Except Massacre. It isn't boring because it stinks so bad. Snipers like to lose. Why?

More on scoring points for missions: I had a flags battle that was actually balanced. The first half favored red, but my blue team pulled it out. We won 3 flags to 2. Despite being first or second on my team (I wasn't paying attention), I received less than 300 points. Then, TDM on Massacur, and a massacur it was. My team decimated about 80 to 20. I ended up with 152 points. I did well, my teammates did better, and battle fund (and point total) just didn't get that high on such a lopsided battle. It is hard to get kills and points when spawning far away and just having no targets since your teammates are taking them all. So, picking two consecutive random MM matches, one was balanced and had medium fund, and the other was absurdly unbalanced and had low fund. Another flaw in the MM system. Lopsided battles deprive all players, especially those who elect to leave early, since they get no crystals. I keep noticing things I've never seen before. There are so many changes and all the alterations, it is freaky. We really need wiki information. I see there is a wiki for the freaking color changes, which are not even something I can get, since it is random. I also notice that points are awarded to a player as soon as they are earned. Leaving a battle doesn't take them away. Crystals aren't taken away either, I suppose; since crystals are awarded at the end of the battle. Tanki, you messed up again. I don't suppose I can recall the last time I said you really did well on a change or fix. I sure hope the funds roll in for all the new equipment and alterations. Of course, your gain is our pain, and that ain't sustainable.

Adding to the quantification: I just completed an even better DM. Close to 500 points, but not quite sure. The display doesn't show points on DM, just crystals. Here is the thing, I've completed 9 daily missions requiring about two dozen matches over three days, and I'm not half way through my 10000 point weekly mission. It is general, so all points count, but it will take me all week to complete, if I do complete it in only one week. And, I'm going to get one container probably containing a football paint, and one weekly container. Really? I'm putting in multiple hours of effort for that? The worst of it is much of it is just slog and grind for completing the missions, rather than fun and reward. Completing all 21 dailies for 7 days and getting all three weeklies is supposed to be at least as much as my 10+weeks missions chains. Hmm... That is a hell of a lot more work. I could maintain my missions chains playing only as much as I wanted every day, 15-20 minutes on a busy day, 40-60 most days (counting forum time), and maybe two full hours on Saturday. Now, I need over 60 minutes in game every single day. Just ain't happening. It won't. There is more to life than Tanki. Frankly, it seems each player must choose between being a patient slogger, plugging along with low rewards and never enough supplies, or a budgeting buyer to keep equipment and supplies levels up. Also, when will the wiki update? We need the specific details of the new mission system, and we need the details for alterations. There is too much information missing regarding all these changes.

Quantifying my objection to high-point missions: I just completed an excellent DM well in first place. I scored 435 points. I expect most players can count on more than 100 points per match (and if they don't, Tanki will punish them with zero stars!). Good players, those above the average, can probably count on an average of 250 points per battle. Heavy buyers equipping the right drones and protections for the battles can probably count on an average closer to 400 points per battle. Given the high level of effort and the mediocre reward, why are we trying to complete high-point missions? Trying to maximize points per battle will require 8 batteries and a few of each supply. The batteries are not worth 300 crystals each, but that is what they cost, for 2400 crystals per match fought with drone equipped. Plus several 50s and a few 150s. I hadn't considered how expensive a typical battle is for a dedicated supplies user. 3000 to 4000 crystals per match. For what, 1200 to 2000 worth of supplies or crystals? Hmm... No wonder we depended on those weekly missions chains so much. If point missions are general battle points, there is incentive because I can play whatever format strikes my fancy, but if the required mode is not to my liking, I suppose I change such missions. I rarely change missions. I hate paying for a change. It is absurdly counterproductive. I'll give it some more time, but so far, the new missions system really sucks. It makes me want to forget about missions altogether.

While you seem a bit hyperbolic, in the general sense, I agree with you. Regardless, remember: One tab, one space Never more in the same place!

With all the turrets and all the alterations, it is impossible to think in terms of defense. Maybe they are thinking American football or basketball, all offense, all scoring. (And lots of time wasted respawning.)

With the recent changes, it seems fair to say Tanki is now two-tier. Nonbuyers (F2P) now must suffer frustration while they slog and grind and exercise patience, and increase their wisdom in effectively advancing in the game, while continously enduring being spawn-killed all too often. Buyers, on the other hand, can buy the latest drones, alts, and upgrades. Some of these combinations seems utterly dominant. I've seen Strikers obtain scores more than double the second place finisher. I've seen Hornet Isida defeat three, even four tanks in a row (alone), worse than the old days. I haven't obseved enough nor tried to collect data, but it seems some buyers are finding unstoppable combinations and dominating battles. So, Tanki is now Free to Play, but one must Pay to Win (P2W). It didn't used to be that way, even though many have always complained. Now, it is. No doubt. There is no way a casual nonbuyer who averages about four hours Tanki play time per week can keep up with 12-hour-per-week players and buyers. If only Tanki would address the frustrating things, it might be tolerable. I also think it is now impossible to effectively maintian more than one account. I've always enjoyed having multiple accounts. I've speciallized them differently for variety. It costs much less in Crystals and in Time versus trying to build my main account out in every direction. And, building up the account lets me learn the skills needed for that account, rather than spending a bunch of cash to build up a new turret and then finding I don't have the skills to play it at Legend level. Yeah, multiple accounts was good. Not anymore. I've maintained this account for well over four years (with a year off after the Great Levelling where all the current problems started). I've mostly maintained Ricosck the same. Ricosck is now a full M4 Dictator-Ricochet, with one partially upgraded drone. At Marshall, Ricosck can hang with multi-level Legends, and missions used to be the highlight of my play. Now, Ugh! Crap, that will take at least three battles, probably five. And then about that many more for the other two daily missions. Weekly missions? Crap, probably two weeks for the first one and the third one, maybe for the 10-mission one. I still haven't figured out the notions behind batteries. 300-crystals pretends they are very valuable, but three batteries is less than half a battle. I see far to many missions with 3 or fewer batteries. It is an insult. Batteries are nondiscretionary. If a drone is equipped, one battery is used every minute of play. If I win three repair kits, I at least use them when I need them, and I have incentive to use them wisely and most effectively. Not so with batteries. If I leave the drone equipped, a dozen battles burns through 100 batteries, no option, no factors toward effectiveness. Mostly, batteries are a big factor in giving the buyers significant advantage over the nonbuyers. Two distinct tiers, the powerful and the downtrodden. Is a weekly mission of 10000 points realistic? It seems to me a good player, an above average player, can count on averaging between 200 and 250 points per match (except hopeless shove-ins playing only the last quarter of a battle). Accordingly, a good player will have to complete 40 matches minimum. It is unreasonable to suppose more than five or six matches per hour under most circumstances, thus 7 or 8 hours of play. That is more than most players play per week. Thus, a 10000 point mission is a two-week effort for average players. Is one container and one weekly container a reasonable reward for so much effort? There are a lot of things I see wrong with the new missions system. There are a lot more things I see abusable with all the recently added features, at least for buyers. I don't know what to think. I admit my enthusiasm for the game has been dropping steadily over the last few months. It is only my sense of loyalty (and sunk cost) that keeps me playing at this point, and as the supplies start running out in a few weeks, I doubt I'll keep trying. We'll see. (Or not.)

We really need the wiki updated. Tanki seems to be focusing only on rolling out new features, while they let the frustrations mount.

I cannot say enough how disgusting it is to enter a hopeless battle and know you will be awarded no stars. (I know, I could instantly leave and be a shameless, faithless coward, but no. I just can't.) The stinking MM stuck me in a battle on the losing team 5-0 Rugby. I quickly assisted my team in getting two goals, but with only 70 points and 4 kills, no stars. Of course, the battle itself was total frustration. Little consolation in knowing I actually helped the team when it amounts to nothing, not even one star. The stars criteria stinks. It is disgusting. Tanki must implement a simple quantitative criteria for players, not teams. Teams are too often unbalanced, and the losing team is ONLY frustrated. It is crap. Stars are crap! Stop it!

Nives, Cedric, whomever, please pay attention. Please ensure the devs see this. Alex is a Legend 36 with a very respectable rating. He is one of the best players in the entire game. I'd give his suggestions and complaints extra weight. Some of the missions are inappropriate. The new system isn't going to work as is, but maybe it only needs a few tweaks. It may not prove as bad as I fear. I may figure out how to deal with everything except completing all three missions every day. But, some of this just doesn't work. It isn't challenging, and it isn't fun. It is only a grind. Think it through, and pay attention to your better players.

Yes, they have made Striker much too strong. The only reason they haven't nerfed it yet is they haven't sold enough of them. When good players using it are common in battles, it will be too obvious that it is overly dominant. Then, they will nerf it, and everybody will whine, and then the next great update will be released to sell more of the latest and greatest. I'm cool with the profit, but can't they do it without antagonizing us all the time?

All I can say, "If you don't believe me; just watch!" After that zero-star battle, I promptly won three stars by leading my team to a 5-2 win. Yes, I lead. I kicked butt in every aspect of the match. Scored four of our five goals and prevented more than a few. You pretend you don't want "mults" getting stars by passively sitting in battles, but your actual accomplishment is penalizing regular players who fall victim of your crappy matchmaking system. Stars is a sham. A kills-based system is better. You should probably have alternatives of some number of flags, some number of goals, some number of points captured, but stars is ridiculous. Stop it! Just stop it! No more stars events. Instead of stupid star-doubler, just charge four or five for an entry pass into the rewards event, and make the event make sense instead of stupid stars. Geeze!

Insert your favorite curse here! You and your stars stink! Your criteria for "inactive" sucks! You drop me in a hopeless battle and give me no stars because I can't get enough kills. I killed four and assisted the only goal our team scored, but I get no stars. You are totally disgusting!

I managed to complete some daily missions. Am I getting my reward automatically? The Claim Reward button is grayed-out. If automatic, why "Claim Reward?" If not automatic, why is my Claim Reward button disabled? This update on missions is the definition of frustration. High-point requirements seem excessive. Isn't an average of 250 points per battle a pretty good average? So, 10,000 points for a weekly is about 40 battles, five or six battles per hour seems a likely rate for normal play. So, six to eight hours of play? Over an hour a day, every day, seems an unreasonable expectation of most players. Again, this update of missions seems to be inteneded to promote slogging and grinding and frustration. That is not what I come here for.

New mission system requires slogging and grinding, multiple matches for most every mission, multiple missions each day, every day for the the weekly missions. Is the point fun or work? Challenge or frustration?

Is there any point in saying how much more work the game has become? Is there any point in saying every recent change seems to be aimed only at pay-to-win? The new missions might be called challenging, but I think a fairer word is work, hard work. The missions now require multiple matches per day to accomplish, every day of the week. Hmm... Making us earn it? Or just making us decide going to our jobs is more fun? There are so many changes right now it is hard to tell if anyone is hacked, or if everyone is hacked. Crap. I thought this was a game, not frenzy of frustration.

I would cuss you, but no words are strong enough. Did you mention my standard alterations would be unequipped? You are disgusting! Despicable! You always seem to pick the most frustrating changes possible.

The short range turrets are too powerful. You have to give more hull or reduce the short range dps!

Why are so many players clueless about the overall strategy of the team matches? Flags, focus on flags. If you have the flag, get to your base. Short route is usually best. Attack incesently. Defense always loses. Points, fight from a freaking point! Get it and get another. (Sniping from a vantage is death to the team no matter how good the sniper does.) Rugby, gang on the ball. Support the carrier. Drive to the ball always, and toward the enemy goal. Assault! Doesn't the name say it all? Fast flags. Get it to the objective, or die trying, as fast as possible. Next tank up!

I keep up with the announced changes. I don't refer to those. The physics have changed. There seems to be more inertia in everything, particularly turning of tank and turret. Jumps hang more. Nose of tank goes up easier and stays up longer. Jumps are longer. Tips and flips are more, but more acrobatic. Some time back (several months) they implemented some physics changes to keep tanks from flipping over so easily. That doesn't seem to have changed, but something about play dynamics has more flips occurring. The best I can tell, gravity is slightly less. That would account for everything I'm seeing except the inertia. Tanks have always climbed over one another chaotically, but it seems more likely now, in more unpredictable ways. (Tanks on level ground should never be able to climb one atop the other, but they sometimes do.) It is too hard to tell if they changed parameters in the wiki. I don't keep track of the history, and they don't always manage to make timely updates. So, there could be something they didn't mention but documented in wiki updates that I just don't know about. The effects are things I've been noticing for weeks but were too small to be sure. Now, I'm as sure as I can be. Something has changed. Gravity slowly decreasing and inertia slowly increasing over these past few weeks are the closest things I can guess for what I've noticed. If you are wondering, I'm serious. I'm not hunting trolls. I really think the devs have been tweaking physics parameters little by little over the past few weeks. To sensei_tanker's comment, I know they tweak some of the physics for some things, but they've never admitted to tweaking the basics. The overall feel is different. The best I can describe what I'm seeing is less gravity. It might make hulls slide too much, so they increased overall inertia, not the directional factors that make the Hornet drift and such.

Has anyone noticed changes in Tanki physics?

I've noticed repeatedly over the last few weeks that jumps are getting bigger, and it is getting harder to keep my nose down and not firing over my target. It sure seems you have gradually reduced gravity. The situation is rather annoying now. I've seen tricks now I've never seen before. Either I'm battling with some exceptionally skilled parkourists, or the physics of the game have changed. The overall feel of the game has changed. I suspect you have done this gradually and hoped no one noticed.

What did you do to gravity? Speed, turning, and turret rotation are all sluggish. What did you do? Where are these changes explained?

Why are mission change buttons the same as default "Close" or other common buttons? I think Tanki likes to frustrate players. Make everything the same so when they unintentionally click the change button, because it looks just like the close button, they lose mission progress and get a worse mission. Change color of "Change" button on mission items. Make it bright yellow, or anything different than regular buttons. Also, if a mission is partially completed, add a confirmation for the "Change" selection.

Change color of "Change" button on mission items. Make it bright yellow, or anything different than regular buttons. Also, if a mission is partially completed, add a confirmation for the "Change" selection.