Like in the Flash client, there's an option to enable "dynamic lighting" in HTML5. Unlike Flash, however, there actually isn't any dynamic lighting in HTML5. In fact, all this setting does is add a sort of glow effect around supply boxes. From a distance, it looks somewhat convincing. But it's not an actual light - it's actually a sphere-like mesh with a hazy semi-transparent texture applied on it. You can see this very clearly in the below images, where the mesh passes through the level geometry. When the camera gets close to these meshes, they fade out of view in order to hide the fact that the effect is just an illusion. In addition, there is no light emitted by flags or from shots. It even doesn't make a difference if dynamic shadows are on. Interestingly, the glow effect is present on CP points. I was too lazy to get screenshots from the Flash version, but if you load it up you'll see that there are proper lighting effects and not this glow / haze thing. While the HTML5 effects don't look bad, at least from a distance (they look much worse up close where you can literally see the vertices of the mesh), and are certainly much cheaper to render, they are certainly not dynamic lights. It seems that the HTML5 renderer does not have support for rendering them yet, which is fine, but then why is the setting called "dynamic lighting?" Perhaps it should be renamed? N.B. Other graphical effects that Flash has but HTML5 lacks include fog, shadows on bushes, and soft edges on bushes.

I believe they were removed so people wouldn't simply hide in them instead of taking part in battle. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to add them to matchmaking, but I don't see any reason not to add them to PRO battles.

Ideas and Suggestions

What's "d Oxygen - 18" as shown in the graph?

Graphically, HTML5 looks "off" to me because it lacks the fog that Flash has.

I feel this is a good topic to bring up again now that HTML5 is here. Pre-calculating lighting information would be a great way to improve graphics without sacrificing performance.

I couldn't find that setting anywhere. Where is it?

Shadows are inherently expensive to render; turn them off if they cause a performance hit.

How will removing tankoins change anything? Things that are sold for tankoins will simply be sold for real money.

I suppose I'll put in my two cents about what I don't like about the UI. In the Flash UI, everything is "centralized," so to speak. If you're in your garage, then you can access missions, chat, friends menu, equipment, battle list, etc in just one click, because all those menus are at the top of the screen. But in HTML5, if you go to the garage, you can only change your equipment, and if you want to go to some other menu, you have to back to the home screen and then to that menu. It seems like a minor thing, but it's rather cumbersome once you start hopping between different menus. It's easier to "get lost" in the HTML5 UI. In addition, the loading times across the UI feel longer than in the Flash version, even though I suspect they actually are not. This is because the Flash version displays a concrete progress bar, while HTML5 just has moving lines at the bottom of the screen. It doesn't feel like it's loading, even though it is.

It's not really about a particular combo being OP. The problem is that in the past several years, there has been consistently been some sort of equipment that has been near game-breakingly OP. If you have this equipment, you have an inherent advantage. These combos get nerfed over time, but then another one just as bad or worse takes its place immediately. I know that it's hard to achieve perfect balance, but I can't help but feel that this wasn't as much of a problem before. And I also feel that often adding new content takes priority over ensuring the game is reasonably balanced. A good example of this I would say is the augment system.

In the latest update, among the changes was "optimized PC performance on the Rio map." So how exactly are maps optimized, besides removing extra props? What constitutes an "optimization?"

I agree that immediately shutting down any sort of "non-environmentally-friendly" activity would be harmful and unfeasible, but I don't think most reasonable people are calling for that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps towards a more sustainable way of life, and taking those steps won't cause as much harm as some "pro-economy" people claim they will. Here's an example: in the US, there is a law that taxes car manufacturers (not people) for producing cars with an MPG below a certain threshold. Each year the acceptable MPG increases. I'd argue that this law is beneficial for both the environment and the consumer, because less fuel spent = less money spent. And on top of that, it has encouraged car manufacturers to innovate and produce more efficient drivetrains. A typical compact / midsize sedan nowadays tends to have a fuel economy of around 30 MPG, while ten years ago, the figure was around 20 MPG. When it comes to car manufacturers in general, consider the recent rise of electric vehicles. More and more car manufacturers are starting to seriously focus on developing electric cars. These companies are not going to go out of business anytime soon. They're simply adapting to changes. Shifting to renewable energy and maintaining the health of the economy are not things that mutually exclusive. Germany is a good example of this. Industries adapt to changes. I think that the argument that people will suffer if we pursue renewable energy is a flawed one. Consider another example: in the past 40-50 years, most manufacturing in the US was outsourced to Asia (because labor there is cheaper), and who knows how many people lost their jobs. And yet this change was precipitated solely by businesses looking to maximize profit, without any sort of "nobler" motivations such as improving people's future lives. Many, many industries have died out due to advances in technology, or changing consumer tastes, or simply poor management. If you wanted to preserve every industry, you would never get anywhere. The reality is that the economy changes regardless of what you do. Some industries die out and others flourish. And again, it is not like these changes will cause people "to go into poverty" overnight. Let's not forget that expanding the renewable energy sector creates jobs as well. There are many new economic opportunities that have been untapped because more sustainable energy sources are underdeveloped. Lastly, I think the argument that "funds spent on developing renewable energy programs is better spent on saving lives" is even more flawed, because you can apply this argument to literally anything that requires money. What's stopping me from saying the following: why don't all those coal and oil companies use the money with which they lobby governments to create policies favoring them to help poor people? Why don't all those oil tycoons use their wealth to help poor people? Why don't mining companies use their profits to improve safety conditions and actually pay proper benefits to their workers? It's the same logic. There are so many useless or harmful things that government funds are spent on. I don't think it's too much to ask for them to be spent on something that will improve peoples' lives in the future.

The source the website provides for that claim is from section 7 of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment. I couldn't find any evidence of "nature [putting] 25 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day as all of the world’s industries" on that page. Perhaps I could be missing something. I assume the graph you speak of is this: Ironically, this graph actually fails to show the "big picture" you speak of. Data requires context; the website you linked does not provide any. This post provides some background on the graph. Here is a summary: The graph only includes data up to 1854, leaving out the temperature spike of the past 150 years. The graph is based on data collected on the summit of an ice sheet in Greenland; it's still a question whether this data can be used to approximate global temperature changes. If the graph was updated with more recent data, it would look like this:

It won't take an apocalypse to make Earth a worse place to live on.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I think that the model Alternativa uses is actually rather advantageous. One of the nice things about the current setup is that the client is very light to download. A new player can download the client and start playing very quickly. It also suits Alternativa's frequent update schedule. I'm not sure that less frequent updates are the way to go. And while loading times may be a bit long after you've just installed the game, once more resources are downloaded they stop being an issue. I feel that for more graphically complex games, like WoT as you mentioned, downloading all of the relevant resources is done out of necessity, because of how much more space they take up. Consider how large, file-size-wise, the assets in modern games are. Streaming these assets when they're necessary would result in unacceptably long loading times. But Tanki's assets are much smaller by comparison.

How do you know we aren't already living in the matrix?

Kirchoff's loop rule tells us that the voltage drops through the battery and the capacitor / resistor must be equal. That is, Vbattery = IRCR + Vc where Vbattery is the terminal voltage of the battery (assumed to be constant), IRC is the current that goes through the RC segment of the circuit, R is the resistance of the resistor, and Vc is the voltage drop through the capacitor. As the capacitor charges, Vc increases. Therefore, in order for the above equation to hold, IRC must decrease. Accordingly, the current through the lightbulb must increase, causing it to become brighter. Once the capacitor is fully charged, IRC is zero and all of the current goes through the lightbulb, which achieves maximum brightness. Note that the lightbulb starts out dim, but not completely dimmed.

When you try to write a program in the fewest lines possible

As a very rough workaround you could open your garage and change your paint. Then your tank will self-destruct.

The issue is that even if you are a responsible driver, there are many other irresponsible drivers on the road. You may do nothing wrong and still get into an accident because someone else was breaking the law. Like you implied, it's really about whether people will come to trust technology.

The current pandemic has actually made me pro-automation. There are a lot of people who have to put themselves at risk because they have jobs that keep the world and economy going. If those jobs were automated, future crises like the current one would have a lesser impact on the economy and make complete lockdowns more feasible.

Which lighting effects in particular? Tanki Online already has fully dynamic shadows, and the engine that the Flash version runs on (Alternativa3D) has had support for various light types for years. In fact the game already has dynamic lighting from shot effects, flags, CP points, the rugby ball, supply crates, etc.

I'm not entirely sure which lighting settings you mean, but in the future I plan to add more advanced lighting options - such as time of day and sun angle.

no