I feel like it would do the opposite. Currently, winning and losing doesn't make much of a difference, and your previous losses don't matter at all. But with the W/L ratio being displayed, suddenly you're gonna have players blaming each other for "ruining my stats". Instead of working together, it will cause people to be more toxic.

Well, it requires a complete rework of how a battle ends. Right now you have a timer or some finish criteria, and when either of those are reached, all action immediately stops and all players are sent to the end screen simultaneously. But with the new system, the end screen would have to happen separately for each individual player, which has serious implications for the connection between servers and players.

I like the idea. Randomized turrets is kinda meh (not much of an improvement), but it would be nice to continue the battle even after someone completes the B0-NK tier. The way I see it is that either the game would just keep going until the timer runs out, or players would finish the battle individually, i.e. they would complete the final tier and leave the battle with their reward, but the actual battle would continue. The former option would be much easier to implement.

Oof, that sounds confusing. And why only Jammer augments? It should extend to all other status effects too. But wait, if that's the case, then does it mean that a teammate freeze will unfreeze you? And a teammate firebird will put out your fire? It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's good to implement.

Valid

That's basically the same as super-missions, which we used to have a few years ago. I remember developers saying that most players don't have the patience to commit to a year-long mission, so adding such missions will have no benefit for the game besides giving players more free stuff. I think the new Trophy missions are all we're going to get as far as big commitment "super missions" go.

Well, with a database of suggestions that goes back to 2016, that's expected. It's not easy to come up with a new idea that is reasonable AND original.

It's most likely because anti-aliasing gets disabled, creating sharp edges around the letters.

Status changed to Valid I made some edits to the title and content.

Every additional setting does two things: Makes the UI more complex Adds another item that has to be maintained and tested with every new update to ensure it's not broken. So yes, in theory they could "just add" a hundred different settings to customise every little thing, but in reality the number of settings should be kept as low as possible — just the essentials. One must be especially careful when a setting affects the game in a way that's as significant as completely changing the map models. I think a more correct approach to this problem would be to scrap the old maps, but also add an even lower detail setting to the remastered maps, bringing their "weight" (the number of polygons, resolution of textures) close to the level of old (non-remastered) graphics. But then again, is it really worth going through this whole process when it benefits only a very small part of Tanki's player base?

This is fine as long as remastered maps follow the exact same geometry that standard maps use. But this would severely restrict artists in the type of maps they can create. If map geometry must remain simple like in the old maps, then why bother remastering them at all? Besides, it's better to allocate more resources towards optimising actual remastered maps, rather than creating a whole new system where two types of maps are available and must be compatible with one another.

Valid Developers are constantly working to optimise graphics and improve performance on low end devices. Unfortunately, there's only so much they can do to improve performance without significantly worsening the overall look and feel of the game. When it comes to software design, at some point you just have to accept that a few users have devices which are so weak, that it's unreasonable to optimise the project down to their level since the vast majority of users have devices that are capable of handling higher-end graphics. Some sacrifices must be made. That being said, it's possible that a new graphics option may be added to reduce the level of detail on remastered maps even further.

It's literally still in the testing phase. The items Opex was using are likely only test versions to see whether or not they physically break the game (cause crashes, errors, etc.). Don't treat these encounters as a solid demonstration of what the augment does.

Can't the same be said about every other turret?

Valid

This concern was raised soon after the Mammoth OD update was released, and developers response was that they don't plan to fix this issue in the near future, so "just be more careful when running over dead tanks with Mammoth OD". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm out of the loop, did Gauss salvo aiming time get massively increased again?

Considering that @PirateSpider used google translate to get the text, and didn't even include the word "Челлендж", I suspect his question wasn't clear enough for the mods to answer properly. Also, a bit harsh of a punishment for one mistake, innit?

As a side note, this map idea reminds me of that Age of War game ?

Yeah, unfortunately, the way it plays out in your head is very different from realistic battle situations. In normal MM, where teams are random, it's pretty much every man for himself, and no single tank will be able to achieve much without coordinated support. With rapidly respawning tanks and dead hulls blocking passage, the best you could achieve is making it one way to the enemy base, only to get immediately destroyed by freshly respawned enemies with overdrives and spawn protection. And if we're talking about PRO battles or esports, every well coordinated attack will be met with competent defence. So again — there won't be any progress. If you want to have a feel of what it would be like, try playing CTF on the map Camp.

What's the strategy on this map? Move forward and hope that your GS is higher than the opponent?

Under review

Surely not. If we assume 40 minutes of playing per day (3 battles, which is usually enough to complete all basic missions), that's 3 weekly containers and 21 normal containers per week, plus about 3000 crystals per day from battles. That's 15k + 10k + 21k per week, which is 56k per week, which is around 18 weeks for a million. And that's being VERY conservative — no gold boxes, no ultra containers, no premium, no special events/missions/challenges, no container rewards >1000 crystals. Realistically, I think it takes about 7 weeks to casually earn 1 million.

Me ? At least it saved me from the dilemma of whether or not to spend crystals on this thing, since I barely started progress towards checkpoint 4 by the time the event was ending.

The problem is that it takes a lot of effort to update a map to make it playable in Matchmaking. Besides, these days devs are putting a lot more focus on creating "Remastered" versions of existing maps, rather than adding new ones from the PRO battle pool. That being said, I totally agree that there are some great maps in PRO battles that deserve to be added to MM.