When I use the HTML5 on browser version with my old laptop of only 8 GB of RAM, and with just minimal settings, for example entry into a battle takes the better part of a minute to load and in the process frequently fails, or a visit to the garage means missing a significant part of the battle, due to several pages each taking an eternity to load (and a garage visit necessitating several consecutive pages to load at all, this is my second major remaining issue with the HTML5 version).

In my experience, HTML5 on Browser works quite decently if the PC/Laptop you use has a RAM of 16 GB or more. But only then.

I clicked on "maxed out garage" and "drones", Cosmic. But the most important factor was not offered as an option in your poll. It is my skills.

Certainly. Though I always feel a bit uncomfortable when I read the term "developers" in this context, in the end it is the owners of the entrepreneuring corporation that set the time frame for profit maximization planning. And the time frame being cast too short, that is the root of all issues with this otherwise fine game. For the players and customers as well as ultimately for everyone who receives a salary or a profit from the game.

This statement is certainly more unironically true than the other way round.

The only good solution "to improve the 3x faster rank up" is to offer a Boosted Experience Pass (for many, many Tankoins) with this effect to buy for those who want to buy it (and thus can support the game with a significant financial contribution to get their undignified desire fulfilled), but certainly not force it on those who do not want it. My current premium runs out today. I will not renew it until Tanki ends this horribly bad idea of making itself cheap and forcing this experience boost on all those players who do not want it.

No, that is not counted as destruction in the statistics. Quitting the game (or outside of Juggernaut mode, simply refreshing the browser page) when your tank is about to be destructed is a method of boosting the K/D ratio for players who are critically low on self-esteem. I quickly looked up his profil page, this Pace dude has a stellar K/D of 9.33. This is not about "level boosting", it is about K/D ratio boosting. As you can see in the second thread you linked as a reference, I think that outright penalies are not warranted, and not coming anymway. Just making public the quota of battles a player finished on their profile pages will do. Please feel invited to like or comment on the linked suggestion thread.

Hull augments of the "resistance" class are not a problem (and I think that there should be resistance augments for EMP and stunning, too). The problem are "immunity" class augments (though at least offering an EMP immunity augment was a necessity in order not to quickly lose many well paying customers, after Tanki made the huge mistake of introducing that EMP augment for Gauss). I did not consider this as I would not see it as game update, yet. Would it be made permanent, then it would certainly deserve a top spot. Tanki is devaluing itself with this step. In any case, it was a bad move. Hopefully it ends soon.

Fully agree. However, I would like to point out that the forum community here cannot put the blame for this issue on the game developers. I remember that after the implementation of the MMS, this forum screamed murder and for weeks ranted against single players being pitched versus groups and demanded that groups shall always have to face other groups, so the developers only heeded the vox populi in this. I myself never understood those rants, a group of random friends are hardly more of an adversary than the same number of random single players.

My impression is that this issue, which I see myself (being in one team with some esports champions, although I might be, while certainly not their equal, at least a more resilent adversary to them than anyone in the other team), is caused by the MMS being overly obsessed with pitching groups against groups. So when some esports champions play as a group of two or three, as they frequently do, the MMS is not primarily concerned with putting up the strongest players available against them, but rather primarily concerned with putting up another group available, which will in many or most cases be some group of random friends. Only then are single players distributed, and my impression is that in considering the further team composition, the different strength of the groups is not sufficiently taken into account. So my suggestion to everyone is: Only play in groups if you are prepared to be considered, by the MMS, as a match for the best of the best. I do not often play in groups, but when I do, I always have this in mind.

In the stage pre-MMS, battles were everything, but not balanced. Those who actually played in those days might recall that the most important skills in winning battles (and being in the winning team was more important back then, when compared to today's MMS, because the battle fund system gave a huge advantage to the winning side, like in PRO battles then and now, but unlike today's MMS) were (a) having the name recognition and judgement to watch team composition processes and know which emerging team will most likely win, and (b) persistence in clicking the Join button for that team in quick succession for minutes, so that when some "noob or social justice warrior" joined the other team, your click for the presumable winners would be the first and you get in. I prefer the MMS over those days. And if you like choosing teams, play PRO battles (which I myself do about half of my Tanki time).

In my humble opinion, there was only one update that was unambiguously bad, very bad indeed, and that was the implementation of the EMP augment for Gauss. And I say this as someone who has bought himself, and if need puts up, the EMP immunity augment for the hull he uses most in MMS battles (Hornet). Should Tanki as a game ever go down, and investors in Alternativa lose their profit potential, I am pretty sure that "game historians" will point to this update. This was just a huge mistake. I hear rumours that battle funds might be removed from regular PRO battles. Should that actually happen, then it would certainly take the spot of the worst update, as it would drain the player base of one of the features most attractive to all, but also in particular to many of Tanki's paying customers.

Statistically, every player's teams lose and win 50 percent of the battles they participate in. My personal feeling is that the wins are more. And even if not, what exactly is the problem of your team losing? Crystal payouts are almost the same in the MMS (other than in PRO battles), stars are even arguably easier to win on the losing side. This is simply not true, as far as the MMS is concerned. If anything, there is a quitters issue among some strong but personally pathetic players, too. Just yesterday I was assigned to a battle, clicked the teams' list, and was excited to see two of the strongest players I know, each of them in a different team. I expected an epic battle. However, within seconds, the dude in the other team quit. This is not the fault of the MMS, this is the fault of a misguided (and in my view, psychologically pathologic) attitude among some players, and which I honestly also read between the lines of your comment, that only battles where your team can "dominate the game" would be the real fun. This attitude is not uncommon among both some weaker as well as stronger players, and this attitude, and not the MMS, is the problem. You can also observe this in PRO battles, where such players seek to flock to the team which they think will "dominate the game", creating a tendency towards a reinforcing cycle of the stronger team becoming ever stronger in the team composition process (and this is exactly the reason why I appreciate the existence of the MMS, which mitigates this problem). By the way, I spent money for a Heat Immunity augment for my Hunter, to be used with Vulcan and Incendiary Band augment, for one purpose: I use this gear, which is brutally overpowered in no-drug battles, to join the "dominated" side in PRO battles, seeking and frequently succeeding in turning the battle and frustrating those who had sought to "dominate the game". And I have fun with it. I do for a long time mostly use a drone (Defender or less often a Saboteur, Booster or Driver) in MMS battles, and I assume that I fall under your definition of "buyer". Let me assure you, from the perspective of the dark side in your world, that I do usually find other "buyers" on both sides in MMS battles. And that I do often expierence skilled "non-buyer" players as the most effective adversaries. Half or at best a little less than half of the MMS battles I play, my team loses. I think that your view may be biased by the desire to "dominate the game" every time, and frustration when you do not. Did you ever consider that all of this might just actually be true?

There are plenty of comments complaining that the MMS would not work as fine as the respective commenters would wish, in particular because it would not produce the always "balanced battles" they desire. In my opinion, these complaints generally are baseless, as two central problems for composing such always "balanced battles" are impossible to overcome: First the complexity problem of evaluating every player's effectiveness in a given context of map and team composition, let alone considering their current mood. Second and most important the problem of quitters, which desert their comrades at the start of a battle, thus obliterating any consideration the MMS algorithm had in composing the teams and leaving it struggling to fill the ranks with whoever becomes available for a battle assignment (and as far as I can see, the MMS does an amazing job in this, given the huge difficulties). Besides, I think that having to quickly adapt to very diverse circumstances and odds in every battle is not a problem but an enjoyable challenge, in this game as in life. However, there are many ideas how to make the MMS smart and smarter. As I am not sure what has been already implemented, here are some points in the form of questions, for anyone to comment, and if possible also for admins/mods to provide definite answers. (1) Does the MMS finally avoid having friends fight each other? My major personal complaint with the MMS used to be that it pits me against friends of mine, causing me to immediately leave such battles. In the early days of the MMS, this happened frequently. However, these days, it has become a very rare occurrence. When I meet friends in battle now, they are almost always in my own team. Is it correct to assume that the MMS now generally gives friendship relations between players the high priority they deserve? (2) Why is there still no compensation for late assignments? A major complaint is that players often are assigned to battles in their late stages, an issue that is caused by the aforementioned problem of quitters. Such late assignments frequently are an annoyance for a variety of reasons. There have been many suggestions on how to mitigate such annoyance, like starting with an already charged overdrive. Does anyone know why this easy step to produce fairness and avoid anger among players is not simply implemented? (3) Why does the MMS reassign players to battles they had deliberately left? I do only rarely quit battles the MMS assigns me to, certainly less than ten percent. However, when I do, I apparently have reasons to do so, and I apparently do not want to play that battle. However, when I afterwards then click for another assignment, I am quite often reassigned to the very battle I just left. One would think that avoiding such bizarre reassignment to the same battle would be the first and simplest thing to do. Why is it not yet done? (4) Why are there no steps taken to encourage pride in being a finisher? The problem of quitters being the issue at the root of all problems with the MMS, and while I do understand that Tanki does not want to outright punish players for abandoning their comrades in a battle, and there are good reasons to not do such punishment, there would be simple and friendly ways of nudging players to finish, such as calculating every player's finishing quota and publishing it on their profile page. Why is this simple thing not yet done? Edit: Dear mods, I use this forum long enough to know that some of you may, upon reading this, feel the violent urge to "merge" this post into some other thread about the MMS, effectively burying it. I would like to kindly ask you to resist this violent urge. I never asked you such a thing before and will never ask you such a thing again, I never criticised the (in my opinion overactive) frequent merging of threads in this forum and never will do so in the future, but I ask you now to let this posting and thread live as it is.

The reason why they implement this is to put pressure on mid-ranked accounts to put money or more money into the game. It might work with some few folk, but the collateral damage across the player base as a whole will be huge, in various dimensions. My guess is that this will not only certainly financially backfire over the long term, but already very soon.

Though being deep in Legend territory, I still abhor this. Issues of account statistics and their comparability aside, it taints Tanki with a cheap trash feeling. As someone calculated above in this thread, you do now gain your first rank with no more than two kills. And when I play my account actively, I will now gain another Legend rank every fortnight (if Tanki would want to just hand out more ranking bonuses, they should simply incease them, instead of this nonsense).

Well, I have on some occasions in my life been partying with Russians. Would you be kind enough to equip my tank with a glass for "sto gramm vodki" every half an hour?

Correct: They get disconnected if they did not move their hull for 2 minutes straight. They get disconnected even while they are rotating their turret and shooting and killing enemy tanks. And while they are in Shaft sniper mode, where you even cannot move the hull at all. Of course something can be done about that. And something should be done about that. Just count rotating the turret and shooting as "activity".

Thus gear profiles would be a genius improvement of the HTML5 version, and technically rather simple to implement. I fullheartedly support this suggestion.

I do know this bizarre habit from a few folk in PRO battles, where some players with an unhealthy obsession for their K/D ratio will, when low on health, refresh their browser to respawn without a death counted. But I never considered that this technique would be abused as a cheat in Juggernaut battles. Do people really do this, and respawn as a healthy Juggernaut?

Assault mode is the game mode with most imponderabilities resulting from map and team composition (though I do not see a systematic advantage for the defending team). When I am in the mood for surprise and successful improvisation, I like the mode for exactly the huge imponderabilities when clicking for a battle assignement.

These mega containers should also contain a turret rotation pass, allowing the player to rotate the turret of their tank for 30 days. On a serious note, I assume that more EMP effect turret augments are actually coming, in particular for Smoky. That's one of the reasons why I suggested that resistance variants should exist for all four hull immunity augments, including EMP. By the way, I do enjoy Gauss battles in SGE mode like in the old days since I bought myself an EMP immunity augment for my Hornet during the Tanki birthday discounts.

I do not like this idea for public PRO battles (though for private ones, fine with me). The space of public PRO battles should stay uncomplicated and inviting.

Microupgrade every turret you actually use or realistically plan to use, by one. Do not waste crystals with speed-ups. Do microupgrades only on discount days.

I play about 50/50 in MMS battles and in PRO battles without supplies, and I would not want to miss either of them.