The former, of course. But I don't see why we can't have both. I mean, I've often been in situations where I'm coming up to a ramp, see a minefield, stop, but my teammates behind me don't know about it and there's nothing I can do to inform them (let's face it - writing in battle chat is not a practical option). It would be such a nice feature if by coming close to an enemy mine, you'd permanently mark it as visible for yourself and your teammates. There's absolutely no reason why you should "forget" where a mine is after already detecting it.

Because there's so many of them now. It was never like that before. By the way, besides simply nerfing the rate at which mines are being spammed onto the battlefield, there's a couple other ideas I like, which would help with the annoyance of mines: Hornet OD should make all enemy mines completely visible for all teammates. Any enemy mines revealed manually by a player should stay revealed for the whole team until they are removed or the game ends.

What was imblack using? Because 29 normal kills gives 435 points, which leaves 850 extra points. He'd have to kill juggernaut 13 times to make up the difference on juggernaut kills alone, so the only other option is that he did a lot of healing.

Valid

The most obvious solution is that none of the bonus mines from Saboteur should remain when the owner gets killed. Only the single central mine. What's happening with Saboteur+Miner combo right now is an absolute farce, and I refuse to believe that its ridiculous power was not intentional. So I think it's pointless to make any suggestions for it, because I'm pretty sure that devs either decided that this is the Tanki they want to have, or they already have a nerf planned for it from the start.

Interestingly enough, Minecraft server Hypixel had this feature where you could report a player and choose from a number of options (like cross-teaming, cheating, etc.), but then they reduced it to just having the ability to click report with no further options. I suspect that having options doesn't help the moderators because people don't care and click any random option without reading.

Lol welcome back. We'll see what happens, but I'd say there's a decent chance that new (i.e. missing) shot colours will be added once the effects are reworked for all turrets.

It's a matter of personal preference, but I think most players will disagree with you. Highways is generally disliked, while Chernushka and Massacre are regarded by many as some of the worst maps. On the other hand, most of the maps in your "needs rework" category are pretty decent and I don't remember ever seeing any complaints about maps like Molotov, Future, Aleksandrovsk or Tribute.

Topic merged If I got a nickel every time someone suggested to improve the sound of Vulcan, I'd have exactly two nickels. That's not a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice ?

To me it's basically just TDM, but there's a big powerful enemy tank that one-shots you every now and then, and another big powerful tank that steals your kills. It's also annoying to become the juggernaut, since the game is built in a way where you have to hide in your base for the best chance of team victory. You also can't complete supply activation missions. This is good, but they just need to add an option to decline becoming juggernaut if you get selected.

Give me a way to filter out modes I don't like, and I'd happily use the Quick Battle button every time without any additional incentives.

Topic merged

Yeah basically I got bored ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm curious what the reason is for it. It's not like they just forgot to add it.

Not at all. Basically, if developers directly take an asset created by a non-employee (or anyone that hasn't signed the NDA), then the creator of this asset has some legal right to retain ownership of the asset and therefore has the ability to press charges if they believe that Alternativa is not giving proper credit or misusing it. The asset could be anything, like a texture, a 3D model, a sound, an animation, etc. So if you create a paint and devs add it to the game, you now have the power to cause problems for them if you feel like it. They don't want to deal with such problems, so they make sure that every tank skin and paint texture is created within the company, by Alternativa employees.

I would argue that Thunder's healing is balanced and it's Shaft HE which is OP. In fact, they're both OP, because being able to heal your teammates from a distance while sitting behind cover pretty much destroys the enemy players' ability to properly counter it.

Exactly, which is good for the game, once again proving my point. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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.