Under Review could actually be useful for new players, to teach them some basics about the games. It could ask for stuff that is presented in those loading screen pictures, and for some more. For more advanced players it would become pretty boring, as the number of questions would be limited by nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hejHkPaoPWw

Actually I do not like to overdrive system as it was. It strengthens teamplay, but the battles get one sided too easily, too fast. Besides people will forget how to work and prepare for an attack, they will just wait for some guys beeing charged up and then go for a flag. On the other side, they asked the players for ideas. This means to me, that the development is not truely happy with the ways the overdrive feature worked out in the last two tests (else there would be no need to ask for players ideas). IMHO it seems like they have coded a cool game mechanic, and now they search for a way to make a good use of it. I hope they find one - one that is better, then the first two tests. I truely liked the way it thought the players to work as a team.. even if it was limited to closerange teamwork.. but that was cool. People started to attack in groups.. cool thing. It's simply the point to hand out all three supplies at once, for all in range, that makes the thing so very much overpowered. The tanki app is a very neat thing. It would be cool it we could look up the wiki tables (turrets, hulls, microupgrades, ..) in a convenient way, directly from the app itself, without going the way through the wiki pages all the time on a mobile screen.

great voice, great tune

Topic merged

Topic merged (this one has even the same name as yours :) )

Guys, I have to remind you to handle the discussion with more respect for each other. I know that supplies are a delicate topic and the different opinions on "what is right" regarding supplies easily leads to discussions, that are loaded with emotions. Tame yourselves please, I do not like to wipe through here. The last threads on supplies overuse was closed a few months ago, as the amount of hatred took over. It turned into a battlefield of two parties that besieged each other, spotting for the slightest mistakes and imperfections in the other parties behaviour; blowing those up to giant balloons to show off how ridiculous the others are. Truly, there is no need to repeat that again. So now there is no need for "he started", or "he blamed me first, I just blamed back". Forget it, swallow it, make a fresh start, and try to get along better. Thanks in advance, BW

In the current captions I also associate the min/max with the radius, and not with the damage - which is absolutely misleading.

scroll up a bit, you will find your post. I even linked to it directly from post#2 (the one you quoted)

I think we already pointed that out for thunder.. and the answer was like "the captions are standardized" or something like that.. but the longer I think about it, the more I think that the current captions simply sound wrong when they are used in English. So maybe they are word-by-word translation from a language, in which they sound quite right? (or we both suck at English and it sounds right to 99% of the people, besides you and me.. who knows :p) I thought I point it out again, when I came to the end of the page today :P

https://en.tankiwiki.com/Striker You maybe like to consider to rename "min splash damage radius" >> into >> "radius of min. splash damage" and "max splash damage radius" >> into >> "radius of max splash damage" In the captions used today, it is not clear if the "min" and "max" applies to the damage or the radius - and this is a problem, because we have max. damage at the min radius, and min damage at the max radius. With the new proposal it would clearly link the "min" and "max" to the damage, leaving no room for misinterpretations. It would help a lot.

Topic merged

Topic merged

The matchmaking like we saw it on the testservers a few weeks ago, collects players (like in a queue) and starts the battle once the queue is filled op to a certain trashhold - or even to the max. But as the players have different loading times, the quick loaders are allowed to move, shoot, cap flags.. but as soon as all are loaded the battle restarts instantly. All players simply vanish and respawn, flags are set to 0-0 and the real battle starts. On the other hand, players will leave. Some leave instantly, as they realize that they do not like the map.. but this is not much of a problem, as a- some people from the next queue could be pulled in within the first seconds easily b- Tanki could display the game details (map name, game mode, team color, flag limit, ..) during the loading screen and offer a [cancel] button (at a certain risk..) If we then imagine that the battle is in full swing for .. hmm.. 40 seconds, and suddenly 2 of your team leave, then the other will have the upper hand quickly, 2 more will leave (not wasting time) and soon the auto balance will trigger an early battle termination. Tanki _could_ also take 4 players out of the next queue and place them in the looser side at once, creating the balance again.. but of course this works only if the flag difference is yet not too much. This approaches have a lot of potential, especially as you could rate the players battle efficiency over time (not the rating today, something more advanced) and create balanced teams from the start. But we will not see much of that "potential" from the beginning. It is a log way (through quite some failure too) to reach that. Imagine a matchmaking system that provides each team of 10 with 2 heavy druggers each - and most low level druggers to fill the rest.

um... either I do not get your answer, or we have a misunderstanding :) I quoted no reasons; I just pointed out that there are reasons why players like to play pro battles (talking about public ones, not those hidden FireWaspHornet); and that is is sad that Tanki took away the possibility to earn mission income in such public pro battles. By doing this Tanki forces the players to play gamemodes that they do not like, in order to keep up with the rest of the players. It does not encourage game fun, if it is made feel like work. I understand that the principle of free2play games is based on "pay for cinvinience" = "pay by time spent"; but IMHO it should not by "pay by grief". It is still a game, and the players come here to have fun. If the grief starts to outweight the fun, they leave. It would be really cool, if public pro battles would allow to complete missions again.. and the missions that can be easily solved there (like beeing first) would be reworked (like into "beeing first + score 200 points in the same battle").

Of course you could nerve each of those turrets by -10%, -15%, .. but it would make not much of a difference as soon as supplies come into the game. The issue is not the turret, but the +100% damage philosophy of supplies. The reasons you gave are exactly the points, why I have not purchased protection vs Shaft, Isida, Fire, Freeze and Rico for my Wasp. It is simply pointless. If you like to play battles with supplies, you have to be ready to use them; or your have to get superior in tactics. But actually, even someone superior in tactics is helplessly lost when playing vs someone that is medium skilled and uses a lot of supplies. You work hard, trick them 2 times, and shortly before they die -> Repair Kit time. So.. feel free to join supply free pro battles more often; they are maybe the better option if you dislike the +100% supplies thing. @Magnum I'm curious: those of you that consider Magnum as OP: on which maps do you think so?

the music taste of people is very different - so simply don't grief about it :)

wooha... goosebumps..

Topic merged

Topic Merged This idea is about user-feedback; and I guess our Community Manager is the best to give you an answer on this one. My personal opinion is that it is better to discuss updates (what do you like about it, what do you not like about, why is that so, ..) instead of just giving a "rate this update from 10..0 points". On the other hand, very specific questions (like the one in your example) can be easily asked by Takni on a regular base. If clever questions are chosen, one could estimate the user reaction on certain updates even before they are planned. Again, your screenshot is a perfect example for that.

Sorry that you had a bad game. In the last live stream Hazel pointed out an example for matchmaking where he talked about entering an xp/bp battle via the matchmaking system. So while I am very convinced that the early matchmaking will only provide normal battles, I am not fully convinced that it will never ever feature a second way into more complex scenarios later on. Regarding the limitation of gear's M-levels, a similar idea already exists in the ideas section. but I guess you have left the ranks in which this is a problem, by the time the developers will find time to take care about this. I use to play poly CP quite often the last months, and the lowest gear I saw was M2.

I didn't like it too.. but unfortunately we can not tell what the majority thinks my looking at the forum. People tend to complain more then they acknowledge something that they like. Especially if they have to take the tremendous effort to write something (instead to click a "like" button). It would help to roam the game and ask 500 random players from a certain rank upward what they think. But anyways.. another question: Does the overdrive-mode / zero-supply-mode - increase the usage of purchased supplies - or decrease the usage of purchased supplies?

Could you please provide a link to the video and tell the time index, where the things you describe can be seen? ty :) Rail can not shot through walls; this is a lag effect. The player that shot you hit you on his computer, and at the same time you have already reached the place behind the corner. But as he made a legal hit, your client/browser client will draw the railgun shot in a way, that it hits your current position.. and so the shot seems to go through the wall.

Topic merged

true, it backfires. It is a positive feedback loop, a self-reinforcing part in a system; and so the system tends to tip over. If humans design any kind of systems, they have the choice to make the feedback loops positive (self reincorcing) or negative (the opposite, but I could not find that word in the dictionary). A game needs both.. but Tanki has a lot of positive feedback loops, and almost no negative ones. So once a team gained domination status, the battle is done for; but still both teams have to wait for the end-criteria (enough flags, or all leave in frustration). The only negative feedback loop they have is in the CP mode, where the points of the winning team grow slower, and can also be reduced if the loosing side holds the point long enough. (this caused a lot of troubles in the start, as the negative feedback was too strong => never ending battles; but in the meanwhile it is really cool. Also the players learned to play 70 and 100 points CP, instead of 200+. Tanki would need more of those.. but it is kind of hard to balance them. I mean, if you are overpowered by others, it is kind of usefull to get out of this situation soon.. the psychology is tricky around this issues.