balance between things that help maintain revenue, and things that help retain the audience.

Also worth noting that your opinion may not align with the opinion of the majority. A large portion of the playerbase never actually participates in things like polls, discussions, giving feedback, etc. They just enter the game to play a few battles per day, and then they log off. These people "vote" by playing less or more after a new update, because it shows that they either like the changes, or they lost interest in the game. And analysis of this data (how much different groups of people are playing) is typically the most effective way to determine what the audience actually wants. Polls are only secondary to that.

[wolverine848 13,097]

32 minutes ago, Maf said:

These people "vote" by playing less or more after a new update, because it shows that they either like the changes, or they lost interest in the game. And analysis of this data (how much different groups of people are playing) is typically the most effective way to determine what the audience actually wants.

Well, the shrinking player base should tell you something then...

[wolverine848 13,097]

2 hours ago, At_Shin said:

it does tell us something - that new players aren't joining the game in large numbers. This will happen after the game is advertised. It will be advertised once  Html5 version is fully developed. 

 

That's all it tells you?         

 

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by wolverine848

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

8 hours ago, Maf said:

Without profit also no game.

Players do have influence on how the game develops, but "influence" is not equivalent to absolute rule. I don't know to what extent your feedback actually affects the development process, but it's definitely necessary to keep the players interested. It's about finding the balance between things that help maintain revenue, and things that help retain the audience.

Also worth noting that your opinion may not align with the opinion of the majority. A large portion of the playerbase never actually participates in things like polls, discussions, giving feedback, etc. They just enter the game to play a few battles per day, and then they log off. These people "vote" by playing less or more after a new update, because it shows that they either like the changes, or they lost interest in the game. And analysis of this data (how much different groups of people are playing) is typically the most effective way to determine what the audience actually wants. Polls are only secondary to that.

Good points, but, if the devs made it so that when you login you had no choice but to take part in a little poll whenever a update was being rolled out then they would get feedback from every single player in the game, and i'm sure the players wouldn't mind for the time it took to tic a couple of boxes.

Then the devs could make the necessary adjustments that the majority want and still generate cash if that's their desire for said update.

I no this is the right way to go for the updates that are/will have a big impact on the game.

It's getting out of hand, all these OP updates, it's getting complicated when it doesn't have to be. 

 

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

9 hours ago, ThirdOnion said:

Whenever these sort of questions pop up I think back to the time the developers created a poll regarding Overdrive (which at the time was Zero Supply), and the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. So no, I don't think the entire playerbase should be polled.

Many changes have ramifications which are not always immediately apparent. I myself have initially reacted negatively to some changes and then changed my mind later, and vice versa.

I'm going on about the huge OP updates that affect game play in a massive way.

If the devs introduce a new type of building into a map for aesthetics sake, THAT is not going to have a impact on the game like say the legal hack HOPPER.

Hope my point has finally been clarified enough as to what a poll should be used for. Game changing updates that affect players in a BIG way when entering a battle. 

Players like it they get a  Players don't like it they get a  then they can tweak that update so it is beneficial to the majority of players and still generate cash to keep the game in a good place financially.

This is called compromise, and also respecting the players enough to give them a say in how TO develops for the foreseeable future to the benefit of all concerned, devs/players.

This is the right way to go, and is by far the most beneficial for the devs, as they will no what the majority of players want, and then if needed the devs can stick a reasonable price tag on it that keeps TO in a good place financially.

Polling the entire player base is the only way to get a accurate reading on what the players deem is a good/bad update.

My idea makes complete sense, and if the devs do it right, i have no doubt they will benefit just as much and also gain much respect and positive feedback, which is sorely lacking at the moment in TO.

I say what i see in battle, and what i see is OP updates ruining the game for the majority of players.

These FACTS cannot be disputed, everyone sees what i see in battle, only the buyers and the kids who like new crazy updates benefit from these OP features added to the game.

A poll for game changing updates would be the right way to go for all players in TO.

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

7 hours ago, At_Shin said:

it does tell us something - that new players aren't joining the game in large numbers. This will happen after the game is advertised. It will be advertised once  Html5 version is fully developed. 

 

Try explaining in depth why TO has declining numbers without A sitting on the fence B bending the truth to suit your own needs C that actually makes sense and is not some mishmash twoddle that only fools the 10 yr olds.

Go on give it a go, tell us why the numbers have fell so drastically, we the intelligent switched on players no, but we would like to hear your fantasy/version why it is the way it is. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

9 hours ago, At_Shin said:

For the most part,  yes, player based is shrinking coz new players aren't joining.  However,  this problem we are seeing with MM is relatively new (I think we got the first report a week or two ago, it seems to be a bug, it might get fixed soon and we shall see rank brackets as they were before this bug).

I expect rank brackets to shorten up to 5-6 ranks at lower ranks when more newbies join, and that'll happen after the game is advertised. 

Then I think you are being disingenuous.

It's not just about rank-spreads.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

12 hours ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

I'm going on about the huge OP updates that affect game play in a massive way.

If the devs introduce a new type of building into a map for aesthetics sake, THAT is not going to have a impact on the game like say the legal hack HOPPER.

Hope my point has finally been clarified enough as to what a poll should be used for. Game changing updates that affect players in a BIG way when entering a battle. 

I gave an example of players being polled on a mechanic that did affect the game in a massive way - Overdrive.

12 hours ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

Polling the entire player base is the only way to get a accurate reading on what the players deem is a good/bad update.

I disagree with this assessment. Again, I refer to the example of Overdrive. It made a good first impression on a lot of players because it was a new, interesting mechanic that promoted teamwork, and in some situations gave players with weaker equipment a chance against more powerful players. But behind those fuzzy first impressions lay the enormous problem of Overdrive enabling a positive feedback loop which resulted in very lopsided matches. That problem was not immediately evident to most players.

Behind a lot of changes lie a lot of subtleties and "details of implementation" which players can rarely predict the effects of before experiencing them first hand. Sure, there are mechanics which are blatantly overpowered even on paper - such as AP augments - but these mechanics are usually introduced in the interest of generating revenue, and players' opinions are hardly going to change anything in those situations.

Edited December 25, 2020 by ThirdOnion

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

2 minutes ago, ThirdOnion said:

I gave an example of players being polled on a mechanic that did affect the game in a massive way - Overdrive.

I disagree with this assessment. Again, I refer to the example of Overdrive. It was a mechanic that made a good first impression on a lot of players because it was a new, interesting mechanic that promoted teamwork, and in some situations gave players with weaker equipment a chance against more powerful players. But behind those fuzzy first impressions lay the enormous problem of Overdrive enabling a positive feedback loop which resulted in very lopsided matches. That problem was not immediately evident to most players.

Behind a lot of changes lie a lot of subtleties and "details of implementation" which players can rarely predict the effects of before experiencing them first hand. Sure, there are mechanics which are blatantly overpowered even on paper - such as AP augments - but these mechanics are usually introduced in the interest of generating revenue, and players' opinions are hardly going to change anything in those situations.

Well the players opinions should be listened to, and in some cases implemented into the game.

In some instances, we do no better.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Just now, SONIC-BOOM said:

Well the players opinions should be listened to, and in some cases implemented into the game.

Sure, player opinions should be listened to - but after something is introduced, and not before.

[SONIC-BOOM 326]

1 minute ago, ThirdOnion said:

Sure, player opinions should be listened to - but after something is introduced, and not before.

Ok, flying hack should be discontinued, are at worst nerfed significantly.

3 overdrives rolled into 1.

How OP is that.

The devs have a common trait they repeat with regular consistency, introducing knowingly OP updates to make as much CASH from those who can afford it, and by doing that they are giving a huge advantage over the less fortunate players, who simply can't afford to match their P2W counterparts.

You can back the devs up with their unfair system as much as you want, the fact that it does not cater to the majority of players, but the select few who have the funds to do so is a blatant disregard for the rest of those players, and a mockery of fair play.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

12 minutes ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

Ok, flying hack should be discontinued, are at worst nerfed significantly.

I completely agree that Hopper is game-breaking.

13 minutes ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

The devs have a common trait they repeat with regular consistency, introducing knowingly OP updates to make as much CASH from those who can afford it, and by doing that they are giving a huge advantage over the less fortunate players, who simply can't afford to match their P2W counterparts.

If the developers intentionally release OP equipment, what makes you think polling players is going to make them change their minds?

13 minutes ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

You can back the devs up with their unfair system as much as you want, the fact that it does not cater to the majority of players, but the select few who have the funds to do so is a blatant disregard for the rest of those players, and a mockery of fair play.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not trying to justify terrible updates, nor am I arguing that the developers are the source of all wisdom. What I am saying is that I do not think that polling players before releasing an update is a good idea, nor do I think polls in general are a good way to gauge players' opinions. Polls mainly capture a general sentiment and ignore nuances. There are pages and pages of detailed and well-written feedback on the forum which I think are far better than any polls.