valid Structure for Tanki Updates

[r_Fish.tank980 47]

I previously typed up this post that took about an hour, only to have it invalid because I "suggested" more than one idea in a single post. This was not the case at all so please ensure to differentiate between suggesting things and using an example. I am doing the latter. At no point in this post am I suggesting anything other than the title suggests. I am simply offering my point of view on separate areas on the game in order to support the idea I am trying to put forward. For this reason I will repost my previous thread as it maybe came across in a way I did not intend. I am however only posting one idea. Here goes!

"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. "

 

I get the impression from some of the moderators' replies that the devs do not consult players very often regarding updates. I feel this should not be the case as this is a common business mistake. If you don't listen to what customers want, they won't buy your product/services. The same is true of online games because the same consumer behaviour applies. It is therefore another reason why this idea should be seriously considered, to align the players' needs and wants with the ideas of the devs.  

[Spy 14,687]

Under review

Valid

[r_Fish.tank980 47]

9 hours ago, Rutgers said:

The assault idea is a stretch for me. On smaller maps like Red Alert, the assualting team usually wins as it is due to the maps small size, and that it has 3 different assault flags they can choose from. If this idea was implemented as you suggest,  the assaulting team (cough* hopper cough*) would have a field day on relatively smaller maps like Red Alert and Year 2042

 

That being said, much bigger maps like Highways or Berlin could work, but of course I am not sure. Perhaps increasing the threshold of successful attacks for a victory on the assaulting team could be coupled with 2 points having to be defended by the defending team.

 

IMO, having 2 points in Assault team benefits the assaulting greatly, maybe even too much without some benefit being given to the defending team. By increasing the defending points to 2, not only does the assaulting team have 2 points it can choose for attack, but simultaneously scatters the defending team's defenses, making them much thinner and more penetrable. 

 

I do agree with you that the defending team generally wins in Assault mode, with the rise of Titan AP and their overdrive, along with Isida Dic Mechanics running rampant. Your idea is intriguing, and would be fun to test out nonetheless, in an effort to balance out the mode.

Hi, I'm not going to discuss this idea here, as I would like to respect my word that I am posting one idea. Please comment on the general idea, or feel free to suggest how this could be implemented, that we need to have some criteria for each thing that is added to the game that is fair to both the devs and the players, ensuring that each update stays true to the fundamental idea of the game, ensuring that each update is fair to a wide number of players, does not render other updates to be less effective or less useful etc than before the update was released, and ensures that it makes the game more fun to play, and also does not decrease the general skill level required to play the game. 

 

I think this would be a good start for criteria, and I will be updating my thread when I get time to reflect this. 

 

Please try to refrain from commenting on the examples I gave, this thread is simply about bringing some more logic to the updates the Tanki dev team releases. 

[Spy 14,687]

Status changed to - Valid

[TWICE 798]

Simply remove Assault from MM like they did to DM and SJR.

[1VeryPointyShrub 18]

.

Edited May 18, 2021 by 1VeryPointyShrub

[r_Fish.tank980 47]

I am astounded by the amount of people who didn't even reply to the idea I posted. The mods were kind enough to let me post this the 2nd time, so I sure as hell will not be discussing the "micro-ideas" instead of the actual idea I posted. Please read the post..

[Arjun24 156]

@r_Fish.tank980 I like your idea for assault man. In higher ranks like Legend it's just impossible to get to the flag with their team having mammoths and Saboteur just defending everything. Also great job for the effort you put into that!

Edited May 15, 2021 by Arjun24

[cosmic666 1,055]

On 4/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

it would make for a much more balanced game,

So you believe in miracles, sorry, devs have never believed in balance which in this game would amount to a miracle having to be performed.

 

On 4/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

I have no problem with the hull in principle.

Flying monkeys should be deleted from the game, but in order for that to happen look up the definition of MIRICALE.

 

On 4/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

For example, you could have a checklist of things to check when introducing updates. 

They have a checklist.

1 Will it make money. Checklist complete.

On 4/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

 

I also suggest that a "panel" of non-dev players be appointed to discuss these issues with the dev team

LOL, Now i do like this idea, but unfortunately even if this miracle (there's that word again) were to happen, players would never be taken seriously and i doubt anything would ever go in favour of what the players wanted, not if it went against the devs money making schemes.

 

On 4/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

Completeness. Ie, does some update affect another aspect of the game negatively? If so, is it still worth making the change?

If the change makes money then it matters not if it has a negative impact on the game, believe me it's getting introduced into the game no matter what.

 

On 4/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

I get the impression from some of the moderators' replies that the devs do not consult players very often regarding updates

Try never.

 

On 4/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

If you don't listen to what customers want, they won't buy your product/services.

Good point. But again unfortunately there are enough hardcore buyers for the devs to roll out one OP update after another.

 

On 4/22/2021 at 8:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

to align the players' needs and wants with the ideas of the devs.

The players get what the devs think will make them the most money, which has lead us to this massively unbalanced mess, were only P2W get to reap the rewards in battle. 

I enjoyed reading your post, but as for anything being acted on by the devs i think that MIRACLE needs to happen, but i doubt the almighty bothers much with internet games.

[r_Fish.tank980 47]

11 hours ago, Arjun24 said:

@r_Fish.tank980 I like your idea for assault man. In higher ranks like Legend it's just impossible to get to the flag with their team having mammoths and Saboteur just defending everything. Also great job for the effort you put into that!

Thanks, I appreciate the aknowledgement!

[raze_avenger 221]

On 4/22/2021 at 12:56 PM, r_Fish.tank980 said:

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. 

How many players? Its a good idea but I think every update/week or so, different people should get appointed since referring to the same people isn't the best way to get community feedback. 

[r_Fish.tank980 47]

6 minutes ago, raze_avenger said:

How many players? Its a good idea but I think every update/week or so, different people should get appointed since referring to the same people isn't the best way to get community feedback. 

I agree, I think every update would make more sense since there may be weeks without an update and weeks where there are 10 updates. In statistics there is a test you may conduct for the proportion. So if I decide I want to be 95% certain that the proportion is positive (in this case that more people say yes than say no), then we can use the responses to calculate statistically whether the responses are positive or negative, to a given probability. For this I recommend three stages, one short term (where I assume less reliable data since people have not yet had the opportunity to actually experience the update, as well as fewer responses). Then, one medium term; ie after maybe a month of the update, and one longer term, say after 6 months. 

I would say that the player be asked to respond to an in-game questionaire (think along the lines of youtube questionaires), so that at each stage the number of responses is random, but I doubt there would be only 2 responses for example. This would give the devs a way to track how players are perceiving the changes over time, as well as a lot of data to work with in order to model players' mindsets. If all the updates are viewed positively in the first month, but 6 months later they are all viewed negatively, it would be a cause for concern for example. 

[raze_avenger 221]

13 minutes ago, r_Fish.tank980 said:

I agree, I think every update would make more sense since there may be weeks without an update and weeks where there are 10 updates. In statistics there is a test you may conduct for the proportion. So if I decide I want to be 95% certain that the proportion is positive (in this case that more people say yes than say no), then we can use the responses to calculate statistically whether the responses are positive or negative, to a given probability. For this I recommend three stages, one short term (where I assume less reliable data since people have not yet had the opportunity to actually experience the update, as well as fewer responses). Then, one medium term; ie after maybe a month of the update, and one longer term, say after 6 months. 

I would say that the player be asked to respond to an in-game questionaire (think along the lines of youtube questionaires), so that at each stage the number of responses is random, but I doubt there would be only 2 responses for example. This would give the devs a way to track how players are perceiving the changes over time, as well as a lot of data to work with in order to model players' mindsets. If all the updates are viewed positively in the first month, but 6 months later they are all viewed negatively, it would be a cause for concern for example. 

Yes, I do agree with that though I think that making three stages is a bit too much since if the devs ask for responses too early, the information like you said would be too unreliable and if the devs ask for responses too late, then players might not even be interested in providing feedback. Both of those creates unnecessary information that might confuse the devs so I think that they should ask for responses about a month or two (In your case the medium term) after the update. This allows the devs to compile their information more quickly letting them focus on managing future updates instead of dwelling on an update for a long time. 

Regarding your second response, I do agree with the concept of an in-game questionnaire. However, the main problem with that, is that lots of players including me actually ignore these polls unless we're bribed with crystals . Maybe the crystal solution might be it? I don't really know. Aside from these polls, tanki could ask feedback from social media, email, etc (All which I presumably believe that already do. Correct me if I'm wrong). 

Lastly to what extent do devs look at feedback? I honestly think that they do but I can see that tanki spends much more time on its content than balance mechanics. I cant blame them for that since lots of other companies have to do such things to get money but its also in a way harming the player-base. Whatever solutions they consider in the future, I'm up for it. 

[r_Fish.tank980 47]

1 minute ago, raze_avenger said:

Yes, I do agree with that though I think that making three stages is a bit too much since if the devs ask for responses too early, the information like you said would be too unreliable and if the devs ask for responses too late, then players might not even be interested in providing feedback. Both of those creates unnecessary information that might confuse the devs so I think that they should ask for responses about a month or two (In your case the medium term) after the update. This allows the devs to compile their information more quickly letting them focus on managing future updates instead of dwelling on an update for a long time. 

Regarding your second response, I do agree with the concept of an in-game questionnaire. However, the main problem with that, is that lots of players including me actually ignore these polls unless we're bribed with crystals . Maybe the crystal solution might be it? I don't really know. Aside from these polls, tanki could ask feedback from social media, email, etc (All which I presumably believe that already do. Correct me if I'm wrong). 

Lastly to what extent do devs look at feedback? I honestly think that they do but I can see that tanki spends much more time on its content than balance mechanics. I cant blame them for that since lots of other companies have to do such things to get money but its also in a way harming the player-base. Whatever solutions they consider in the future, I'm up for it. 

Yes, I think that 500 crystals for answering the questionaire would be sufficient. And as for confusing the devs, obviously the responses would be analysed by someone who is qualified to deal with data.. sadly I'm only in my first year of a Statistics degree otherwise I would do so for free. But in this case of course people doing the analysis would be educated to do so, and thus it would not confuse anyone (hopefully). 

I hope you don't mind, but I disagree with your initial point. The purpose of the early analysis is manyfold; you can use it to assess the correlation between how an update is viewed and dips in sales for example. Ie, if we know that 70% of regular buyers who voted yes to an update purchase the new item, we could easily estimate the revenue it would generate etc. Also, the same could be done to estimate the number of people expected to stop returning to the game. I won't go into too much detail, but I feel that roughly the times I stated would be enough for the devs to get a good impression of how their updates are being perceived. The polls should also be in a non intrusive place (to stop people randomly pressing any random response), but also clear enough for the user to choose to respond with maybe a 500 crystal reward. 

Also, for someone who knows what they are doing, it wouldn't actually take more than 10 minutes to get an estimate for the probability of X or more people liking the idea, so I don't believe it would hinder the speed of updates. In fact, it would help devs decide which are worth implementing. The data gathering would maybe take half an hour to design and upload the questionaire, and to come to a good conclusion would take maybe an hour or two for someone who knows their stats. Honestly, idk why they don't invest more in stats graduates (unless I'm wrong). It's the new standard for companies, and I know for a fact that game studios hire analysts to understand customers. This actually makes sense (though it doesnt mean I am correct to say so); many people are not happy with the updates, so some data analysis and player insights would certainly help to get on top of this problem. 

[raze_avenger 221]

1 hour ago, r_Fish.tank980 said:

The purpose of the early analysis is manyfold; you can use it to assess the correlation between how an update is viewed and dips in sales for example. Ie, if we know that 70% of regular buyers who voted yes to an update purchase the new item, we could easily estimate the revenue it would generate etc. Also, the same could be done to estimate the number of people expected to stop returning to the game.

Yeah Its fine I agree with that. But in name of sales, I think that devs should better look at sale stats rather than asking players if they will buy an item using a questionnaire. I think instead, devs should ask players if they agree with such items being added to the game. Also regarding balance changes however, I really don't think there is any trend to spot (Just my opinion), its just whether players like the changes to the game or not. 

 

1 hour ago, r_Fish.tank980 said:

Also, for someone who knows what they are doing, it wouldn't actually take more than 10 minutes to get an estimate for the probability of X or more people liking the idea, so I don't believe it would hinder the speed of updates.

No i meant that data from past updates might get in the way of data gathered from more recent updates Also, players might forget about an update that happened 6 months ago. I honestly don't think its necessary to ask players if they prefer an update or not so long after its release. We can just discuss those in this forum . 

Edited May 15, 2021 by raze_avenger

[cosmic666 1,055]

3 hours ago, raze_avenger said:

How many players? Its a good idea but I think every update/week or so, different people should get appointed since referring to the same people isn't the best way to get community feedback. 

It is if they know what they are going on about.

Balance is at the core of every update the devs roll out in regards to game play, meaning there has never been any, ever in the history of tanki, because the devs make it like that in order to entice the P2W to buy their OP updates. 

You need players who are smart enough to bring balance to the game, but who also realise that game economy has also got to be at the forefront in any decisions regarding game play. Balance and economy can work together, but the devs it seems do not care much for this alliance between the two, rather they put all their efforts into OP updates and watch the money roll in from their P2W players.

These are the facts, only the devs can make the changes needed to sort out this mess. To be honest they have wrecked the game so much i don't think they will ever address the balance issue, after all it's how they operate, P2W comes before anything.   

[raze_avenger 221]

15 minutes ago, cosmic666 said:

It is if they know what they are going on about.

Balance is at the core of every update the devs roll out in regards to game play, meaning there has never been any, ever in the history of tanki, because the devs make it like that in order to entice the P2W to buy their OP updates. 

You need players who are smart enough to bring balance to the game, but who also realise that game economy has also got to be at the forefront in any decisions regarding game play. Balance and economy can work together, but the devs it seems do not care much for this alliance between the two, rather they put all their efforts into OP updates and watch the money roll in from their P2W players.

These are the facts, only the devs can make the changes needed to sort out this mess. To be honest they have wrecked the game so much i don't think they will ever address the balance issue, after all it's how they operate, P2W comes before anything.   

Exactly. I was thinking of a way more players (larger groups) can be selected from any rank to participate in these questionnaires. Though it would only seem right that experienced players should vote, the devs also need to consider opinions from lower ranked players to avoid biasness. After all, everyone's opinions must count.  Anyways, i was just referring to the concept that collecting information from the same people isn't the right way to go, nothing more.