It's not 100% clear what they want to do with it yet, but I see no reason to intentionally remove protections from the UI. Even without changing it could be useful, for example if you're playing in a group, so you can see the strongest enemy players and check if they have protections from your friends' turrets. That way you'll know if they need help fighting that enemy.

No way it's coming back. The only benefit is that it helps you pick a turret to change to, but developers are moving away from in-battle changing as a mechanic altogther.

It's an intentional disadvantage of Nanotech Thunder. I recommend using HE Shaft instead, if you have it. Its shots are hitscans.

WHY WON'T YOU NERF SHOCK THERA... oh wait nvm This is a massive change. Also big. Why? What did it do to deserve this? It's already terrible ? holy moly

But they do, because they have to. Just like with the store example, if customers keep buying from you despite cheaper alternatives being available, you have to make an effort to retain your loyal customer base while also attracting new customers. But for Tanki Online, it's a balance between monetisation and QoL features, which is why we get things like OP augments and overpriced events (like space race), but we also get plenty of freebies like limited time modes with equal equipment and increased gold boxes. So, relating all this back to the original point, major decisions (like whether or not to continue development of Tanki Classic) are absolutely driven by money, but it doesn't mean that Tanki Classic will be created for the purpose of directly generating cash flow. I don't recommend this game to anyone. I've had a few people interested, and while I do tell them that I like the game and it has fun gameplay, I always follow it up with warning them that it's P2W with a high spending threshold for comfortable progression.

Perhaps, but are you saying that this is a sign of greed? Alternativa is a for-profit company, and it operates like one. If you were running a grocery store and people kept coming and buying from your store despite other nearby stores having the same items for less, would you lower your prices anyway?

We've had the billboards discussion many times over the years. The reason they're not used for real ads is because no one actually pays attention to them in-game. It would be a terrible ROI for advertisers to pay to have their ads displayed that way. And I'm guessing that selling only cosmetics doesn't work in Tanki Online, because new skins are too slow to produce, while shot effects and paints aren't desirable enough to generate enough revenue. Thing is, while I don't have insights into TO's financial situation and I can't guarantee for sure that owners aren't "greedy", the reason I disagree with that sentiment is because the game continues to exist after almost 16 years. If the owners were truly greedy, they would squeeze every last cent out of the project during its peak years (around 2014) and not focus on long-term development. As for the prices, they're simply driven by sale numbers. Opex said it himself - the shop in TO is extremely overpriced, but prices are so high because people keep buying stuff anyway. And if sales are good, why would they lower the prices? The one thing I can absolutely critisize Tanki Online on is the use of containers (lootboxes). It's an extremely profitable reward mechanic that preys on humans' natural desire for reward. In a game played by children, it serves as an early introduction to gambling, which I think is highly unethical. That's one example where Alternativa clearly prioritised profits over ethics. But then again, so did most other online games.

Now that's a contradiction if I've ever seen one. I have no idea what you're talking about. It would be technically correct to say that Tanki Online is not P2W because every single gamplay-affecting item is available to obtain without paying. The caveat is that getting those items for free requires either an astronomical amount of gamplay hours, or astronomical luck. So for practical purposes, things like Tsar grenades, OP augments, and nuclear energies are P2W items which are used by paying players to gain an advantage in battles. Filling your game with ads is never a good idea. People tolerate ads on mobile, but on PC they are not an option for revenue. And to get enough from cosmetics alone, the game needs a massive audience - way more than TO ever had even at its peak. TO does have skill-based games in the form of limited time modes, some of which force everyone to play on the same level. But again, hopefully TC will be better in this regard.

And here I was, foolishly thinking that we're having these cute discussions because we want the game to get better. But I guess for you, seeing devs make mistakes and fail is a better outcome than having a nice game to play, just because then you can say "I told you so". Well then, let's see...

No typo. F2P versus P2P is one thing, and P2W vs F2W is another. They are not mutually exclusive. F2P = Free to play. The game can be accessed and played without any mandatory purchase or subscription. That's Tanki Online. P2P = Pay to play. The game must be purchased or a subscription must be bought before you can play it. That's most console games and most games on Steam. P2W = Pay to win. The game has in-game purchases (microtransactions), which allow users to buy powerful equipment which cannot be obtained (or is extremely difficult to obtain) without paying real money. That's also Tanki Online, with its augments, drones, grenades, supplies, etc. F2W = Free to win. Everyone in the game plays with the same level of equipment, or has equal access to upgrades, which are only obtained by playing. That's Fortnite. A multiplayer online game that's F2P is often also P2W, because it's very difficult to generate enough revenue by only selling cosmetic items that don't affect gamplay. Fortnite managed to avoid P2W thanks to its huge popularity and unique position in the market, but Tanki Online couldn't, so it always had P2W elements present to supplement the revenue from cosmetic items. A game can also be P2P and P2W. One infamous example of this is Star Wars Battlefront II, which cost $60 to purchase (so it's P2P), but still had lootboxes containing powerful rare gamplay items, generating a lot of negative reactions. It's entirely possible that Tanki Classic will be the same, but I have reason to believe that this won't be the case. It's also worth noting that P2W is not an absolute value. It's a gradient, so some games are more P2W than others. Even Tanki Online itself had varying levels of P2W over time, changing from year to year. So, as for Tanki Classic, there are four options: F2P and P2W - You play it for free, but it will be just like "Old Tanki", where you run out of supplies and crystals, and get destroyed by players who bought top-tier equipment and thusands of supplies. This is less likely. F2P and F2W - You play it for free and all equipment is easily accessible, only cosmetic items can be purchased with money. There might be an optional paid subscription tier that gives access to more features, but doesn't give an in-game advantage. It probably means that Tanki Classic would operate at a loss and will require funding from Tanki Online revenue in order to support it. This is less likely. P2P and F2W - You must pay a monthly subscription to play Tanki Classic. Opex said that it will be much cheaper than Premium Account in TO, so something like $3 per month. This will generate enough revenue to support the TC game servers, so devs won't need to sell overpowered equipment and the game will be balanced. This is a likely outcome. P2P and P2W - You must pay a monthly subscription to play, but the game will still have lootboxes with powerful items, so you will still find it hard to win unless you spend extra money on those items. This is a very unlikely, but still possible outcome.

*If ?

You need a hull augment called Miner. When you have it equipped, 70% of the mines you placed will stay when you get destroyed.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If developers decide to go for the mandatory subscription model, Tanki Classic will NOT be F2P (free to play) by definition.

The whole thing doesn't fit into TO's core mechanics, so it won't be one of the main game modes. And if it's a new limited time mode, it sounds like a lot of hassle to implement, especially with the no-respawn modifier. Besides, I don't really see how it's different from SGE. In both cases you have teams trying to hold a location for a couple dozen seconds and prevent the other team from getting there, each "round" (i.e. point capture) lasts about 2 minutes, and it's first to 5 wins.

The difference here is that you're pointing to the development history of Tanki Online and saying that TC will be the same, and I'm saying that TC will be different because it's a completely separate new game, so instead of comparing it to Tanki Online, I'm comparing it to other "classic" implementations like WoW Classic, OSRS or Lineage II Classic. My belief that Tanki Classic will not be P2W is based on three inputs: - The developers said so, and they never outright lie[1]; - Opex suggesting that TC may have a cheap but required subscription (P2P); - The fact that initial interest from players was much higher than expected. Moreover, having an OG version of the game without P2W features and other hardcore monetisation stuff that players hate so much allows devs to double-down on monetisation in Tanki Online, because anyone complaining about it can just be told "why don't you go play Tanki Classic then?"[2]. Until more details are revealed, it's pointless to speculate about this. You have your opinion and I have mine, so we'll see who ends up being right. [1] I know you'll disagree on this, so let's not open that can of worms. I won't say "devs always tell the whole truth" either, because it's complicated. [2] I'm familiar with the three games mentioned, but not so much with their monetisation strategies. But if this response from ChatGPT is correct, then all three games insensified their monetisation strategy in the main game once the classic version was released. And it worked out for them financially:

Officially, rolling back a rank is not something Tanki allows. But you can try sending an email to help@tankionline.com, maybe they'll give you an exception.

I agree, but Freezing hasn't seen any changes for like 1-2 years now, so I suspect that devs (i.e. Opex) are happy with how it's working right now.

Yeah, I'm not complaining. I think it's a good way to make Juggernaut survive longer while also discouraging camping in the back of the base. In fact, I think it should be completely impossible for teammates to heal Juggernaut.

Wait what? Picking up any supply box is now equivalent to activating jugg OD? I like this change, but it's very surprising. Edit: forgot that Jugg HP is 20k at Mk7, not 10k. So it's a quarter. Not as drastic as I thought, but still good. This is lame, assists are basically non-existent now. Battle score changes in general have been very negative lately and I don't understand what the point is. It seemed fine before. Edit: TDM was corrected to "team battles" in the patch notes, so changing assists from 3 points back to 5 is a good change. 3 seconds is still too low, however.

If I say that 2+2=4, is that also my opinion, according to you? Because that's certainly what it looks like when I say that a company needs money to develop a new project, and you say that it's just my opinion. I don't know what kind of conspiracy theories you're hooked on, but some things can be deduced with basic common sense, without any official source explicitly stating it: The developer of Tanki Online (TO) and Tanki Classic (TC) is a for-profit company. The development of TC requires a lot of additional resources. Starting development of TC is a financial risk that the owners would not take without strong reassurance that the project will generate enough revenue to at least support itself. Considering that TC will likely be P2P, and considering that the initial early access sales show higher investment (from users) than previously predicted, it is a FACT that TC will be easier to monetise using non-P2W methods compared to TO. Whether or not the developers will go down that route is a different matter. So I don't know what point you're trying to make with that screenshot from yesterday. The fact that a project's continued development or cancellation is decided by initial interest (i.e. how much users spent on early access bundles) has nothing to do with how it will be monetised.

I phrase my responses very carefully, so I suggest you read them carefully too. If devs "will be able to" use friendly monetisation, it does not mean they will. I also didn't state my own opinion on what I think they will or will not do. I simply explained how their options changed now that the early access sales went much better than expected. Can you elaborate why you think that Tanki Classic can't/won't use non-P2W monetisation methods when Opex already said that the whole game will likely be P2P in the first place?

For Tanki Classic to become a real project it needs funding. Altrnativa Game isn't a charity, so of course they first need to see players supporting a new spin-off with their wallets before further investment can be made to continue its development. That's doesn't mean that the project itself will be P2W. On the contrary, the fact that so many are buying early access bundles suggests that devs will be able to monetise the project using more "friendly" methods. The fact that you're not able to understand this simple concept makes me think you're just too young to discuss these things.

POG After your post about "Classic" format having zero battles, I had very low hopes for this project. Glad to see it coming around.

I saw this idea a couple times over the years. It's cool, but sounds like a nightmare to implement and balance.

Even without the emoji prefixes the writing style screams ChatGPT ?