invalid Structure for Tanki Updates

[r_Fish.tank980 47]

Hi all. I want to first start by saying how much I respect the guys who took their time to code this game. I cannot code very well in any language, so my heart goes out to you all.  I also am not 100% certain if such a thing is already in place. However, I do feel it either lacks something if it does, or needs to be implemented if not. I do my best not to offend anyone; rather, as a player,  I find certain updates to be slightly random and unbalanced. I wish to bring up a few examples using nothing more than basic, unbiased, and logical statements, as an introduction. I then wish to propose a solution that benefits both the well deserving development team, but also the players, without which, the development team would not exist. 

 

1. Firstly, please see my post about drones. Basically, batteries are not suited to players who are still upgrading their equipment, as this already costs a lot. GIven that the price for a minute of batteries generally is more than the crystals you win in battles, I do not find that this method is suited to all players in the game. Hence, here, generality seems to be the issue. 

2. Hopper. I do not wish to say it should not exist, I have no problem with the hull in principle. However, I do have a problem with the fact that I see hopper, and only hoppers, going from one flag to the other in a period of time incomparable to other hulls even with augments and speed boost taken into account. Try capping in 5 seconds with wasp? I am also aware of a post in suggestions asking for strafing of the hull to be reduced, which I find fully fair. I aknowlegde as well that this post is down as valid, so I do not wish to complain more than I am welcome to. I simply wish to state that the hull is definitely not, even still, at a stage where it is fair and balanced. I do find some issues with it's overdrive as well. Here, it's leveling that seems to be an issue. 

3. Assault. The gamemode needs a rework (or at least to test this idea:); rather than having one single point that enemies spawn at, it should be equal. Currently, the team defending can camp at the point, and pretty much physically block it off with mammoth and co. If there were two spawn points, it would make for a much more balanced game, as players would not be able to simply camp at once place and pick you off. Also, it would require both teams to coordinate themselves, which in reality can be done by typing "defend point B" or "point A is clear, go to A". For the sake of a 10 second message to the team, the gamemode could be 10x more interesting, and less of a "pick them off" gamemode.  Here, it seems that the issue is that the game mode is not optimised. (Although this is just my interpretation. For anybody reading please do not take this to heart, I am not forced to be correct on this particular issue as it is simply my opinion, so please try not to go against the dev team should you agree with me here). 

 

Now I have gone through a few examples, I find it a natural time to ask that some structure be introduced surrounding future updates. For example, you could have a checklist of things to check when introducing updates. 

 

- Is this fair, and can it be generalised? Ie, for drones, is it fair to a wide a range of players as possible? If players who are still upgrading their mains cannot afford to run drones, then it ia only fair when such players are not battling players who have upgraded their mains. Since a class of players do not have as much access to drones, but yet they are still playing against players who do, I find that this update should fail on some specific point on a checklist for updates. 

 

- Has this been optimised? If not, can it still be released without affecting the game? This is another point I find should be on the list. If hopper has not been optimised, does it affect the game too much for it to be realeased? Unfortunately, I, and I am certain others do too, feel it does. It should therefore not have been released too early, or should have beeen removed in order to optimise the hull. I find it fair to state that any update that affects the game too much and has not been optimised, should not be allowed to become a permanent part of the game. 

 

- Is this what the community want? I definitely do not want to teach anybody to suck eggs here, it is included for completeness. But I believe that a proportion of the community should be surveyed at random. If you inroduce an idea on the V-logs, and receive positive response, this does not mean it should be implemented. If players watch the V-logs, they are likely to be more biased towards the ideas. Instead, I think a part of the checklist should be that special care is taken to determine if it is wanted or not, and that any possible bias it reduced when searching for this answer. This may seem fairly obvious, but it definitely comes with real consequences, even for the dev team. If you mistakenly spend days working on an update that will later be revamped or removed, this could have been better spent on an update the community wanted, and would result in more real money sales since the community are the basis of all decisions. 

 

I also suggest that a "panel" of non-dev players be appointed to discuss these issues with the dev team, so that both sides can put forward their arguments for all of the points on said checklist before an update is judged, released or confirmed. I believe this would also reduce traffic to the suggestions panel, as 90% of the suggestions will be dealt with before the update is released, and from a coding perspective would enable the dev team to work more efficiently, since everything would be optimised, fair and  worthwhile before it was even released. 

Edit 1: I feel the need to suggest one more criteria. Completeness. Ie, does some update affect another aspect of the game negatively? If so, is it still worth making the change?

This is just an idea, and is by no means exhaustive. It does, however, give a simple introduction as the the possible necessity of my idea, as well as an indication of what it could be. 

Thanks for reading, and as ever I am happy to answer any questions. 

 

[Spy 14,957]

Please create a separate topic for each idea.

Invalid, closed.