I don't understand all the complaints about discount cards (mostly in comment section of V-log). Double crystal card has been around for years and no one cares.

True. However, before I could play battles on maps I liked despite the grind. The idea now is to get players to play on less popular maps, but why? I tried XP/BP some time ago and even though I liked it, I couldn't stand my K/D inevitable going down (being the stat-padder I was). Now that I approach the game from a perspective where I'm trying to enjoy the game rather than have good stats or be better than someone else I find XP/BP much more fun. An added bonus of having a PRO pass is the ability to play in "Moon mode," which is probably the best update of 2017 yet.

I agree. At first I thought "A few extra low rankers in battle won't hurt - I face Generalissimos fairly often anyway." But as I started playing, it became really problematic. 99% of the battles I can play all have rank higher than mine, never lower, which means I usually face all M3s, maybe a couple M2s. It doesn't help that I'm at the rank where I couldn't get M3s even if I wanted to, save through micro-upgrades. I'm stuck in the transitional stage between the mid-game and the end-game, where buyers really manifest themselves. And this is not an issue exclusive to my rank - on a lower account (First Sergeant) I am getting into battles against Warrant Officer 5s! It doesn't help that there are few non-PRO battles. Maybe it would be good if I bought a PRO pass and could play any battle I wanted to, and create my own? I did and I was disappointed. Unfortunately, most of the PRO battles are either drug-fests (SCD off) or parkour battles. Players are using PRO pass for the same reasons they were using them before battle creation was removed: XP/BP, parkour, or drug wars. For a "casual" player like me who just wants to play a normal battle on his favorite map it's a lose-lose. If they add a matchmaker it will really be the nail in the coffin for battle selection.

In my opinion Rico doesn't need a buff - the projectile speed and reload was nerfed some time ago, and I think that's enough to balance it. Striker originally had a short lock-on grace period, and it was a pain to play with. Any little bump, a teammate driving in front of you, or a thin tree would knock off your aim. As long as you're in cover for a couple seconds you should be fine. The Firebird alteration is alright considering that the stock Firebird was buffed to pre-October re-balance levels. In some ways the stock Firebird is better. Magnum is fine how it is, in fact it wouldn't hurt to increase its damage. Most of the time the shell doesn't score a direct hit and rarely does full damage. Even when hitting a target point-blank there's a good bit of random chance involved. Couple that with the low rate of fire and poor visibility - Magnum is more of a nuisance than a potent threat. I would agree with Shaft though, because the gun handling is bad while the damage is considerable - neither fun for the Shaft user nor for the opponent.

Why? It's not like Semyon was responsible for the changes, only for communicating player feedback. And from what I have seen Cedric interacts with players a lot more than Semyon did (don't quote me on this).

Interesting. Now M4s will be less OP. I'd say this is a good update.

I wish I could paste what you wrote here to everyone who complains about lags in Tanki and blames the developers for it.

Like others have said, TX is less P2W than TO. No one is saying it's impossible to win in TO without paying. Your main flaw in logic is thinking that buying your way through the mastery system gives you an advantage over other players. It doesn't, because you are put in battles with players who have the same or similar mastery levels. So playing with a combo with 0 upgrades is more or less the same balance-wise as playing in a combo with 100 upgrades. Suppose M1s could only play against M1s, M2s only against M2s, etc. That's the state of TX right now. Paying for upgrades increases the level of your tank and how fun the game is, but doesn't actually give you an advantage. In TX, there are a lot of payment options for cool things that don't impact game play much. Skins, containers, shells, etc. Thus TX gives you more opportunities to buy rewarding items (I will admit the skins look very cool) but less opportunities to buy things that will impact your game. In TO, buying gives you access to domination. In TX it gives you access to cool stuff.

Developers don't work for free. Bills don't pay themselves. $360,000 . . . isn't enough.

On the subject of clans, Hazel said that the price will be decreased (maybe to $5-10) but the number of slots in a clan will decrease too. You will be able to increase the size of your clan by paying more. Those who payed the full price of $36 will get the maximum number of slots and other perks. Clans system is by no means finished. Regarding Tanki's incompetence, I strongly suggest you watch at least part of the stream that took place instead of the V-log last Friday. Link: It's very informative and provides an answer to a lot of your complaints. Also you can read Mafioso's excellent summary of the Russian stream here: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=351399 Firebird is intended to be the most powerful short range turret in the game. You can't compare it to Isida. You can't even compare it to Freeze. It's the go-to turret for offense and dealing lots of damage fast. The damage is not OP. It's actually quite balanced, and when I do play with Hammer I actually wish it was more. Things only get interesting with supplies - in which case you are complaining about supplies and not the turret, which is a different story. The shorter shot reload is actually misleading. I checked the stats recently and was surprised, because it was reduced by a few hundredths of a second for each modification on average. I tried it out and it feels almost exactly the same. Complaining about Shaft is ridiculous. Have you tried playing with Shaft now? It's horrible, absolutely horrible. Your gun elevation/depression is tiny, the time it takes for your shot to charge up is very long, feels longer than the reload, and your turret traverse is even slower than it was before! Just because you got one-shotted several times in a medium doesn't make Shaft automatically OP. Think of the player who plays with Shaft, and not the tanker who got one-shotted. The damage was increased, sure, but the turret is now frustrating and boring to play with. My attitude towards the new Shaft is more or less the same as your attitude towards the new Isida, a nerf disguised as a buff. Twins? More powerful? What? On paper, it looks like splash damage gives it more power. It doesn't. Before, you could just ram tanks and hammer away at their HP while knocking their aim off. Now, you can't. It forces you to keep your distance rather than put a brick on the keyboard and drive into a CP point wrecking havoc. Furthermore, it decreases mults to who "troll" their teammates with Twins, because they self-destruct. Remember that splash damage means self-damage. Smoky was OP. Nerf is deserved. End of story. I smell bias because you've used Smoky for 200+ hours. ;) Oh look, more complaints about supplies. What to say? I'd tell you to buy a pro pass but I think it would be more appropriate to say "deal with it." I had to smile at the last one. Nevertheless I think it makes little sense to spend money on this game when there a lot of much better games out there . . . just sayin'.

I personally don't like this idea. Besides Tanki being an arcade game, nice and simply without a story, I think this post and others are following a trend of trying to achieve game balance by limiting the power of a powerful player and increasing the power of a weaker player. By powerful and weaker player I don't mean more or less skill, I mean performance in battle, supplies or no supplies, skill or no skill. I don't like this trend. I see topics that suggest nerfing supplies, introducing complex ratings systems to determine how good a player is, and other ideas to mathematically "balance" the game, to remove what is perceived as unfairness. Apparently EXP and crystals are to be gained this way, and not the current way, players should only be able to use this many supplies in a certain amount of time, etc. Remember that "fairness" is subjective, and so is skill. Tanki's economy is objective: every player earns what he earns, the method itself does not matter. This does not need to change. But I can understand where these suggestions are coming from. Of course it is frustrating to earn a measly amount of crystals even though you did great in a battle, but your team lost. Of course it is frustrating to get destroyed by higher-ranking druggers you can't retaliate against. Instead of introducing limits, however, I think the difference between loser and winner should decrease. For example, as another player has suggested, crystals in team battles could be earned at a flat rate, with the winning team having a multiplier or bonus. Thus the losing team would actually earn a decent amount of crystals, though not as much as the winning team. Right now the difference between crystals earned by the winning and losing team is too big. Another idea comes from WoT: if your team lost, but you did exceptionally well (say you were first and earned 1000 EXP while the player who was second earned 500), you would get a bonus to compensate for how well you played. Like Hazel-Rah said, buffs are better than nerfs, so I suggest a buff to increase losing team earnings rather than nerf winning team earnings. What LittleWillie wrote is far too complex, we should keep it simple. EXP dictates crystals earned, and nothing else.

A funny thing - the October re-balance brought a shorter clip reload but a longer shot reload to Hammer. Now the opposite has happened. I imagine Hammer is more like the old Hammer.

We're talking about the Isida in the past several months, right? Just wanted to get that out of the way. The longer energy pool allowed you to heal AND attack, but you did both rather poorly. Now you have to choose between healing and attacking, but you do both better, just not at the same time. Your playstyle is probably different. I like excelling in both but only being able to do one at a time. In my opinion this is a good thing, because being a support tank you should not be attacking while your allies are around, and if you are alone, you should obviously be attacking instead of healing. Damage done in 5 seconds with current Isida: 5 x 700 = 3500 HP. Time taken to do 3500 HP with old Isida: 3500 / 500 = 7 seconds. That's 2 seconds or 40% longer. Time taken for Freeze to do 3500 HP: 3500 / 640 = 5.46 seconds. Time taken for Twins to do 3500 HP: 3500 / 645 = 5.43 seconds. If you include the splash damage it would take old Isida 5.97 seconds to destroy the Twins. 5.43 is less than 5.46 which is less than 7. Yeah, I think your Isida would be dead, provided you are using the same hull, assuming your opponents are stupid.

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=315867&page=120&do=findComment&comment=6026766 There is a difference between constructive criticism and useless complaining.

Except that your Isida will be dead before those 9 seconds are up, unless your enemy is AFK. Again, more charge doesn't help you if you're dead . . . With the new Isida, you would survive with way more than a sliver of health left, because you'd destroy your enemy faster and receive less damage to begin with. You could only do that before October 2016. I don't know what your definition of "grabbing health" is with Oct 2016 - Feb 2017 Isida, since you had to focus on an enemy for some time before you would even notice your health bar increase by a pixel. Regarding selling weapons, I agree, but this doesn't apply very much in this case as Isida was already one of the cheapest turrets at a "substantial level" (I mean M2 and M3).

We already have a system for that, if you haven't noticed. It doesn't really decrease saboteurs.

If you ran into an enemy with protection with old Isida, you would still die no matter how long your charge was, because the DPS was so low. Tanks are destroyed in seconds in this game. With the new Isida, you have shorter charge, but you would get in a lot more damage before you died because you deal damage faster. That is my whole point. I disagree with a lot of this. "Roles" are not nonsense. As you said earlier yourself, you cannot heal and attack at the same time because of the varying energy consumption. As an Isida user, you are forced to choose between attacking or healing. What the patch notes say are completely true. I'm not even going to say anything about the damage because we've had quite the argument about it earlier and even when the "math" was laid out you ignore it. The narrower cone makes hitting an enemy harder, but gives you more precision. Here you're right, patch notes are poorly written. More precise aiming makes it easier to choose between allies to heal, but harder to lock on to enemies.

I've noticed that the smaller cone angle helps you select between allies to heal better. An annoying trait of the old Isida is that it would lock onto allies with full health if, for example, two tanks were next to each other. Smaller cone angle decreases the chances of this happening. I agree that the vertical cone needs to be fixed though.

Alright. In this case I go with my second assumption that you are being intentionally obtuse. Somehow to you a 10% self-heal is a help, in which case I can't really argue anything because of how twisted that belief is. Also, my "fallacy" would be closer to "Appeal to Majority" than to "Appeal to Authority." I'd like to find a player besides you who thinks that 10% self-heal is significant. But let me not use such an argument. Let's assume that 10% self-heal is significant, and really boosts your chances of survival. Say an M3 Isida (pre-update) is fighting an M3 Freeze on the same hull, Viking. Freeze is not circling Isida, for sake of simplicity. It takes Freeze 2529 / 640 = 3.95 seconds to destroy Isida if the Isida is not firing, and 2529 / 590 = 4.29 seconds if the Isida is firing. 4.29 - 3.95 = 0.34 seconds. This is nothing. You will survive for an extra third of a second with self-heal, a unit of time so short you physically wouldn't notice. It probably took you longer to read the number "0.34." Obviously, your tank would get destroyed way before the enemy because your DPS is low. More charge doesn't matter if you're dead. Now let's look at the same scenario, except with the new Isida. It would take Freeze 3.95 seconds to destroy if you weren't firing, but if you were, the Freeze wouldn't be able to destroy you at all because your DPS of 708 is higher than Freeze's DPS of 640! Higher damage increases your survival because you will destroy your enemies before they can destroy you. Self-heal increases your survival by increasing the time it takes for others to destroy you by a fraction of a second. How can you argue that lower damage with self-heal is better? I can't understand.

Fine. So I am just some average player, why should you (who has 8 hours on Isida M0) listen to me (with 47 hours on Isida M2). Don't take my word for it. Let's ask the devs, who created this game and introduced this change about self healing: Anyone who claims the 10% self heal has some kind of impact on Isida's survival has either never played with Isida or is being intentionally obtuse. In your case I think it is both. About the comment in pink: First of all, that is an extreme example, which has no place here. I could say the same: "By your logic it would be better to have a 100 second charge but only do 100 HP per second." Secondly, I stand by my point that faster damage is better because of how fast-paced this game is. Tanks are destroyed in seconds, not minutes. A longer firing time doesn't matter because at that point you or your enemy will be destroyed. In order to completely use your 9 second charge as a pre-update Isida, the enemy would have to be concentrating on someone else. Let's look at the current Firebird as an example. In the stock Firebird, you have a longer charge that deals less DPS, while in the Firebird with alteration, you have a shorter charge that deals a lot more DPS. I think it is common knowledge that alteration Firebird is better than stock Firebird. Same thing with the current Isida and pre-update Isida.

Sabotage has nothing to do with Flash. Flash has to do with game crashes. But whatever, that wasn't the main topic of the post. Friends: A system that makes little sense. The obvious drawback is battles being blacklisted for players who aren't mults, and this is much worse for players who accept pretty much everyone into their friends list. Also, what exactly does preventing friends (a trivial label to begin with) from playing against each other accomplish? Problem is not with punishments. Problem is with reports in the first place. To report a saboteur you either need video evidence or a moderator to come observe the battle. Few players have screen recorders, and we all know what a joke the current kick system is. Thus few saboteurs get reported. Fines fall in the same category as punishments. But what is the point of me posting all of this? Obviously players will come up with solutions (Kick2 is very interesting, by the way) once others have been dismissed. The point of the original post was that it's very easy for players like Golfinray to mindlessly complain, about drugs, about lags, about everything and blame it on the devs. Such comments are nonconstructive, useless, and really annoying. "How about you come up with a solution" was a rhetorical statement.

The point still stands. You do damage faster. Doing less damage at a faster rate is better than doing more damage at a slower rate, especially since the hull with the highest HP in the game at M3 has slightly less than 3500 HP.

Ignorance is astounding. Experiment is done to monitor certain groups of players that can't be monitored on test server - these are Hazel's own words. Lag is caused by Flash player. Devs don't have much power here, except to move the game to another platform. Complaining is easy. How about using your head? How are the devs supposed to fix mults? You propose a solution, if you think it is that simple.

Hazel-Rah said players online never exceeded 250,000. Where are you getting your numbers from?

A rather annoying post. Let's look at the stats, in the game, right now. M3 Isida does 700 DPS, 5 second charge. Pre-update it did 500 DPS, 7 second charge, not a 10 second charge. You can now do 3500 dmg in 5 seconds, before you could do 3500 dmg in 7 seconds. This is an improvement. Yes, shorter charge means less time to heal allies, but only if you attack as well. As the patch notes say, this was intended to emphasize Isida's role as a healer - you can't attack and heal at the same time. If you have allies around, you shouldn't be attacking the enemy. You should be healing your allies. The increase in damage was given for players not to be completely helpless on their own, which is why other players and I like it so much. Previous Isida was extremely easy prey. When I say 10% is literally nothing, I mean it. Let's use your example. If you somehow manage to destroy M4 Titan with M3 Isida without taking any damage, you will get 400 HP back. This is nothing. If you're a Viking, this is 16% of your HP. You deal enough damage to destroy a tank with the highest HP in the game, but you receive a little bit of health that is immediately negated by one Smoky shot. And this is only a theoretical, best case scenario. In practice, you might be able to get at most 250 HP back before your charge runs out, your aim gets knocked off, or you get destroyed. 250 HP is negated by two Twins shots, and is one tenth of Viking's HP. For M2, M1, and M0, the health you get back is even less and is non-existent. This kind of post claiming the vampirism helps you makes me think you've never played the Isida we had in the past couple months. It was horrible. You are arguing theoretically, where numbers look like they mean something. Numbers often look good out of context, where 400 HP sounds like a lot until you realize Firebird does 700 HP per second not including the afterburn. You destroying a Titan M4 (which takes you 7 seconds to begin with) buys yourself half a second of survival. Nothing, even in a best case scenario. I am arguing practically, and I can tell you that vampirism did not affect Isida's chances of surviving an encounter at all. Your numbers are Potemkin numbers. Regarding Twins: All I can say is "facepalm." When the old Firebird, which had crazy afterburn, was nerfed, the alteration was brought in that increased afterburn. Same reasoning. Are there Firebirds with a lot of afterburn now? Yes. Are they as plentiful as they were before? No, not even close.