Cedric, please advise where can I read more info about Alterations changes ("Alterations — Changes to reflect the changes in turret parameters"). At the moment, my "broadband emitters" alteration seems to be the same as before.

:D

"M3 only"? Isn't that supposed to be the best version? Or are Tanki now saying "don't bother with higher ranks and microupgrades"? Further, any "distant" turret (Railgun, Thunder, Shaft...) can kill Isida quite easily no matter the self-healing... Your argument is similar to me saying it is so hard for Isida to kill Shaft on the other side of the map... In regards to balance, please advise what exactly improved for Isida? I only see less energy consumption - but Isida can still be killed faster now (due to self-healing restriction), before it may take advantage of more energy. (I don't count rotation speed as that is not specifically fight related, and can be compensated with a hull.) Why for example Twins get so much improvements? If Isida was so strong tank, why wasn't everybody using it?

"Alterations — Changes to reflect the changes in turret parameters (see wiki)" Where in Wiki are alterations changes described? I see only hulls and turrets listed in there.

What is actually the reason for these changes? (I see many tanks get weaker.)

Isida M3 self-healing down from 50% to 10%? That must be a joke.

New modules microupgrades are linked to ranks, if you have a high rank it is not possible to buy a basic version and make microupgrades step by step. Why it was not said in advance (or did I miss something?) that high ranks will be forced to wait for the most expensive module? Pricing differences aside, what is the geniune reason for this "bundling" (as happened before with hulls) and for giving less freedom related to progress of a player? Can any moderator/admin advise? Thank you.

Will some of the new protection modules offer protection against 4 various turrets (as it is now with some paints), or will it be max. 3? Because in the screenshot in this thread, the modules are called "Trio"...? If max. 3, it would cause imbalance between legacy and new protection paints? http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=327891&p=5634494

I understand the DM testing is not active at the moment, but when there will be news on the homepage about new in-game gifts?

Next time, when announcing this type of rewards, please can you verbatim specify in your announcement that the rewards are NOT combined, but allocated randomly one at a time? "Including" can be interpreted both ways. Until I observed a few catches by other tanks, I thought that every such tank will get crystals PLUS Pass PLUS immortality etc.

Why suddenly everything has to be in big steps? (Upgrade from M0 to M3 possible only in one step when your rank allows that, microupgrades only for all parameters at once...) I want to decide myself if I will spend all crystals on better speed, or all on better protection, or will combine the changes.

Please can someone explain to me how the Earned experience rating works? Right now I have 169 168, which is much more than the amount of points (the points that are counted towards ranks, shown on the left in the green bar) I have gained since last week. Is there some coefficient applied to battle points? Thanks.

1) Double damage is missing from the profile/usage overview. 2) What are Achievements good for?

And when that feedback is just a LIKE button, there is a dialog? :huh:

Hello, it's been a while since it was said elsewhere (now locked) that devs will look into the cap update for Control Point maps. I think that updating the limit based on the number of CPs in the map (e.g. Forest 3x points limit compared to Polygon, Iran 5x points limit) would be quite straightforward and not difficult to implement? What efforts were dedicated to this within the past month? Thank you.

"you can now go directly for the best grade available at your rank" - This somehow doesn't work this way now. When my rank allows me to purchase M3, I need to wait until I have enough crystals to buy M3, there is no smart system that would offer lower grade according to my budget. In other words, I *have* to go ( = wait) for the best grade, even if I have money only for a lower grade at the very moment - this puts "you can" into quite a different perspective. In the first place, you have to wait until you have money needed for the best grade, you cannot take the small steps now that would fit your finance.

"The aim of this update is to make battles with uneven teams or a clear winner end sooner." - How exactly is 30 min CTF with the score of 10:9 more uneven or with a clear winner compared to 5:4 or, more importantly, 9:1? The (missing) balance is indicated by the *difference* in the score, not by the value of the score of one team. If the aim was really what is written here, then it seriously needs another thought.

All players were - and are - getting the Mission crystals & rewards proportionally to their gameplay and rank. What was not balanced about that, which players were hurt by the previous scheme and are not by the current one?

Well, the game was doing well years ago with the (very) old economy, so I don't think it would lead to a closure now. Also don't forget that earlier, the rewards were granted every day, now you have to deserve them, and I believe not every registered user is playing every day to collect the rewards, so the overall difference in all rewards awarded on a daily basis after Missions were introduced was less than the value of Missions. But anyway, my main point was why they don't say the reason in full (if profits are the factor), treating us as children. Ruining the game for players? Which players complained about getting more rewards, and where, please?

Sorry, but please can you explain this? Say there was a mission M, with a reward of 2000 crystals for rank 10 and 1000 crystals for rank 5. So the rank 10 gets 2 times more crystals which I think is fair given they have 2 times higher rank. Then (after the change), there is a mission M, with a reward of 1000 crystals for rank 10 and 500 crystals for rank 5 (50% reduction). So the rank 10 again gets 2 times more crystals (which I think is fair given they have 2 times higher rank). In both cases, the players are getting a proportional reward based on their rank. So how exactly was the previous system ruining the game for players when the balance between different ranks remains the same? (Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the balance itself as it was or is.) If you mean that it was ruining the game for paying players, why don't you say that explicitly? Thanks.

What is "Vulcan" please?

I would like to know when there will be modification of, or protective paints against, Hammer. The hull is in the game for about one month now (for the same time as the new auto-aim), and when Hammer is using Double Power it cannot be stopped. If too frequent flipping was considered "incorrect" and fixed, why was not something done with/against Hammer in the same update - it is about as unfair as flipping. Thank you.

I just played CTF (non-pro). One team was winning 14:1 well before the end of the game, so clearly more than 10x better score than the other team, but there was no timer anyway. Why?

"A box can now contain 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100 crystals. The bigger the increase in the fund since the last crystal box drop, the bigger the number of crystals in the next drop." --- Sorry, but I think this is not as good as it perhaps might be. In the Silence map, tanks are often just waiting at the drop zone for 100 crystals... The game itself (the fight for the flag, or defending the flag) is sometimes negatively affected by this. I hope this was not the intention. I mean, 100 crystals are fine, but I think it would be better to distribute 10x10 at various places and times (without players being distracted that much), rather than one bigger box in a while.

I read that actually. But as you might notice, developers are "solving" that for 4 months without a single word of any progress or status (it is just a code, not a spaceship). Some people complain about the lack of communication in that topic, too. Perhaps a little more communication from the Tanki team would do no harm. Otherwise it is not exactly user-friendly customer service.