Feels weird to re-read this thing and see 2011 Tanki referred to as "old Tanki" from 2016 perspective, when 2016 Tanki was 7 years ago. Although I'm curious what people think — is there a greater difference in the way it feels between 2011 and 2016 compared to 2016 and 2023?

RIP Harambe

Was this intentional? Because I gotta say, equipping a fast hull with Crisis and running around the battlefield with a bunch of rockets chasing right behind me is some of the best fun I've had in the game lately. Interesting. Either this is the universal approach to product development that's shared by many industries, or you were directly inspired by one of Elon Musk's interviews. Because this is pretty much word-for-word how he explains his approach to new developments at SpaceX (specifically Starship).

I think the Elite pass is a bit of an exception here. No one is complaining that longer events allow for more time for its completion. But if the time given to complete an Elite pass is tied to duration of events, then I fully support having longer events. I don't think that's the case though - the current pass ends in 16 hours, and that's not tied to any event at all, right?

I think people simply get bored of having "the same old thing" for a whole month. Having winter holiday celebrations for a month (or even more) is not too weird, but Halloween is just one event, so stretching that to a month is odd. Tanki's birthday and Tankers' Day is even more odd, since it's a single day event. I like what you guys started doing with gradually releasing holiday stuff throughout the event (like special missions and now even shop bundles), but I think the biggest complaint with these long events is just that it feels weird.

Well, that's... definitely an original idea.

Been busy earlier, eh? I guess now we know who's responsible for today's Discord sabotage

@Jeers4U @HEIDEGGER I'd like to remind you that necroposting is against the rules and is a banable offence (rule 2.4.11.8), but I did you a favour and simply merged the new topic into this one. If you really insist on continuing this discussion, we can do so in PMs. P.S. I'm not an employee of Tanki, and, contrary to popular belief, helpers are not obligated to defend developers' decisions at all costs. We have our own private channels for criticism, and we are allowed to post constructive criticism on public platforms, which I often do. The opinions I share on the forum are my own, and are not actively controlled by the administration.

Penalty for leaving will never happen. Besides, MM already has a system where quitters are replaced with stronger players. I don't see a problem with this. People want to play as Juggernaut, so let them. Now as for changing the mechanics of Juggernaut — that I completely agree with. The two most needed changes, in my opinion, are the removal of Juggernaut's ability to heal via any means besides overdrive, and fair selection of Juggernaut at the start of the game. Devs do those two things and the exploit will be fixed. Lol if true

Seeing that your team managed to score 3 points, this actually seems like a fairly balanced battle. Though I agree that it's very odd for the algorithm to decide that a 9k GS player should be put into a game where everyone is in the 2k-5k range. I've been in place of the 9k player a few times, and it's frankly quite boring to just farm kills non-stop with zero challenge. I tried asking Opex about why this happens, but he never seems to give a straight answer.

It's not that far-fetched if you think about it. If every single game is balanced, and therefore challenging, then you end up with a number of problems: Battle length. If every game is an intense flight that lasts the full 12 minutes, players may feel that the games are too long and exhausting. This is exacerbated by the incentive to finish battles as fast as possible in order to accumulate stars and do missions as fast as possible. Repetitiveness Variety is always better than the same thing happening over and over, even if it means introducing negative experiences to otherwise "perfect" scenarios. If every battle is a tough and balanced match, players could actually get bored of their experience being too repetitive. Lack of progression. Perfectly balanced matches can sometimes lead to a very even win-loss ratio, making it difficult for players to see significant progression or improvement in their skill over time. This lack of perceived progression can be demotivating for some players. Mental fatigue This is the most important factor. When a match is balanced, every player, regardless of their skill or GS, feels that their actions could mean the difference between winning and losing. This causes them to concentrate much harder on what they're doing, which quickly leads to mental fatigue. On the other hand, if you have a bunch of quick wins and losses in-between, you're much more relaxed while playing, because you know that you don't need to do anything (when your team is winning easily), or you cannot do anything (when you're losing) to change the result of the battle. And if one intense battle comes after that, it feels like a refreshing change of pace when you suddenly get that feeling of pressure and strong competition. I even felt this effect on myself. There were times when a mix of wins and losses caused me to get lost in the game for hours, but in other times two or three balanced battles in a row made me feel like I need a break after just 30 minutes or so. Please don't get started with this. I don't want to escalate to warnings and bans.

1 key unlocks one corresponding container, but we don't know if the container contents will be updated as well when this update comes.

I find it rather amusing that you picked this specific battle as an example of bad MM, because this battle actually demonstrates the opposite. The total GS for your team is 38,786, while the GS for the losing team is 35,194, not including the player in last place, who we can assume adds an additional 5000 GS or so to the team, making it quite even. MM makes some ridiculous teams sometimes, but your example does not prove your point at all. The teams are fairly even, and both teams have both good and not-so-good performing players. I also recognise that having a 2000 GS player together with a 9999 GS player is far from perfect, but devs determined that this is a better outcome compared to the alternative, which would be to increase MM wait times. The upcoming addition of bots to MM should help solve the GS disparity issues. Another important thing to note is that no battle can be perfectly balanced. Even if you were to assemble two teams of players where both teams have identical sets of equipment and skill levels, the battle results will still be wildly unpredictable due to the organic nature of players' actions. So it's entirely possible to have two teams get a 7-0 score in one game and a 0-7 score in the next game, even though both teams are pretty much identical in power. And in case you don't believe me, here's a real life example. I think augments are an irrelevant argument here, since we're just talking about MM. But the idea of battles being made deliberately unbalanced may actually be true. Opex himself said a few years ago that if an online game has perfect balance where each battle is even and close, players end up getting fatigued faster and actually end up playing less, so MM is often designed to intentionally skew balance in games so that you have a mix of total losses, easy wins, and hard, balanced battles. I'd say that the rank here is irrelevant. As long as the other team also has a player that's not helping the team much, the balance is fine. Besides, can you really blame MM for being unable to predict how someone will play? Like I said above - people are unpredictable. You could have a 9999 GS player with a perfect win score who decided to play some MM with one hand while eating a sandwich. MM assigns him as the "carry" in one game, but he just drives around lazily while eating his sandwich. How do you calculate things like this into the MM algorithm? You can't.

Long overdue, but much appreciated.

Ok, you make some good points. Even if you have supplies and a basic 9999 tank, it doesn't stop you getting demolished by more OP equipment. But at least MM does solve the issue of not having enough players in your battle. For more fair games with the benefits of MM you have the weekend game modes, which often feature pro-battle-like restrictions.

I don't understand the meaning of useless in this case. How are PRO battles more "useful" compared to MM?

I have nothing against people who prefer PRO battles, but you can't willingly go into PRO battles and then complain about the unique problems it has. Having uneven teams or not enough players joining rarely happens in MM. MM definitely has a P2W problem, but I feel like supplies are easy enough to come by these days that condenscendingly calling those battled "drugging festivals" is an outdated point of view, which stopped being relevant around 2018. The main problem a F2P user would have to deal with is drones and OP augments. Judging by the post above, OP is having this problem in PRO battles just as well. This is exactly why I stopped playing PRO battles soon after MM was released. MM has its disadvantages, but at least you're not spending the majority of your time staring at the lobby, waiting in empty maps, and jumping between battles. @Gabe2607 I'm genuinely curious why you're so strongly against playing in MM.

> refuses to play the main game type > goes to niche custom games instead > surprised when they don't offer him the best experience > shockedpickachuface.jpg

Topic merged

That's the whole point of the suggestion - some basic mice do have the back/forward buttons, but you can't configure them.

Not quite 10 yet, but thanks anyway! I joined Tanki in summer 2011, joined the RU forum in November 2011 (my forum registration date), but, because EN forum was part of RU forum back then, my acc ended up being created here too. I actually started actively posting on EN forum in August 2014, and became a forum mod in December 2014.

The augment seems fine, but I'm more concerned about the confusion of Thunder having two augments that both follow the scheme of "Vac___ Shells" Anyway, why "vacant", and not just something like... "rubberized"?

Very good analysis, thank you.

Yes.

Should have made the UI like this: Missed opportunity, smh my head