Thing is, if game balance was that easy, @Opex-Rah would be out of a job. In reality, balancing turret upgrades throughout the ranks is far from just making sure that the damage and reload increases in a linear and proportional fashion for all turrets. All turrets have vastly different shooting mechanics, and other major differences such as effective range, ability to shoot multiple enemies, application of status effects, impact force, and even turret rotation speed. All of this needs to be taken into account when balancing the game, and I'm sure there's a good reason for why Thunder and Railgun have different reload speed increases. I'm not saying that balance in Tanki is perfect, but I am saying that your approach towards judging it is not quite right. I also don't really understand why penetration is the stat you decided to target in your nerf. To me it feels like a mechanic that doesn't come into play often enough to drastically affect balance with the change you suggest. Most people will agree with me here that if Railgun were to get a nerf, it should be regarding things like LCR, Scout and AP augments, as opposed to penetration.

What do you think about Hyperspace Rounds? ?

I caught a mouse ?

Not possible with this forum's functionality. Or maybe possible somehow, but a lot more complicated than it may seem.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's hard to distinguish between hackers and honest players, when certain gameplay mechanics provide an almost exact effect as some hacks. Ironically, the Hopper Crisis combo, which is often referred to as "legal hacks" (and for good reasons), is most prone to being misidentified as hacks by the anti-cheat.

My goodness, all this time the solution was right under our nose! ? You, sir, just single-handedly solved the hacking problem in Tanki. Congratulations! On a serious note though, Tanki Online does have an anti-cheat system, and seeing as there's (from my experience) zero hackers at high ranks, seems like it's doing a pretty good job. The reason you don't see it in action, is because instead of actively banning players when they are already using hacks, it just prevents those hacks working in the first place with methods such as self-destructing the tank as soon as it does something suspicious, like a sudden movement in a strange direction. The difficult part is deciding the boundaries of what's defined as a "sudden movement". Tanki's movement and impact force mechanics combined with players' lag sometimes makes honest players move in strange ways, very similar to hackers. It wouldn't be right to ban those players just because they had a bit of lag, right? It also wouldn't be right to put the threshold too high, because then some hacks could still be used. It's a delicate thing to try and balance. Even human moderators occasionally make mistakes and ban honest players, because their lagged movement looks like hacks.

I just sat on the roof and watched. Occasionally killed some guys whenever they tried to shoot me.

It just seems like a half-baked feature. Why 100? And why just one person and only once? I realise that the overall purpose of the idea is to make the extra stars useful in some way, and you're far from being the first person to suggest it. However, due to the fact that it essentially gives extra rewards (almost two extra tiers), it goes against I&S section rules in the first place. And, because such a change would affect the economy, there's no way players will fully benefit from it, meaning that IF devs added a way to spend or otherwise use your extra stars, it would instantly become much harder to earn the initial 3000 stars. The fact that right now you cannot spend your extra stars once you get 3000, is the very reason why it's so easy to get 3000 stars in the first place.

Only at a certain price in TK, perhaps. Otherwise it's way too easy to accumulate extra stars and share them all to, say, an alternate account of yours.

I'm going to stop you right there. PRO battles are in a world of their own, and I'm strictly talking about MM here. PRO battles have a greater sense of sportsmanship and loyalty, I suppose. Battles are also usually much longer than 7 minutes, so you sort of get to know your teammates and you'd feel bad for switching teams if such an opportunity arose. I totally get that. Even if people have the same attitude in MM, I'm pretty sure it differs from person to person. If my teammates are happy massacring the much weaker opposite team because it gives them easy EXP, then I don't care what such players will think about me if I switch teams. I do know, however, that the enemy players will mostly appreciate that I will switched to help them out after being the main reason their team began losing in the first place (which often is the case given the gear I have at hand). I think it would be a great feature to have.

I think you missed the obvious implication that if such a feature was implemented, you'd only be able to switch if the enemy team is both: losing AND outnumbered.

I joined this game with about 4 minutes remaining and score already being 1-0 I'm willing to bet the MM thought process was something like: "Oh look there's a battle with 1 empty spot. KOLBACA has a GS 3k higher than anyone on the enemy team, his K/D is 8.00, and his team is winning. I bet he needs a 9999 GS guy to help him out!"

I don't enjoy such games. I never considered myself a bully, so easily farming kills and ending games in 5-0 is not something I aspire to do when I come online to play MM battles. For me the best games are when I'm up against strong opponents and it takes every last bit of skill and strategy I have to outplay them and win the game. But unfortunately such games are about 1 in 20. In battles like the one you posted I always wished there was a "switch team" option, because I'd use it all the time. It's much more fun to try and bring back a 4-0 losing battle in 3 minutes as opposed to finishing 5-0 with ease.

We don't even know if they'll be added at all. I would assume they would go to containers, but given the recent trend with new items (especially cosmetics), they will probably be added as a bundle at first, and later added to ultra containers.

It has nothing to do with colour blind people or christmas colours. The update was introduced to make it easier to identify teammates in battles. I'm pretty sure previously TO mobile still had the old Flash colour system where you could be in either red or blue team. This worked fine in tanki for many years, but then we got Hornet's radar overdrive, which allowed you to see enemy health bars. Ever since that got added, on multiple occasions I found myself ignoring enemy tanks because I assumed they were teammates due to their health bar being visible. The HTML5 new interface fixed this by making your teammates always blue, and now TO mobile also caught up. I just don't understand why devs decided to opt for green-red instead of the more classic blue-red.

A hull is not just about the way it looks, but also the way it controls and functions. If devs do plan on adding more hulls, I don't think they will go back to traditional, realistic configurations. Tanki is moving to a futuristic style, so we're more likely to see something like a strider hull with legs, that's able to walk over enemy tanks, or something. Half-track vehicles just feel way too antique for Tanki.

Topic merged

So I know this won't come as a surprise since this topic has been inactive for about 2 years, but I'm just posting this to officially announce that I'm retiring this project. The idea was cool, but the interest for it gradually reduced, and I no longer have the patience to update it. I'm keeping the topic open though, in case you guys want to share new records anyway, just for fun. That's about it.

No, I remember Opex calling it some funny name like "defeaturing" or something. The idea is to make systems as simple as possible, and 50 for cap and 10 for "participating" is definitely simpler than calculating number of enemies, number of flag carriers, time each one spent holding the flag, and distributing score based on percentages. I don't know why dumbing down an advanced system is advantageous, but that's what they did. Similar things were done to a few other features too, most notably the single GS number replacing full enemy details from R/V menu.

I like this idea. Many people said before that having capture missions work the way they do now discourages teamwork and increases sabotage. A change like this makes perfect sense and is the right thing to do. I would also like to see a change in score mechanics, since it seems unfair that a player carrying the flag 99% of the way gets just 10 points, while the one that captured gets 50. The system used to be more fair before, but got changed a couple years back for some reason.

Honestly I'd say Ares is the only real competition here due to the OD healing mechanic. But that only works on very few maps, and can still fail in many ways. Also much slower charge rate.

I think you should remove all options except for Hopper. Result would be the same.

I agree with this. On the other hand, I often actually like getting hit with an EMP, because it allows me to refresh my supply duration, assuming I can get to cover in order to wait for the cooldown.

I take enormous offence to the fact that you put me as a Hunter Railgun user. DIS-GUS-TANG! Edit: Just found out it's actually a Viking and I'm blind. Going dark.