As I eagerly await the death of this game watching from the side lines I feel like it is important to bring to attention two important points to people still playing the game or hoping for it to improve. I'm gonna try my best to explain what I'm trying to say, but it may very well be misunderstood. First is that I have realised that the gacha model just isn't sustainable beyond a certain point. And as more people and even authorities become aware of how predatory this model is, player numbers will drop as people leave out of frustration or boredom, and laws are passed to make sure these practices are discontinued. Given what happened to Tanki X, and presumably the skin model being unsustainable for Alternativa specifically, or at the very least profits dropping as the heads of the company are not satisfied with them, a skin economy doesn't appear to be something they are willing to do. And that's really why this game is unfixable. The monetary model is stuck in a loop of squeezing out as much cash from players that are left and is losing them more and more as players get dissatisfied with being forced to do things a certain way as opposed to being given variety and fun things to do without a pay wall. There are games that take TO's approach and have found success like the infamous Raid Shadow Legends or even Genshin Impact, but TO has survived for over a decade, and chances are, if these games don't change, they will see a similar fate. The second is, there are games which only primarily rely on skins and content comes in the form of new and exciting maps or content that the player base would really like, while not removing much of the old unless it's something the player base wants or would benefit the game overall. Many more popular games rely on this model. Think Among Us, Fortnite or even Fall Guys, though the last one has not had any news in a while due to lack of variety when the game actively asks for it presumably. The same goes for this game, as the matchmaking system with the experiments shifts the game in different directions, but you never get to experience both old and new based on your preference. For whatever reason AG has decided one way for you to play the game and that can get boring for many pretty quickly, it doesn't matter if your concept is fun and unique on paper. The typical modes to select from are not enough variety unless you are going into Pro battle games, which are discouraged and end up not playing as well beyond all the parkour. Imagine having many more unique maps with new assets with a variety of settings like disabling drones, or having a match with drones only. But you can't do any of that within matchmaking. If I were to attempt to "fix" the game, I would make changes to facilitate diverse set of fun gameplay and not fixate to one specific type. Removing small maps isn't a good idea, you really need more maps, as well as give the option for players to choose what map to play in during matchmaking. Another very good approach is the module system, which was used in Tanki X. If each module was a single purchase and you could hold a certain amount of modules while having many different options to choose from, more strategy would be involved in choosing a combination of modules to help you for a given map or game mode with certain settings. But that can't be done with a game stuck in a loop of extorting money from you. It is too late to even try unless you are taking a huge risk. AG doesn't even develop any other games from what I can see, so this being their only source of income greatly increases that risk. But to me it seems like eventually they will probably need to file for bankruptcy unless they take that risk by changing the monetary model of the game, advertising it again, making sure it is fun to play long term and purchases not trying to extort you. It is very clear they don't want to take that risk, so, because of that I only have to conclude that this game won't last many more years. And given the game's track record, I will be glad. There is also the model of selling the game with a single purchase and having solid reason to buy it, rather than it being free to play at all, but given the type of game play it provides, I can't even begin to see how the transition would occur. And if you are to somehow stay in the industry, make other games AG, preferably ones you can actually pay once for a copy of, you are digging yourselves a grave without this! I don't know any other developer who have stayed in the business having only made one game they have to maintain.

Wrong, it was 2011, though in 2012 it still had no laser scope. I believe the scope was introduced around the year 2013, though would need to research a bit more to confirm, but it was definitely around in 2011. It was in the game when I started to play and was the last weapon to be released before rebalance and it was a long time before Hammer was introduced much later.

There is a poll in another topic, for which the results are now skewed as a result of badly formatted question from the start regarding the yeard. This poll includes all years from the game's inception till today. Reasons for why a year has been best for you, is entirely up to you, this data might reflect on when a lot of people here actually joined the game. For me, as I have mentioned before, it was 2011. Garage was much cheaper, and though auto balance wasn't really a thing, if you were doing bad, it was kind of your fault. You could choose and customise matches as you wanted. I would much rather have more customised matches given to me with good rewards, rather than trying to compete in a matchmaking system where I will inevitably lose without paying a fortune. I personally did not play before the year 2011. If Rebalance didn't ruin the end of 2012, I might have put that as my favorite. I might one day try to compile a list of events that happened each year at some point to give an overview to others about the events to give a better idea for each one, mentioning both the good and the bad.

Baked shadows should be a graphics option, which would apply during loading time of a match. This would mean either creating a bunch of lightmaps or having an algorithm to bake the shadows in during loading so that the light maps don't need to be drawn.

OP please edit the third poll question to include the years dating back to 2009, as that was the year the game started. As I mentioned before, I'd vote for the year 2011 to being the best no question. The only problems I had back then with it were some hackers (rarely ever saw any even then though), a bit too many glitches and acting up in performance, mobile transaction price was a bit more extortionate compared to others and rank ratio was way too wid. These days extortionate prices are sky high and decent in-game rewards require grinding, along with much more P2W mechanics, stale combat because match-making is encouraged above all else and loot box mechanics are abound.

Given the on-going upgrade disparity and legends with drones overpowering every match, I suggest you fools use Hornet OD while you can to actually get somewhere in the game if you're gonna play without paying.

Read below, you have no idea what this update did to the game. Also drones don't need to exist. They are not there to make gameplay much different. They are an inherent pay to win tactic employed by the developers. Batteries drain quickly with no way to stop it other than unequipping the drone in the garage completely and you lose them faster than you can gain them. Looks to me you're the one who doesn't understand. Rebalance made the entire garage, without adding anything new to it around x3 as expensive. Get the same stuff you got before, only for tripple the price. Sure, you can now use the first 3 weapons and hulls you couldn't use before at max ranks, but tripling the price of the garage for that? Sleazy as hell, if you ask me. Not to mention that without microupgrades the upgrade power level shenanigans and just general imbalance made certain other weapons and hulls less impractical to use, but that's besides the point and I've already mentioned this the previous post. Exonomic's change cut funds in half, which was then brought up to 80%. Still a total 20% loss, they admitted these changes, but still got praise for "raising the funds by 60%" lmao. That has stayed constant in the game as far as I can recall. We are already at high costs and low funds. In the middle of all of this, they gave the option to skip upgrades, which made everything half the price at the higher ranks as you get M3s and such, not counting micro-upgrades. But then Mk update happened... The upgrade discrepancy issue is some-what temporary. It is one big issue they should have handled differently, but didn't. But temporary higher upgrades for certain players isn't the only issue. It's all of this: * Players that didn't micro-upgrade prior, had nothing to go off of and as a result the split between who gets max upgrades at around Lieutenant ranks is unfair. It's like some sort of stock investment, where if you maxed you microupgrades at M2 prior, you get to keep way too powerful equipment later, and if you didn't, you can't even get an upgrade 2 upgrades down to what some others can. Refunding should have been the solution. They've done this kind of crap twice now, remember the conjoining of micro-upgrade parameters? The effects are temporary, but the cost is permanent. * You can no longer skip upgrades normally (need a confirmation on whether you can skip them via kits though). This makes everything you buy at higher ranks at least TWICE as expensive when buying stuff separately. * Kits themselves now only have like 10% - 20% discounts, as opposed to 30% - 70% discount ratio. And there are no paints or protections included. I do agree that the idea of having x2 the amount of upgrades as before is a good idea, but they did it in the worst way possible, one that they have already done before and upset a lot of players with. Stuff keeps getting more expensive and you get rewarded less in the game itself. It will keep happening until it goes bust at this rate. Any problem you might find, they'll "fix" and put an even bigger price tag on it in some shape or form.

Tell that to the people who get continuously spawncamped by Mk7-20s with full supplies, max protection and fully upgraded drones at WO ranks. The systems back then was nothing, given you could choose your battles by rank and play against people at your level regardless and the upgrades were much cheaper. Is this some attempt at making it sound like the game was worse then because of that? You're hilarious for brushing aside everything else I mentioned. This is what pinacle of stupidity looks like.

Did everyone suddenly forget the Thunder and Viking Ultra/Prime fiasco?

The year 2011 I would say was the peak year, with nice weapon range and the total cost of the equipment was overall cheap. There was of course pay to win, but nothing you couldn't earn or spend a few dollars on and be in a decent condition. Past third lieutenant, I would say, the game would be more or less balanced as most players would have the top level equipment. While some would say 2012 was the best year, something happened near the end of that year that started the whole more P2W train wreck; the rebalance update. Because there were no microupgrades at the time, Thunder for instance as M3 was available at Brigadier. Not only was this a weapon which required you to be in a specific mid-range, but being a lower rank M3 meant it was balanced specifically for that rank. You could not upgrade it further. Meaning that if you got into the trap of buying upgrades for Thunder at lower ranks, you would be stuck with a weapon that was near useless at M3. Meanwhile it was being outperformed by Smoky, a weapon which as M3 was available at the Marshal rank and which could not only deal decent damage at mid-range, but also far and close range without damaging itself. Smoky M2 at the time was more of a match for Thunder M3 than Smoky M3. I am not against the idea of rebalance but what had been done in its first iteration was abysmal and was a show of just as bad things to come to make the game worse. We hadn't even gone through the infamous economic's change update that for a period set the fund to be raise by half without any mention about it from the developers. If I recall correctly, that update happened in early 2013. Also, at the time, almost everyone would use Mammoth, because of the way rebalance had dealt with hull balance. Mammoths could be almost as fast as Hornets with speed boost, meanwhile Hornets had way less health at M3, resulting in them being severely underpowered. This lasted for at least a month before balance changes were made and for a while Hornet was a bit too powerful. This was before ODs, mind you. Hornet M3 at the time was available at Major General, while Mammoth M3, unsurprisingly at Marshal. Think of the devastation someone with a Thunder and Hornet would be in against someone who has Mammoth, Smoky and a paint which has 40%+ protection from Thunder. So for people who think 2016 or 2014 was where everything went downhill, you know nothing. The game started going down hill starting late 2012, you just hadn't seen how fun it was before that. And sure, there were a lot more hackers and times when the game would crash. But I could put that aside for the much less P2W gameplay that was there at the time. For most of its years, the game has been in an awful position. I highly suggest for anyone who hasn't yet to quit it for good like I have.

Striker needs a boost in projectile speed and damage and Gauss needs removing because it's Striker, just OP. Need I say more?

Some may have noted this already, in fact the first reply to the boost update in the topic noted this, but I just want to highlight the fact to the people who may have got the wrong impression about the update. This boost may save the grind, but you know what else it does? Handicap you in the game even further. Gaining more experience with a progression system like this is in fact bad. The amount of currency you earn while doing this is what matters. Reaching a higher rank faster than earning crystals means that you will have less amount of crystals to expend at the time of your rank-up, meaning you will not be able to purchase as much equipment at higher ranks, requiring you to make more purchases to keep up. If they were sincere about giving you a genuine boost, then as what the aforementioned post talked about, it would be the other way round; tripple funds and double the experience. Or if simply saving on the grind itself was the idea here, both would be boosted equally. The grind may be significantly decreased, but what they've done here is a clever way of ultimately making you needing to spend more money to keep up with the upgrade system as you rank up, while banking on the fact that you will fall for the idea of "you're just being given more stuff" for your efforts. Need I remind you that the Mk upgrade update made everything overall significantly more expensive, as they removed the ability to skip upgrades at higher ranks even for kits? Yeah, you're not being given anything here, just the illusion of it.

I've always wanted to make a topic about this but kept forgetting about it. I've read some people complain that the game is imbalanced here and there, and there is plenty room for subjectivity especially when some forms of content just isn't something you like entirely. Some people would really wish Shaft was removed from the game, for instance. But this isn't my point. It isn't even just the fact of them giving upgrade or boost advantage to people who pay for loot boxes and microtransactions, though it is tied to it. No, the real reason there will never really be balance is because imbalance between weapons is going to make money. For an example, Gauss is, as of me writing this, the latest weapon in the game and still to this day it is basically just a superior Striker. If they truly wanted balance, Striker would be somewhere in the same boat as Gauss, but it isn't. Not to mention, the Gauss weapon was explicitly introduced after a big set of sales had ended. They could, and probably do, rinse and repeat this with less popular weapons, hulls and alterations so as to get people spending more on stuff that they don't want to use just to take advantage of the OP equipment at that time. Thought Mammoth OD was overpowered before? Well now it's near worthless compared to many of the ones that other hulls have and Dictator's buffs make that a much more desirable contender over many other overdrives. The more popular something gets, the more nerfs that will get until we have that set on a very basic level, and the reverse on something that has become incredibly unpopular. We're now seeing big Magnum nerfs, given how that has been a desirable weapon for a while now. New accounts are made and many players will probably have only a select few hulls, weapons, and may be an alteration or two, but this creation of meta imbalance is bound to make people want to spend more money on the game. It's methodical and very scummy, but it's what they'll keep doing regardless. Imbalance is inevitable, not because it's hard to achieve, but because it isn't in AG's interest to do so. Shift the meta to unpopularity, but not for the sake of making the gameplay more interesting, but to squeeze out more cash from the few people that are still playing the game

I have noticed that most of the so called "updates" for this game are just changes that rig the game further. Has there really been much new cool content for the game in a while at all? Last thing I remember was Team Juggernaut mode, and that's just a better version of a mode none really wanted to play because solo juggernaut was more oriented towards P2W players. So why continue playing this game? It is evident it's just downhill from here. There is nothing to do here. It's an endless time sink if you continue falling for it, but other than that it's all the old stuff but made worse.

It doesn't matter if it's left up to the mods' interpretation, in fact that that may even be worse depending on the person. The fact that it's a rule to begin with and it isn't made clear of where the line is drawn, only a vague warning. If you choose to play with lower upgraded equipment "just for fun" that defines intention of you using it. Doesn't matter if you didn't want to cause any issue in battle, it's all left to interpretation as the rule is unclear. Even if it was, the very fact that such a thing is part of the rules (last time I read them, the lower upgrade equipment usage part was not in there) is a clear indicator of developers having zero care about balance and more about forcing the player to keep up with their intention for the game rather than trying to integrate it so it becomes second nature to the player. You know, sort of what game design is all about? But of course that doesn't make enough money, does it? The game has to be "balanced" with aggressive microtransactions in mind. By the very nature of the rule as it stands, you yourself will have broken it and admitted to it in this post. I don't expect any repercussions for you, but since there is no clarification, what you did could be interpreted as intentional sabotague to your team regardless. Which is precisely why this rule is incredibly dumb. No need to sugar coat it, it's just a dumb-founded rule. I did, else I wouldn't be writing about it here. If you can only afford to buy the Mk1/Mk2, since now you are forced to buy those upgrades before you can get a higher upgrade, if you can't afford any higher upgrade and just want to try out a weapon, even if it's weak, it could be considered sabotague. And "common sense" is a moot point when it comes to ridiculous crap like this. Nonsensical rules can be made up on the go to meet a certain intention, which could lead to a bunch of unsuspecting players getting banned while having no clue as to why that happened. And by the time they would have realised it, it would have already been too late.