Umm... Actually, yes, that too. Hadn't wanted to mention that before, because it seemed a bit self-centered... But that is exactly the experience I have had on several occasions since the change. So again..: Keep the narrowed changes; just allow them to be overridden when creating a map. Rank range is visible to all before they join a map.

So we are really talking about a measure to protect the junior, exploitable player from the senior, cynical, exploitative behaviour? Because I thought one of the justifications for this change was that senior ranks felt held back or obstructed by junior ranks... There are a couple of points I would make in response then: The kind of behaviour, language and attitude on display in the majority of English-speaking games I play on, is something I try to insulate my son from. But critically: it is my responsibility to do that as his father; not the Dev's job. The general and inescapable gaming culture is a fact of life for kids these days. But it has its good points as well as its bad ones; and it is my role to try and guide my sons to see the difference. My other point..: I have absolutely no idea how many hours of game-time I have played to reach the rank I am at. I only know that it is a *LOT*!! Same goes for my son. So in the landscape of all that time spent playing the Game, how big a problem is it if a 15, 30 or even 60 minute game gets spoiled in the way you have described? It is fractional, in the scheme of things. So you end up investing 45 minutes into a game, only to have it stolen from you in the last 15 minutes. So what? It happened to me. Once. Was actually quite impressive to be on the receiving end of it: was a Russian clan, clearly using TeamSpeak. Quite a spectacle to see them turn around a 30 point disadvantage for a win. But that only happened to me once. Subsequently, I learned to look at the Rank Range graphic and make my choices based on how much of a challenge I felt like giving myself. Even as a Three-Star General now, I still avoid G'ismo permitted/dominated games. That's easy enough. Do just feel that this is a heavy-handed over-reaction to a very minor, exaggerated, and easily avoided problem. But quite happy to accept the facility to widen the Rank Range beyond the default as a compromise. Otherwise, it doesn't look like my son and I can enjoy playing with each other, without setting up new accounts/identities.

That is very true. Just one of the reasons why I don't encourage my son to play when I'm not around. Not sure that I particularly want to get into multiple accounts... Apart from anything else, I think you can only have a single account tied to a single Email address, and I already have one account each for mine and my son's Email addresses. As far as the "It's a Trap!" situation goes: If a team of seniors go to all the trouble of setting up a Game to lure in junior players, so that they can exploit them for easy kills: surely the sensible thing to do when it is apparent that is the case, is for the juniors to leave that map? If it is the seniors that set-up the map, and the juniors joined, the juniors can hardly cry "Foul!" at having to leave. Anyhoo... A compromise did occur to me: Have the default rank ranges remain as they have recently been adjusted to: just allow Map creators to over-ride that by widening the range. We can already narrow the range down from the default; so why can't we widen that range? And again: The Developers went to all the trouble of making the Rank Range visible on the Map Preview graphic... So I don't really accept the "Trap" justification. I always try and encourage my sons to look before they leap..! :huh:

He mostly only ever plays when I'm playing (otherwise, it's Minecraft, Skylanders, Terreria &c...). And when we want to play together, we create a new map, based on whatever we feel like playing at the time, adjusting the number of players depending on what mood we are in. Can't do that anymore. He and I started playing at more or less the same time... Actually, he started just before me and got me into the Game... I progressed up through the ranks faster, because I would play when he wasn't playing. But that was okay, because I never ranked up so fast that we couldn't still play together when we wanted to. Now... We can't play together. But like I said... That's all personal and subjective; and I know how difficult it is to please all of the people all of the time... What I don't understand is why the ability to create maps with a narrow rank range seems to have been ignored or discounted..? If people don't want to play with too low or too high a rank: narrow the rank range accordingly; or only join maps with an acceptable rank range. Not really sure why a narrower rank range has been enforced by the Dev's, when it was (and still is) possible for players to narrow rank ranges on maps, according to their own desires.

I'm struggling to accept this update as a "Good Thing." My six-year old (and W.O. 5) son and I can now no longer play together until he has ground his way up a couple more ranks. OK, that's the personal and the subjective... But what I'm struggling with is the fact that it has always been (?) possible to narrow the rank requirements yourself when setting up a map. Seems to me that was a perfectly good system and well implemented: just narrow the slider down if you want to keep out under- or over-powered players. Can't see why the rank restrictions need to be mandated centrally, when the functionality/facility is there to do it on a custom basis. You can even see on the map graphic what the rank-range is before you join a map. This change makes... no... sense.

I don't use drugs in order to earn crystals. I can buy crystals. I cannot buy XP. I use drugs in order to increase the amount of XP I earn. B)

Umm... That might be a good point... Does this update reducing the impact force of Smokey only reduce the impact force to turrets? Which was only introduced a few weeks (or so) ago? But impact force to hulls is the same as it always was..? Maybe not such a bad deal then.

Is this just a sneaky thread to get all the Buyers to reveal themselves..? :unsure:

Have never, ever played with a Smokey turret fitted. Doesn't interest me at all. Been shot at by Smokies quite often though, and often wondered what the point was, as they don't seem to do a lot of damage (and I *NEVER* put paint on to specifically protect against Smokey). But had always noted the knock-back effect of Smokey (and I only drive Titan or Mammoth...); and I figured, well, it's nice that Smokey users have something, because there doesn't seem to be much point to those turrets otherwise. Can fully understand the impact reduction for the Railgun (it's got so much else going for it, doubt that will be noticed). But Smokey..? Seems a bit unfair. Should have reduced the impact of Ricochet, if a second reduction was needed. At least Ricochet would still have the, uh, ricochet effect going for it. Still, I'm sure the Dev's know what they're doing...

Umm... It is kind of Magic-Land... I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on in the Game that you wouldn't normally see 50-ton tanks doing in Real Life. And that Freeze turret of course... But IRTT: Trolling/exploiting/making life difficult or annoying for others is just an aspect of Public On-Line Gaming we all have to live with. I'm generally to be found in a Titan or Mammoth, and I do know how irritating it is when you get "pigeons on the roof". The only practical response is to just ignore them and hope they lose interest. Trolls feed on reactions. Don't provide a reaction and they invariably seek nourishment elsewhere. Best actual tactic I've come up with is to drive (with the troll atop) directly towards the opposing team. The troll then actually helps you, because they become a magnet for the Auto-Aim of the enemy tanks. That clears the troll of your roof, and gives you a bit of added protection during your run in. But critically: don't feed the trolls with any kind of response, it only encourages them.

I think any solution will necessarily contain the seed of a further problem, won't it? If there were some automatic or process driven method to temporarily or permanently ban people who like to cause trouble from the Game; then people who like to cause trouble will exploit it to get perfectly innocent players temporarily or permanently banned from the Game. Equally: there are a limited number of (Human) Moderators who are able to respond to and investigate every reported violation. If the number of Moderators was significantly increased, that would increase the chances of their being Rogue Moderators; who would then need policing themselves. Sucks to be on the receiving end of aggravating behaviour... But it would suck even more to be penalised or banned because a troublemaker exploited a sanction system to get you into trouble. Obvious troublemakers are obvious. If they really start to disrupt one's enjoyment of a particular game-round, one just has to switch to a different game and/or server.

You say “…no one wants a person who isn’t skilled.” I disagree. People who aren’t skilled want other people who aren’t skilled. If this Game were dominated by those players with innate or developed skills, it wouldn’t be much fun for those who lacked those skills, or didn’t have the time to develop them. Would it? It would dramatically narrow the audience that the Developers have worked so hard to gather; and it would create yet another unpleasant In-Game culture, full of young men who think their aptitude for the game is a valid substitute for social skills. As it is, the supply mechanism and the ability to buy crystals for RL cash keeps the game accessible and balanced amongst players of all ages and abilities, at least at the lower-to-mid rank levels. Come your Generalissimo rank STG, and I’m sure you’ll have all the opportunity you’ll need to demonstrate your skills, unhindered by unskilled players. :D

Think this is a great idea. Particularly like the remote detonation aspect... Could have remote detonation on ordinary mines as well. Can think of plenty of places where that would be fun to use. :ph34r:

Testing of the new Hover-Tank at the Kungur Research Facility continues to provide encouraging results. At a recent press conference, the Lead Engineer on the Hover-Tank Project explained: “Generating enough downdraft to elevate a 40-tonne tank was always going to be a huge challenge. The key turning point in the Project came when we realised we could harness the vast quantity of hot-air expelled by TO players during Gameplay. In certain circumstances, there is so much hot-air generated by the driver of the Hover-Tank, that we have to implement a damping system to prevent the tank achieving actual flight. As you can see in the footage from our recent test, we have to keep an emergency Freeze crew on stand-by, in case any “druggers” come into the Research Facility during testing. As this tends to upset the Test Drivers to a point that overwhelms our hover-damping system, the Freeze crew is necessary to stop the Hover Tanks interfering with local civilian flight paths.”

Well, really can't recall any buyer ever joining a server and announcing their greater degree of importance. I suppose we buyers let our purchases speak for themselves... The ****ing *ALWAYS* starts from the non-buyers. Pointing out that buyers subsidise others' free game play isn't a boast or a claim; it's simply an attempt to silence the whiners by illustrating how absurd their animosity is. That is all.

The animosity towards "Buyers". I mean... How did "Buyer" become an insult? Can only think that those who overuse the term "noob" are desperate for an alternative. I buy. Lots. Have done since the first day of playing this game. Actually figured back then that I was doing those who want to or must play for free a favour... I realise there's the unavoidable human component of envy and jealousy (as was on display yesterday, when I went for a stroll in my newly-hired Frost paint...); but it seems like there's something beyond that... Like people who give actual money to the Developers of this game (...that we all appear to like playing) are somehow flawed... Envy is the projection of one's own irrational insecurities onto another... I'm fine with that, and can let the shouts of "Drugger!" slip off my back like so much duck's water. Sux to be them, etc. But I think the abuse of "Buyers" makes me mad because it is such an obviously stupid position to take: "I hate you: the person who is paying the Developers of the Game I like playing for free." So dumb. :rolleyes:

Not really sure that it is fair to hitch the kind of behaviour described to the Tanki Game, and/or the performance of Tanki moderators. This kind of behaviour is endemic to any and every Internet-based game, as far as I can tell. If the Tanki Devs and Mods came up with some kind of Magic Bullet for dealing with it, they'd soon stop developing the Game and start selling that "Magic Bullet" to every other Multiplayer Game Developer. The immature, antagonistic and offensive behaviour from certain players does sometimes spoil enjoyment of the game, which is a real shame, but it is possible to filter it out, either technically or mentally. I always take the view that whilst someone being rude, abusive and obnoxious to people they don't know is a crime; it is also its own punishment. The only emotion I ever (and only occasionally) feel for these people, is pity. :rolleyes:

{Double-Post}

Umm... I stay in those battles because playing Tanki isn't just about the individual battles: it's about career progression. Winning battles (and crystals) is cool and all; but getting XP from a decent bodycount is more important in the long run. So long as your KDR is above 1:1, then you're doing ok and it is worthwhile continuing. I'd leave a battle if I really couldn't keep things above that. But since I'm always Mammoth-Thunder-Drugga... That's not normally a problem.

+1 Also: One possible compromise that occurred that I would consider acceptable... Set things so that only the team that is behind in CTF and TDM are able to use "drugs". That is all. :ph34r:

No, look, I’m not into starting or propagating a Flame War here. I’ve really enjoyed playing this Game over the last month, and have been more than happy to contribute real money to the Developers for doing such an excellent job. I would have done that anyway, even if I wasn’t going to receive any In-Game boost like crystals and power-ups. What I particularly enjoy about this game is that I can play it with my six-year old son. It was actually him who introduced me to the game after a school-friend of his put him onto it. Now a six-year old child playing this Game is not going to stand much of a chance against seasoned, twenty-something Gamers. Without the boost of power-ups, this would be a pretty miserable game for him to play. So, no worries: I can purchase in-game power-ups for him, which give him a chance of dealing damage, rather than just having to take it. And frankly, if the argument being used by the Anti-Drug Brigade is that Drug Use is driving players away from the game; then I have to counter that without Power-Up Supplies, there would be far fewer children playing the game… And it’s player numbers that count, right..? However, my big concern as a parent, is what to say to my son when other players in-Game are calling him a “drugger”/accusing him of “using drugs”. There is a lot of that, as we know, and it is the only thing that tarnishes my enjoyment of the game. So I’m as keen as anyone to help reconcile the issues around Supplies/”Drugs” as anyone: hence my tenacity in this thread. If it were a game that only I played, then I would have nothing but derision and contempt for those people whining about “drugging”. I would say that they are morons who do not understand viable business models in today’s Capitalist-dominated World. I would suggest that they just suck up their frustrations and paranoia (really? It’s always the *OTHER* team that is full of druggers? Never the one that you join? How unlucky is that..??!) and get over themselves. People purchasing crystals and buying supplies are subsidising the freeloaders. The whiners claim to want to “protect” the game by preventing people leaving because of all the “drugging”; but the reality is that their whining and antagonism is far more likely to drive away the casual playing-base and those who fund the game with purchases. But I’m not the only person in my household playing this Game. My son is. And I suspect before too much longer, his younger brother will join him. Because, you know, this is a very enjoyable game, I think because it isn’t actual combat simulation. It is quite cartoonish, quite light-hearted, very “Arcade”. It’s a game that appeals to young and old alike. You don’t have to be super-skilled to play it; you just need good hand-to-eye coordination and reasonable reactions. Supplies/”Power-Ups”/”Drugs” help level the playing field between all the twenty-something males with time, reflexes and energy on their side; and the very young, or middle-aged, who haven’t yet developed their coordination, or whose reflexes have been dulled by time. The argument against “Drugs” goes like this: Player A = Skill Level 7 Player B = Skill Level 4 Or: Team A = Overall Skill Level 70 Team B = Overall Skill Level 40 Therefore: Player A must always beat Player B; Team A must always beat Team B. That is fair. That is right. That is proper. That is: The Way It Must Be. But… Power-ups/”Drugs” gives a double advantage, so that: Player A = Skill Level 7 Player B = (Skill Level 4) x 2 = Skill Level 8 Or: Team A = Overall Skill Level 70 Team B = (Overall Skill Level 40) x 2 = Overall Skill Level 80 Which means that, with “Drugs”: Player B will always beat Player A; Team B will always beat Team A. And that’s just wrong. That just shouldn’t be allowed. Drugs are bad, mmm’kay… But the thing is… Whilst it is possible for children and us middle-aged folk to get our hands on supplies/”drugs”; it is not possible for the kids to rapidly develop competitive hand-to-eye coordination and reflexes, and sadly impossible for us middle-aged folks to recover the priapic responsiveness we may have once had in our youth. So if “drugs” weren’t available to the less-skilled players, then the most-skilled players would always dominate. In every game round. All the time. Every match. Without exception… That would be totally miserable and utterly off-putting to those of us who lack such awesomely attractive Tanki-playing skills. And so we would stop playing. And Tanki Online would go the same way as so many other games that end-up dominated by obsessive players that never permit “Noobs” a look in. And, you know, it is all about keeping as many players as possible playing Tanki, isn’t it..? :unsure:

I have read your post, and your repeats of it several times. Here, I'll paraphrase so that you can see that I've understood what you are saying: To summarise and paraphrase: You have got over 9000 drugs. Most of the time, there are a couple of players on your team who are using drugs; but (also most of the time) all players on the entire opposing team are always using drugs. You have got over 9000 drugs. You choose not to use them; even when all players on the entire opposing team are using drugs (which is most of the time). Even though you’ve got over 9000 drugs. Which you don’t use. Because you choose not to. So how can you be expected to win against a team of players choosing to use drugs, when you are choosing not to use drugs? That have you over 9000 of. … That is what you are saying (and keep saying), right? My suggestion would be, if faced with a drug-taking opposition, and you want to win: Use some of those over 9000 drugs you have. That'll neutralise the drug-takers advantage, won't it? :D

Your post says that you have 9000 drugs stockpiled. If the other team are using drugs, why don't you use yours? That will give you a chance to win, won't it?

...Except use the drugs that they are choosing to stockpile. That's what I don't really get about all this whining about drugs: You are "saving" drugs up for the moment when you will choose to use them... ...But you get upset when other people choose to use theirs? Seems a bit churlish. :unsure:

I think… All Games of Skill have conditions, parameters and constraints. There is also always an element of luck. And where it is a multi-player game, there is the question of your opponents’ and your own team members’ abilities too. All of which combine to determine how well you perform in any given game round. In terms of Hierarchy… I’m assuming you are talking about a pecking order within each game round, because I haven’t yet found any Global League or ranking system, other than the “Top Clans” bit on the home page. That must be the case, because the Ranking System isn’t a hierarchy, it is a progression table. Given enough time, every player of Tanki can become a Generalissimo, because it isn’t a Zero-Sum Ranking System. So you are talking about a hierarchy within each Game Round. By which you mean: the most skilled player should always win each Game round, and the least skilled player should always lose. Everyone else should end the Game Round ranked in order of their innate skill with the Game. I think that’s what you’re saying… I think you are saying that you are getting cheesed off with the fact that someone less skilled than you can finish a Game Round ahead of you, because he or she used “drugs” to get an edge. An “edge” that is available to you, but which you choose not to use, for reasons of your own. You are saying, in fact, that if you did choose to use some of the “3000 of each drug” that you have, then you would always win, because your “drug” use would stack on top of your natural skill, and you must then beat the less-skilled players who are using “drugs” to finish the Game Round ahead of you. So in other words, what you are saying is: Because *YOU* make a personal choice not to use the Power-Ups/”Drugs” that are available to you: nobody else should use them either. Or am I missing your point? :unsure: P.S. I am quite proficient at turning (and shooting with) my turret whilst moving, thank you very much. :)