It could. There's a huge number of options for how it could work and interact with other gameplay elements. The difficulty is in deciding which option would make it an interesting and balanced addition to the game. That's the job of a game designer.

I have no idea how this oil thing is meant to work. It could just slow tanks down, cause them to spin, or maybe mess up the controls for a bit so that driving straight becomes difficult. Anyway, an oil spill seems a bit too low-tech. Something like a "Disruptor Mine" fits better thematically, implying that it messes with the tank's internal systems.

Easy — it's a "quantum" oil stain that affects tanks even if they hover over it Subscribe to Maf for more genius explanations of illogical game mechanics.

Oh, my PM capacity went down from 50k back to 1k messages, and I already have around 1300, so can't accept any more. Thanks for telling — I just cleaned out my inbox

I guess in case of Tanki they're technically made of electrons. At least to the best of my knowledge.

Huh, nice page. Have I been living under a rock, or is this the first time it's done like that?

Probably not. If you think about the number of different device/OS/ISP/location combinations players can have, there's an infinite number of nuances that can happen, causing the issues you described. There's no single solution to it all — the best thing devs can do is continually polish and improve their server architecture to allow it to deal with a wider range of errors.

You can notice a pattern in the naming convention: Melee range = small mammals Short range = medium/large predators Medium range = aquatic animals (except grizzly) Long range = large/predatory birds Armadillo and spider are exceptions because they're in a unique category. But as for why modules are named after animals instead of the protections they offer — that I do not know, and I disagree with the naming scheme. The fact that you need to learn the minimalistic turret icons or click on each module to find out what it protects against is really frustrating, especially with the latest change. I'm pretty sure the animal names are a remnant of the old system when there were over a hundred protection modules, each offering a different combination of 2-4 protections. There would have been no way to name each module accurately, so they were divided into vague categories and given arbitrary animal names. I think this naming scheme should have been removed with the module separation update. They should be simply be renamed to something like "Smoky Protection Module", as that would be clear and straightforward.

Hello. We do not accept reports of gameplay violations on this forum. If you'd like to report a user, you can record a video and submit it on the Russian forum. Closed.

To be fair, public parkour format battles have always been exactly that.

Finally capitalised the Z in "Industrial zone"? That sugestion has been pending since 2015.

This isn't a matter of opinion, because the correct answer is "yes". Obvious example: Developers added automatic supply activation to PC → players complained that using Crisis drone became inconvenient → developers collected the feedback → automatic activation was removed for Crisis. Since that is one example of devs directly responding to player feedback, it means they DO "act on feedback from players that make a difference". A more interesting opinion-based question is how often or what percentage of player requests do you think end up being implemented in the game. I can tell you that this percentage will be very low, for a multitude of reasons.

@Spy I'm still in charge of I&S though.

I've been dethroned as a result of a violent coup d'état. Big sadge...

You saw nothing

ඞ Oh wait I'm blind, you literally mentioned amogus in the first sentence...

A lot of players genuinely like DM mode, and they use it to see how many kills they can get, and whether they can win and take first place. I think it's pretty good to have celebration modes in DM, because that way you don't have situations where 5 out of 6 guys on one team are catching gold boxes while the last guy is trying to play and gets frustrated because of the useless gold-digging team. In DM you choose how you want to play, and your endgame result is dependent on you only. In this specific case, who are "people", and how do you know what they like or don't like? I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of players come to Tanki to shoot enemy tanks, rather than race around a track. Any kind of racing mode won't be very popular at all after the novelty wears off. Besides, we already have some variety. Sometimes there's DM with restricted settings, sometimes there's specific equipment, sometimes there's the Arms Race mode. Occasionally there's even team battles, and with a rare opportunity to play on equal footing, where no one is using P2W equipment. Considering that new game modes take huge amounts of effort to implement, I think the current holiday modes are rather well done.

I&S works like a discussion forum. Players post ideas, other players share their feedback about those ideas. I&S section curators such as myself are not actually required to comment on idea other than to give an explanation in case the idea is declined. I just comment because I like commenting on ideas. But our job as curators is to decide whether an idea is viable and keep an organised list of ideas that players submit, which we compile into a report and forward it to developers each week. What the developers do with this report is unknown to me. I'd like to believe that they genuinely do care about player feedback here, and they take it into account as much as possible when making changes in the game. But you have to realise that: 1) Just because you have an idea you like, doesn't mean that everyone will like it. 2) Even if you have people supporting you, a small sample of forum users does not represent the needs and desires of the whole playerbase. 3) Even if everyone likes an idea, doesn't mean it's good for the game (example: option to sell items). 4) Even if it's good for the game and everyone likes it, it may be too complicated to implement. 5) Even if all of the above are not an issue, there are often too many more important tasks at hand that devs don't have the resources to implement an idea, even if it's really good. Devs told me on multiple occasions that they do care about feedback very much, especially if it's feedback about a recently implemented feature. Its true that feedback and ideas in this section are treated with less consideration than feedback about recent features in news topics. Doesn't mean that it's useless to post them though.

↓↓↓↓↓↓

Then just find an obstacle to hide behind? It's not like we don't already have multiple turrets/augments where even max protection doesn't help much once they start attacking you. Idea is pretty cool. I imagine it would work like a laser, where you connect to the enemy and must keep them focused to have the increasing damage effect.

Why does the game "need it badly"? If the "be on the winning team" mission is removed completely, does the game still need overtime? I'm not a game dev. I'm not strongly disagreeing with the idea that overtime should be added, but I believe that having the game end in a draw isn't a problem in itself. In fact, it's actually quite a cool experience when both teams spend 15 minutes fighting it out, but the game is so well balanced that the score ends in a draw, especially in modes like CP or TDM, where ending on the same score is quite unlikely. The game ends with no losers. Literally the only problem with a tied result is that no one gets to complete their "winning team" mission.

I think everyone should complete the mission as long as the result is not 0-0.

The Nanobots giveth, and the Nanobots taketh away.

Double-click on image to open a pop-up image settings menu.

I think it's fine for games to end in a draw. The only annoying thing about it is if there's a mission to win battles, so ending in a draw does no good for anyone.