I'm not gonna go through all of your posts from all of your forum accounts, just like how I don't expect you to go through all of my posts to find something that I already said in the past. I repeated myself countless times, and I'm willing to do it again if it helps the conversation. Not every update is meant to help every player. In fact, some updates are "necessary evils" that negatively affect ALL players, but are essential to implement anyway in order to help the project survive. That's how F2P games (and services as a whole) work and it's not going to change, ever. If you start editing my quotes, this whole conversation becomes pointless. I phrased my request very carefully. My original statement was that developers are doing everything they can to help this game survive and retain an audience for as long as possible, and that every new feature or update they implement is on the path towards making the game better. To counter my statement you gave an example that devs gave Vulcan an OP ability. If this change was indeed a bug, then the argument is invalid, because I asked for examples of changes that were made intentionally, and bugs are not intentional. If this change was intentional, then its purpose was to get more people to spend money on the game to get their hands on this shiny new OP Vulcan. Therefore, the game generated more revenue and this update was beneficial overall. Thus my point still stands. It's important to note that for an update to "make the game better", the update does not necessarily need to "make players happier". Adding new types of monetisation is an example of an update that's good for the game overall, but doesn't benefit F2P players at all.

In that case, your idea is 100% declined for reasons outlined in previous posts. Just to reiterate: It makes no sense for developers to encourage users to create multiple accounts. This is true for ANY online service*. It's unfair to users without multiple accounts. There is no benefit whatsoever for devs implementing this. It just allows players to get more stuff for free, unless there is a massive price for each trade. You're not the OP of this topic's initial idea though, and the original is somewhat different. So it stays valid. *besides scammers and pyramid schemes, but even if you think that Tanki is a scam, for this discussion we'll assume that Alternativa is genuinely trying to maintain a legitimate online business.

It's called Google Translate. Or "AI", as the kids would call it these days. Cool. Looking forward having a multi-tome edition of Game Design by Semyon Strizhak in my library.

I think he lost his nick to inactivity, so his is probably r_Damn_Slow2 or something Graphics was a helper, yes.

Graphics was never a forum admin. I mean Damn_Slow

I was in Mauritius last year. Didn't play tanki there, but it's totally believable that ping is terrible there? One of the previous forum admins is from Mauritius, so there's that little bit of random info.

It's interesting and unique, but as curators of I&S we're always careful about accepting ideas for new free rewards. There's a thousand different ways to implement new ways of getting rewards via dedicated gameplay, but we don't accept ideas for new rewards because that's not how these decisions get made. That's why this idea is being merged, because otherwise we'd just have to decline it.

I was about to say how obvious it is. At least you admit it haha.

Same here - playing from UAE, high ping. Used to be lower before, but then it got increased one day and stayed high. Still playable though. I think devs changed the server architecture recently, which causes signals from certain locations to take longer to reach the servers, increasing the ping. It's not discrimination - just an unintended consequence of necessary changes.

You can always share new paint ideas, but the chances of them being added to the game at this point are basically zero. Even if devs were actively adding new paints, they wouldn't directly use one that a player provided, because it raises potential legal issues (digital copyright or whatever it's called).

Cant argue with that. The prices are pretty insane. But that doesn't make it a "pump and dump". Prices in any market are driven by demand, so if people are buying the offers, then prices will stay as is. Well? Give an example then. An example of a feature or update that developers added, which intentionally does not help the game in any way, short term or long term. Can you explain it in a different way please? Your explanation was not very clear and we had to guess what you meant.

A unique texture that's not like any of the 455 is also not very feasible ?

Unfortunately, P2W is what the people actually want to buy. The only cosmetic non-P2W items that people care about are either exclusive skins, which are very time-consuming to create, or brand new types of cosmetics, like the very first animated paint, the very first custom sound shot effect, very first skin, etc., which aren't a sustainable source of revenue. Devs already tried to make a game that was mostly focused on selling cosmetics instead of P2W items. You can see where it ended up. If Tanki Online is to stay alive, it needs to maintain a certain level of P2W and devs can't afford do implement features like a trading system that would allow players to easily exchange exotic augments and funnel them from their alts to their main account. You may have a valid point there. I think Tanki's audience is more loyal compared to the typical online F2P user in other games, so that might allow developers to get away with implementing more extreme monetisation strategies while still retaining the audience. That being said, Tanki Online is far from a typical "pump and dump" greed-fuelled scheme. I'll say this again — it takes serious dedication to retain an audience in a browser-based video game for over a decade, and this can only be achieved if the project managers really care about the game's survival. And if they care about the game's survival, they will be careful to only implement features that benefit the game in the long term. In fact, I believe that this is what they've been doing the whole time and I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I've been involved with this project for over a decade, so I've watched it change and noticed how certain updates affect further development. Remember the Rebalance of 2012? That's when the developers made fundamental changes to equipment and decided to completely refund players' whole garages into crystals and give them a fresh start. Everyone was very happy that finally devs are "giving back for once". But do you think they were so happy that they decided to reward developers by spending real money? Nope, quite the oppposite. Because everyone suddenly had enough crystals to buy all the equipment they needed, revenue was at a record low, so a few months later came the infamous Update 123, which slashed battle funds in half and made battles not worth playing. It was so bad, that myself and a few other people decided to play only private PRO battles without supplies, because normal games were unplayable. Mind you, this is 2013, i.e. the time that many people often say was the "best Tanki". My point is that the game's economy is a sensitive subject and features like trading between accounts cannot be added without proper consideration, meaning that such a massive benefit would have to be compensated either by unreasonable limitations (pay 2000 tk for each trade), or by removal of other freebies (such as fewer containers from missions and challenges). Idk man, people have been saying "enough is enough" and "this is the final straw" for every bad update since 2012, yet here we are 12 years later. Devs wouldn't be able to keep the game alive for so long if their mindset was just greed.

Adding an ability to refund items could also be considered a "one off good gesture", but it would also completely destroy the economic balance and likely kill the game. That's why we don't accept ideas for things that directly benefit players' ability to get more currency/items, and that's why this idea is on the verge of being declined for the same reason. We don't know Alternativa's company structure, but it's almost certain that they have a full-time employee who keeps track of sales and revenue. This person will be able to predict/calculate the impact of adding or removing freebies, and this is the kind of person who decides "yes, we can give a token of apology with a thousand tankoins" or "no, we can't give players a higher reward for rankups".

Something like a trading system falls into the overall economic balance of Tanki Online, which is an aspect completely separate from things like gameplay mechanics, interface design and equipment balance. For that reason I'm not too keen on having such ideas, because it's obvious that players want it to be added not because it's a cool or interesting feature, but because it would help them benefit by getting the items they want cheaper or easier. In fact, I'd even argue that trading should fall under rule 2(d) of I&S - no ideas regarding refund or sale of items. But whatever, we'll keep this one valid. I don't even understand what exactly you're proposing above. What does it mean to "only trade between two accounts" and how is that a restriction? If I have a hundred free-to-play accounts of similar ranks, I can just trade between them, doing one trade at a time, to get the items I want on one account. The rank range is not a problem. Devs already established a long time ago that they're comfortable with allowing low ranks to have Legend-tier equipment, because "those accounts will rank up very fast when they play, and they will soon reach Legend rank anyway". The problem is that by opening random free containers on many accounts, on some of them you will eventually get some augments, paints or skins that you like. So then you can just trade those items onto your one main account (in exchange for some trash status augment you don't care about) and enjoy them all on your main. The result is as I said above - instead of having an incentive to spend real money to get more container keys, you're just funnelling good items from your alts onto your main for free. This is why any kind of trading system would inevitably require a very high payment for every trade. This is why I don't like to discuss features that affect the game's economy. They're difficult to understand and difficult to explain, so I'd rather just leave it to the experts and focus on gameplay/interface/community ideas instead.

Is this a problem? I can decline it if you insist ?

Topic merged Trading will only be added if every trade involves a substantial fee in tankoins. And I'm talking hundreds, if not thousands of tankoins per trade. Think about it, if getting a normal legendary augment requires someone to spend thousands of tankoins on Epic Keys, then if you're giving an augment you don't need to a friend who really wants it, this friend will be less inclined to buy Epic Keys with real money, thus reducing the game's revenue. Therefore, I believe developers intentionally decided not to add any kind of trading system, because such a system would go one of three ways: The trading is cheap, so Tanki Online loses money; The trading is expensive, so players complain that devs are greedy; The trading system is designed in a constrained way so that players can't benefit from it, so players complain that it's trash and never use the system, meaning that devs spent a lot of time and resources developing a useless feature; Every option is an overall negative for Tanki, so why bother adding it?

I remember when hover hulls were first added, the question about how they will set off mines was a popular one. Opex-Rah said something along the lines of "I'm pleased to announce that we've upgraded all of your standard mines to smart proximity mines completely free of charge! They will detect enemy hover tanks and detonate under them. You're welcome!"

Great news! With the ability to combine Saboteur drone with Miner hull augment, mines are now even MORE of a problem!

I just don't like how RNG it is in terms of crits. You could spend ages chipping away at an opponent, dealing little bits of damage with rockets and normal shots, only to have him turn around and get two lucky crits on you and kill you. Other than that, the gameplay is quite fun.

Topic merged

Topic merged

What a weird question. The purpose of every turret is to damage enemy tanks ? I guess you could say that some turrets are for defending and some for attacking, and are more suited to specific size maps, but with augments that completely change a turret's play style, even that is no longer relevant.

Hmm, I might actually try it now