I think players will get used to it pretty quickly if they have no other choice. There's definitely those for whom HTML5 genuinely causes issues and is practically impossible to play, but I suspect many players, who currently refuse to try it, would actually prefer even the current HTML5 version over Flash, if they played it for a few hours.

This is just people in general. In the vast majority of situations, people are reluctant to changing the ways they've always been used to.

Famous last words #Moof

Topic merged

The errors do happen. They seem to happen quite regularly in both Flash and the new HTML5 version of the game, and in both cases require the game to be restarted. You don't normally have to wait a minute though — an instant restart usually fixes the issue and gets you right back into the battle without major setbacks. Hopefully these errors will be fixed in the near future. As for repair kit — what you're describing is an intentional mechanic introduced a few years ago to reduce power of the repair kit. When you activate it, you instantly get 1000 health, while the rest of it is added slowly if you don't take damage. If you do get damaged, then the healing process stops, so make sure to carefully time your repair kits.

Valid

Sounds interesting, except for the problem that is at least 95% of Tanki players being completely uninterested in reading long texts about the game. The vast majority of players only want to log in, quickly play some battles, complete missions, and thus receive their daily dose of satisfaction from the game. Such a massive project would require huge amounts of effort (and additional funding?) for a relatively low interest from the player base.

Topic merged Well... yeah. No offence, but it's not very original either. If devs wanted to add tankoins to cointainers - they would have done so.

I consider myself to be both. I'm not employed by the company, so I still consider myself to be part of the player community, just with extra duties and permissions which I use to help said community maintain a friendly and organised environment. I do my best to make sure that my personal opinion does not affect my decisions regarding moderation, but in many cases I believe my extensive experience with the game and its community is enough to judge whether or not a certain topic or post holds value and deserves attention. I don't get paid to silence the haters and I don't gain anything from misusing my permissions, so it's unreasonable to think that I'm maliciously hiding away your opinion. On the contrary — all I want to see on this forum is more interesting topics of discussion, since participating in such discussions is the main reason why I became active on the forum in the first place, long before becoming a helper.

That's basically 10 seconds of invulnerability from any turret that doesn't one-shot you. Sounds "slightly" overpowered.

Not sure which update you're referring to.

Matchmaking has a specific set of requirements for maps, meaning that not all of the 70+ maps in the game are suitable to be used in it. At the moment the current list of maps was specifically selected and edited to fit the MM gameplay. I absolutely agree that maps like Siege, Lost Temple and many others are cool, but for whatever readon the game designers do not consider them suitable for MM. Also, you have to realise that adding more maps means that whenever there's an update affecting map design (like addition of the nuclear supply), each and every map needs to be edited, so more maps means more work. That being said, I personally don't understand the logic in choosing maps for MM. On one hand there are great maps like Novel and Gubakha which have interesting level design and are of similar size to current MM maps, yet are not used. On the other hand there is Sandbox, Sandal and Highland, which are tiny in their original form, yet got massive changes to make them (arguably) suitable for MM. And there's also Massacre, Highways and Brest, which are kept in MM despite having terrible level design and being hated by most players. This was mentioned over and over on the forums, but the reason for keeping these maps in the game remains a mystery. Some of the unused maps are used occasionally during special events though, like the recent uses of Berlin, Lost Temple, Gubakha, Kolkhoz, etc. As for the others - you can always play custom games on them in PRO battles.

My mistake. I meant modules.

Wasn't it extremely hard to get high tier containers? And tank upgrades were directly related to drone upgrades, which you only got from containers? I remember when Tanki X was closing and I used the promo code for 50 000 X-crystals (which are premium currency). It wasn't enough to get even half of the drone upgrades.

Because the forum moderation team's responsibility is to keep the forum clean and organised. I don't know how else to explain it to you, but in this case the topic did not provide any potential for decent discussion. I didn't even know that topic existed, and I wasn't the one who closed it. Though it was closed for a good reason and you were given a VERY detailed explanation. You were also invited to discuss it further via PM, because we are always open to criticism — it just cannot be posted in public.

HTML5 is still in its early stages, and there is plenty of potential to add back most, if not all of the features you listed. Not sure if you'd want them though. The modules system in TX was pretty badly made, and I remember it being incredibly P2W, way worse than the current drones and augments combined.

Dropping very frequently? I feel like outside of gold event maps and gold box special missions the actual gold drop rate in MM is pretty low. I recall it being an average of 1 gold every 3 battles, and it's actually the same for all ranks.

I bet you that if devs added this tomorrow, 99% of the comments would be "this is useless, no one cares, fix the lags and remove P2W instead"

It does need updates because a game without updates is a dead game HTML5 is exactly that — a do-over. It was supposed to be Tanki X, but TX didn't work. Promotion in the form of advertising has diminishing returns. Advertising this game will cost more than the income it will bring.

If you want a long answer, here it is: Having a separate topic for the purpose of organising a "boycott" of the game is completely pointless for the simple reason that you will never get enough attention from it to have any significant effect. For the sake of this statement I will generously assume that a whole 20 people will agree to participate in the boycott. The result - instead of 15000 people online on the 28th, you have 14980. All you do is spend a day not playing the game, with virtually zero impact on the project as a whole. Besides calling for a boycott, your topic covered the same issues which have already been discussed dozens of times on the forum - Hornet Vulcan combo, drones, lack of balance, non-buyers suffer, etc. Every single thing that can be possibly said about these things has been said multiple times - in this topic, and many others. Regurgitating the same points over and over is pointless. If you wish to provide constructive criticism about recent updates, please do so in the News and Announcements section, where you comments will actually be seen by the administration.

A lot of players have quit, but you can't say it was all because of MM. I've been saying time and time again that the reason players leave is simply because the game is old and outdated. No balance update or bonus crystals will fix that. And definitely not "bring back old tanki", as some people seem to believe. P.S. I totally agree that balanced games are more fun to play in. But as far as keeping the number of online players higher, the other way is more effective (if the theory is true).

Topic merged

Doesn't make sense to me either, but that's what Hazel was saying in one of the past livestreams. Although I tried to find some article or study to support it, but wasn't able to. The theory does have some logic though, because the brain craves variety, and having one intense game after the other will exhaust the mind's capacity fairly quickly. You could think of it another way - you need a certain amount of good games before you're satisfied enough to take a break or stop, so if "good" games are spread across a longer period of time by inserting "bad" games in between, then you will spend longer playing. So there could be some truth to this.

When I say "casually driving around and shooting", I imagine it being similar to waking up at 3 AM and instantly joining a battle, playing with one hand and eating a sandwich with the other while watching a youtube video on a second screen. So basically, still playing but with very little actual effort. I think battle mods no longer enforce inactivity to the same extent in MM battles compared to PRO battles, simply because the line between bad players and intentional saboteurs is too thin. It's mostly the obvious actions of sabotage (like repeatedly pushing teammates and blocking the flag) that can get you punished.

For all we know, MM balancing could be as simple as a group/no group check, rank and GS check. But the truth is, even if two teams are perfectly balanced by all parameters, the chaotic nature of the gameplay makes the result completely unpredictable, and two teams fighting one another with two equipment could each win with a huge score gap in two identical battles. Although it's also worth noting that, according to developers and despite what you'd expect, perfect balance actually results in people spending less time in the game. This is because a balanced game presents the player with a significant challenge, where they have to focus hard to win against the equally matched team. Such battles are fun, but they are quite tiring and therefore the player ends up taking a break (i.e. ending the session) after just a few matches. However, if the system intentionally puts the player into an unbalanced game, it gives the player a chance to play in a relaxed manner. This works for both the winning and losing team. If you're clearly winning then you don't have to focus much to win, while if you're losing, you realise that playing to your best ability is pointless so you just casually drive around and shoot a bit. So such battles serve as a "break" for players of both teams, which generally increases the overall length of the play session. Therefore the bottom line is that perfect MM balance may be nice for individual players, but could actually harm the game as a whole.