Just wanted to give my personal opinions on the new Parkour Rules 2025. Firstly, I very much appreciate the rules being much more concise than they were just before this change. No joke, I had to refer back to those rules more times than my notes across an entire semester-long Business Law class - of all class types - in college/university to make sure I was accurate in my understandings. Of course, I am deeply saddened to see those "New Era" rules go because I was just reaching the halfway point in reading through them, and now they don't apply anymore!!! Just a minor problem I have with these rules though: Signature Paints. I know, I know...pArKoUr Is NoT aBoUt ThE pAiNtS, argh!!! But it would be a major oversight to not believe that there are people out there that solely participate in a parkour club for a special paint. Personally, I understand why 3 / 5 clubs' paints were chosen - FTL getting Phoenix because they had it the longest out of the 3 active clubs that once had it, FTH getting Aero because they had it longer than ToD, and PTT getting Eagle because it was specifically made for them. What I do not understand is why the other clubs' (FA's and ToD's) paints were chosen. Sure, maybe there was not a clear choice for either club given their histories, but I can think of multiple reasons why their paints should be swapped. Firstly, ToD has actively incorporated Onyx into a few of their videos, while FA has not. Secondly, FA's color theme is navy and bright blue, which are the same colors seen within Glide. Admittedly, I am not a part of either club so I have no issue with either club getting either paint, but it just did not make any sense to me when I saw that.

I rarely play MM these days, but playing a bit over the past couple of weeks, I found it to be very problematic that there is no easy way to determine what a teammate's/opponent's augment does while in the battle. For example, I played against someone using Gauss with an augment that had an avatar that looked like a pair of those gimmicky plastic vampire teeth people wear during Halloween, but there was no simple methodology I could use to determine what said augment does. Sure, I could check the Wiki (I did so after the battle), but it is simply not logical to assume that someone would do so while in a battle, as it takes far too long to do so, making it rarely worth the time commitment. I personally feel there should be an improvement added to fix this issue. As it stands, you are currently able to press/hold the "Tab" button and hover over a player's nickname to see avatars and percentages for the turrets they have a protection module equipped for. I think it would be worthwhile to add upon this, having some form of window pop-up when hovering over a player's nickname that briefly shows what their augments do. It does not need to be exactly the same as shown on the Wiki (where exact percentage differences from stock are shown), but maybe show a more simplified version. For example, for the "Nemesis" augment for Gauss I explained running into earlier, the window pop-up could state the following: Salvo does more damage Time to reacquire target is increased Salvo reload is slower Salvo impact force is greater (And potentially these can be put into separate columns within the window pop-up to save space in/not over-complicate the User Interface)

We got Tanki on Nintendo Switch before GTA 6...

Just wanted to discuss a complaint I have with the New Era rules. Personally, I don’t understand the new system of giving out Onyx. Now, it’s given out to the “best” parkour club every 2 months. But it seems as though Phoenix and Aero are both given on the same principle, just with the extra requirement of having to be in a specific locale. Seems pointless to have both systems operate so similarly to me. Maybe I misread things or time will tell a different story than my personal perceptions, though. I think there was benefit in the old system of giving out Onyx, where essentially every club’s members received it. Sure, it wasn’t as rare as Phoenix, Aero, or Glide, but it still caused people that were never involved with parkour to dip their toes into the sport because of their wanting to receive a special paint. FTH and FTL have both seen major increases in session activity (from what I’ve seen), which I think clearly showcases the benefits of that old system. Now with this new system though, sure, it might bring in new people’s interest to whatever club holds Onyx at a given moment, but unfortunately, I don’t think it will be as widespread across the entire community as the old system.

Personally, I see no issue in giving club members the usual amount of supplies/crystals, even after their club posts a shorter video. With the exception of the club editor, all members (parkourists, spectators, leaders, designers, etc.) still have to put just as much work into one of these shorter videos as an original-length one. The parkourists still have to perform the same number of tricks. The spectators still have to successfully record all the tricks and any necessary cinematics. The leaders still have to administer the same number of sessions to get the tricks done and recorded. The designers still have to craft the same number of artworks for the final montage. Like I mentioned before though, the only exception/concern I see in this equation is related to the club editor(s). For example, maybe some people might criticize the editor(s) behind a shorter video because they feel said editor(s) put less work into crafting this final product compared to a longer video. To combat this backlash, maybe the editor(s) - and ONLY the editor(s) - should receive a proportionally-smaller amount of supplies/crystals compared to the usual amount after producing a video shorter than 2 minutes. For example, maybe they would receive 1300 supplies or 150K crystals. With this "penalty" of sorts on the table, the editor is given an opportunity to decide whether they value creative freedom or supplies/crystals more, while simultaneously a) not hurting anyone else in their club (by diminishing the number of supplies everyone else could have received), and b) appeasing outsiders' criticisms ("less effort" in their eyes is now correlatively met with less reward). And actually, having presented this argument, now I feel this is a better solution than the one I covered in a response I gave to @Darlin. That solution could have caused internal turmoil in a club that decided to make a shorter video (as everyone would be penalized for that choice), whereas this solution avoids both that AND external turmoil related to unfairness.

Then maybe change both elements of the same rule - Have the time minimum go down (such as lowering it to 1:30), but have the number of required tricks go up (such as raising it to 12). Or better yet, maybe both could be allowed, through changing the rule something that allows clubs to make their own decision on this matter. For example, change it from "Videos published by [Official or Supported] Clubs must be at least 2 minutes long and consist of at least 8 parkour tricks" to "Videos published by [Official or Supported] Clubs must either be at least 2 minutes long and consist of at least 8 parkour tricks OR must be at least 1 minute and 30 seconds long and consist of at least 12 parkour tricks"...Something like that.

I personally feel that any instance within the Parkour Rules, Official Club Program guidelines, and Parkour Club Support Program guidelines in which it is detailed that parkour club videos to be at least 2 minutes long needs to be reworked/changed. Similar to my previous post about not requiring videos to be in 60 FPS, I feel this new requirement similarly casts a boundary on the creativity of club editors. Some of such editors could have intentionally made a video shorter than 2 minutes as a stylistic choice, and I think they should be allowed to make that choice and still have their work recognized and rewarded by the Official Club Program and Club Support Program. I understand that some people enjoy videos in which there is more content than just clips of tricks themselves (such as showing cinematics of setups, or of jumpers on buildings), but I personally think others/some of those same people can also enjoy videos that are much faster-paced (and likely, shorter in length) - just the same. I recognize that enjoyment across the board could be lost if videos get too short, but in defense, a) there is still a part of that same rule that requires at least 8 tricks to be presented, and b) I am not saying that the length requirement needs to be outright abolished necessarily, I just think it should be reduced (such as to 1:30). I am eager to hear others' feedback however, whether you agree or disagree, and I especially look forward to your take on this proposition, @Adab

I urge you to take other routes as well. Bringing back some parkour contests, showing this community’s content in the v-log, maybe something new even. The more ways we can generate publicity, the more interest we can see. Then switch that rule to something along the lines of “A player can only receive support from one club. Players in more than one club must contact the Parkour Clubs Manager via forum PM, stating which club they would like to receive support from.” Oh, and it’d be worthwhile to add a connecting rule that adds some form of opportunity for players to switch which club they are receiving support from, but also be sure to include a limit on such. Maybe this could look something like “If a player wants to change which club they are receiving support from (such as due to leaving one club yet remaining in another), they can contact the Parkour Clubs Manager via forum PM to initiate such a change. This is only permitted once per year though, so be mindful when sending such a PM.” I would love to see how. Please, do not just recite the rule(s) though, please explain clearly how this benefits new clubs/clubs without 30+ videos. Like you’ve seen, I personally have misinterpreted your rules, and I assume I am not the only one to have done this. If you explain the background of a rule (especially in layman’s terms), all of us in this community would be appreciative, and maybe we’d actually show some more support towards you and your rules. I think that would be better. Thank you in advance for taking my opinion into consideration. Pedantic much? If Helpers weren’t prohibited from making major changes in their nicknames, I’d suggest you initiate a nickname change.

As I attempted to illustrate in the past but I will try to make clearer - An example is that clubs applying for the Official Status and/or Club Support are held to a very strict standard; if they miss a deadline, they are automatically rejected and told to re-apply in the future. Meanwhile, clubs that already possess the Official Status or are a part of the Club Support seemingly cannot be kicked out of such programs for the same violation (at least, there's never been a public example of a club losing their membership in either of these programs for this offense). Yet, the rules make it clear they apply to both clubs looking to join these programs AND clubs already in the same programs - a double standard... But still then...What's the point behind this? If there is not the goal of getting new people into our community, then there will remain a numbered quantity of people within this parkour community. This in mind, it appears, then, that you're suggesting that people already in clubs break off to form their own new clubs. That will actually have a negative impact, thanks to the rule listed below: "3.1.15. A player can only be a Member of 1 Club at a time. In other words, a player cannot be a Member of more than 1 Club simultaneously." We could have a hundred different clubs in our community, but that above rule makes it so that each of these clubs will be hindered in producing videos because the pool of parkourists they can make videos with is finite, and they will have difficulties in adding members. Unless, of course, you're okay with members of other clubs being seen in videos of other clubs as "helpers" or something of that sort, which, then, effectively makes the rule above pointless and another example of a double standard... I have seen first-hand how difficult it is to see activity in a parkour club that is not providing a paint to their members. Unfortunately though, now these paints are selectively available to clubs that have 30+ videos, as that is what is required for the "Gold Tier" of Parkour Club Support that gives out a paint, and that tier is also required to successively get the Official Status and a paint this alternative way. The only clubs with that have published this many videos are ones that have been around for more than half a decade (hence, can be considered "old" by the standards of how long our parkour community has been around). This is what I mean by there being a favoring...New clubs/clubs without 30+ videos are at a disadvantage, as they don't possess means to get a paint that can spike activity levels. You quite literally do. ? You decide whether clubs do/do not meet the rules of this community, and you represent our interests in front of the Parkour Community Administrators. Both of these actions are what people that govern do...

[edited] If you’re going to take steps to further bureaucratize parkour within this game, you have to go the full nine yards, not skimp on any part. There are so many reasons for people to not support your rules, and double standards like this one in question are great examples of your wishy-washy stance on all things parkour. Then what exactly was the point? No person currently in the parkour community will ever look to create a new club. All your new rules favor older clubs to no avail. Everyone can understand that. If you can’t, it further shows just how out of touch you are with the community you govern. Dear holy deity, please forgive me for my mistake! My sincerest apologies for not remembering every minuscule, irrelevant detail about this game that I never play!

You didn’t mention anything about letting clubs keep their paints/status through unfair or wrong situations. Several clubs missed deadlines and they got to keep their paint, and that’s just one example. I guess you’re not technically wrong, but it gives off an illusion that such scenarios are being overlooked and ignored. I recently saw a post in the in-game news tab encouraging players to join/create a parkour club…I’d be interested in seeing how many people clicked on that link. That’d be a good indicator of how well that promotion went. Not to be a “Debbie-Downer”, but I’d bet it didn’t get many clicks, and thus didn’t garner much new interest in parkour… As for the special game modes (like the one we recently saw a couple weeks back), the physics are the old HTML5 physics, which is both annoying for those that DO enjoy parkour already, and is misleading for people that might one day get involved with it. Those physics might make such “newbies” feel that nothing cool is possible in parkour, and if they’re disconnected from social media, that might be the only time they are exposed to “parkour” (and that’s fairly problematic). Oh, and this most recent mode didn’t even have Lightweight augments of either type equipped, so it was just basically a DM mode where you’re limited to a specific combo…Not something people would play much of, unless there’s a significant increase in gold box rates to give players an alternative and wrong reason to play it. Maybe you could try passing along to Marcus that we need Lightweight augments to make such modes useful/truly enjoyable. I do think it is a good way of getting people interested in parkour for the first time or once again, but that’s really only possible with the change I mentioned above.

I went through and counted the number of individual parkourists listed as a "Parkourist" within the topics of all currently-active clubs (regardless of locale). There's only 59 of them. Just putting that out there while the topic of parkour popularity is being discussed. It's a hard pill to swallow, but parkour is not popular anymore. Now...I wholeheartedly agree with your claim that the majority of players involved with the parkour scene do not parkour because they love parkour, rather they do it for other reasons (mainly the exclusive paints). Yes, it's a sad sight to see, but I am not going to disagree with you. What I would like to do is point out that these new rules/systems significantly shorten the number of players that will own one of these paints. We both agree that the majority of parkourists parkour because they want a paint, so I guess what I am wondering is: Why, then, would new rules be rolled out that inherently reduce the number of each paint there is to go around?

Why did/didn't you participate in this unofficial contest? I was originally going to participate, but unfortunately the Lightweight Augment update came out, and the break of time between then and when the Extreme Lightweight Augments came out caused my team to fizzle out. I assume some others had similar experiences as well. Even if I had found another team though, I think there would have come a point in the contest where we stopped - either the day the new Parkour Rules, Club Support Program, and Official Clubs Program were announced, or the day those elements took effect. Those systems have caused me and lots of other parkourists to lose significant or total motivation towards both parkour and the game in general, and I think that loss of motivation negatively shaped how this contest turned out. Do you want more parkour contests in general? I would love to see more parkour contests in the future, besides just the standard yearly rendition of Masters of Parkour. Parkour Survival was always one of the most enjoyable contests for the parkour community, and I think a revitalized version of that contest was an excellent starting point. There are lots of other unique parkour contests from the past too though - such as Triumph Season or Lift Off, just to name a few - and I think reintroducing those could also be enjoyable for the parkour community. What would you like to see different with this contest? Personally, I think this contest was free of anything that needed tweaking. I think the lack of participation was not due to any issue with the contest, rather specific events pertaining to parkour that came up during the duration of the contest. I guess I would just suggest that, in the future, you build a time machine and use it to peer into the near future to ensure there are no colossal changes waiting to be released that would impact the parkour community for the worse... ? How difficult were the challenges? I didn't try to complete nor helped participating teams accomplish the challenges, but from just looking at them, I think most of them were not very difficult. I could see Challenge 4 posing some minor difficulties, but the other challenges seem pretty straightforward and simple to me. With that being said, this edition of Parkour Survival was entirely conducted on a singular map, and I recognize the limitations that would cause in coming up with challenges. There's only so many props in the map, and obviously it would be boring if every trick took place in the areas of the map most densely populated with such props. I commend the organizers' ability to put together some decent challenges given the circumstances.

Maybe you could mandate that Parkour Club Leaders link their club’s official YouTube channel to the Discord profile they included in their application. Users can only link their Discord profile to a specific YouTube channel via signing into a YouTube-affiliated site, which would prove that they are indeed the owner of the club (as they have the ability to upload on said linked channel). After you add them in Discord, you’ll be able to verify that that Discord profile showcases the name of the club’s channel, complete with a hyperlink to verify it’s the same channel from the application form (and not an imposter channel under the same name). Of course, some people might have issues with being forced into doing something they don’t want to do regarding a third-party platform, but I think such people would consider this better than giving out confidential information.

I literally cannot tell if you are legitimately serious or joking here... All three of those are long-standing elements of the parkour community. Yes, you made some alterations to them, but they are both not new and closely resemble items we have had for years. You are blatantly gaslighting the parkour community by stating these new items are "nothing like the parkour community of Tanki Online has ever seen or had". It is despicable. As for you apparently going "way beyond your comfort zone" in preparing the Support Program and Official Club Program, the only thing I can possibly think of that makes that statement true is the guilt you must/should be feeling from blatantly plagiarizing others' work. The framework of both programs mirrors that that was created by people that held a similar role before you. All you did was paraphrase some sections, slap your nickname on it, and now you're actively trying to pass it off as your own...