Because this is supposed to be a tank game, and hovering is not how tanks supposed to work regardless how hard people trying to slap the "tank label" to those hulls?

Just having a glance of this forum and noticed we got this topic here. I can't stop myself from dropping a comment. I still remember when I said this "event" is not gonna work as intended, I get called as amateur by Opex himself. And he insisted this was a success merely a few days this invite a friend thing gone live for the first time and he claimed that they have already decided to make it a regular event at that time. Well... The latter happend obviously and it seems that this so call event is DEFINITELY working as intended... Like people are definitely inviting actual living new/returning players (in which some hopefully can be converted as paying customers), instead of creating yet another 7 random throw away accounts for the sake of the rewards. Everything is working as intended. #Opex'sVision

Yeah... that indeed will take a lot of time in your case ?. But hey, you got a few loot boxes and rubies. The irony is that, he wasn't. You could see he was in a serious accusation tone in that particular reply throughout. In fact, I think that accusation was initially pretty well executed I would say. He has the high ground of being the employee and is supposed to have access to more info than outsiders like me. And he used this advantage well. Until he made that statement, and all of a sudden everything he said about "I know more than you do you amateur." became a really bad joke.

You guys made this conclusion within 24 hrs the campaign launched? Seriously? Is it just you trying to win an argument online, or that's the consensus among the team for real? You didn't even have the chance to monitor how many of those new registrations will remain active for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, etc., and are recurring (paying) customers. Especially knowing that a certain number of existing players will just create new dummy accounts for the sake of the rewards, as you have mentioned in a separate comment. And you decided to declare it was a success right now? And yet, you called me an armature ?. I thought I was armature enough. TBH, I find it hard to believe that there was indeed a conclusion being made right at this stage. I guess there are reasons why Tanki is STILL the only project being active in Alternativa after the company has been established for over a decade after all. And regarding your "armature analysis", I wasn't aware you were expecting numbers and calculations. But even knowing that in advance, I'm not gonna give out any concrete calculations or final numbers. For one, it is your team's job, not mine. For two, you have the benefit of the doubt. You could call the entire calculation BS regardless of whether that is wrong or not (in terms of numbers, or the logic, it doesn't matter). And in the event that happens, which you just make it happen in a similar fashion, since there is no way I could (supposed to) know the actual numbers, with they being considered classified, there are only so many ways I can prove it otherwise. So, we are done here. If you sincerely believe this event is a massive success right at this stage, well, good for you I guess.

100% agree. To me, there is no way to "balance" this properly. Strafing alone is a big enough advantage for obvious reasons. And the fact that the hulls are leaner in the front and back instead of the other way around (although that will look ugly AF) makes their hitboxes practically 1 weight class smaller when fighting face to face. And hell, they are hard to hit. Though I disagree Crusader alone is the issue. In fact, I think its OD is trash, even with the recent "buff". It looks smaller because most of the time we are fighting hovering hulls face to face, instead of sideways, and that smaller hitbox isn't unique to Crusaders but hovering hulls in general. What do you mean by "hull position" and "camera position"? I can't see any differences when controlling all the mentioned hulls

From a player's perspective, no I don't. Like you said, we lose nothing. Just that, I doubt this event will reach the expectations. Let's be honest, will you invite anyone you know to join this game right now, given the current state of Tanki? And even more, persuade them to stay, or even start paying? I'm pretty sure my answer to both questions will be no. Now the thing is, how many would say "yes"?

Some examples. Capex Man-hours used for this feature. e.g. design, development, testing, planning, etc. Opex Expect of increase in service loading (at least for the duration of the event), do you need to scale up/horizontally? If yes, what's the extra cost for the infra? If not, is it possible that the higher service loading causes any service interruption? And what's the expected cost/loss of income if that happens? Cost of the reward itself. How much do those loot boxes and rubies cost in real money? (what happens if some guys get what they want and decide they don't need to spend any more? And how likely that may happen?) On-going software maintenance and support. Again, man-hours for bug fixing (in fact, there is already one since the last update), customer support, etc. I sure hope your business colleagues and PM have calculated all these before proceeding with this project. Though I would imagine you know a thing or two of these and are just playing dumb, but anyway...

Except you are not working for a multibillion-dollar company, not even close. And don't forget to share some numbers on how "effective" this "invite a friend" thing is next month. Can't wait to see how much you guys make from this scheme compared to the expenses. Let's be real, there will be many "new" account registrations of course. But how many of them will remain active after a month and how many of them are actually paying customers? That's the question.

I mean, that guy was trying to suggest blaster is the only counter to lifeguard after all. TBH, I would rather deal with lifeguards, knowing the worst that can happen is the user running away with their tail between their legs. Unlike blaster, which rewards the user with a free kill for reckless actions and suicidal behaviors. But of course, those two augments are clearly designed to be the meta and I doubt we will be seeing any more nerfs to these two any time soon.

If you can't deal with lifeguard at all without using blaster, then that's a skill issue. I won't even try to justify how OP blaster was since you clearly won't listen. This company is known for releasing something OPAF, fooling people to buy it (or maybe you just get one out of pure luck, whatever), then nerf it for "balancing", and then repeating the cycle. Either deal with it or move on. BTW, next time, think and read what you typed before hitting the "Submit Reply" button, I can barely understand what you are ranting about.

Also, I'm not sure which mod(s) does that. But apparently, multiple comments made before mine are getting removed for whatever ridiculous reason(s) they can come up with.

First of all, I don't know how you come up with 10% but that's not how math works. Secondly, it means those "new players" won't pay for the game, since they are fake. All they do is add extra entries into the DB. So if that happens, it is just a waste of time and cost for nothing from the company's perspective.

I don't know who this project's product owner/manager is, but seriously? This is all you can come up with when you are wondering how to capture new customers? And you sincerely think this will actually work? I can't wait to see how effective it will be ?.

Why the heck is Striker Vacuum still not getting nerfed...

Top 4 players in a CTF game are 3 Magnums and 1 Gauss who didn't even leave spawn once when the rest of their teammates capped 5 flags What could possibly go wrong???

Played around with Crusader a few rounds... Yeah it still sucks

I would rather have it to be a laser beam that deals continuous damage for a certain duration without applying any debuffs or AOE. You know, the Kamehameha style. I don't want to waste my ult because of things that out of my control. Bad pings (dude.. the server sucks, why even make it even more obvious), some guys bump you, some guys blocked you, etc.

In theory, Crusader's ult is meant to be a single target one-hit kill in long range, with a faster cooldown. Practically, with all factors combined, the chance of it hitting exactly where you hoped to be was rare. While the ult of Paladin simply "just work". It's a self-heal with immunity to multiple debuffs (with an AOE that is barely noticeable in the current version so let's forget about the so-called teamwork part). There is literally no chance to mess that up. Also, don't even mention blaster. That thing is clearly busted, intentionally. Every balancing discussion is immediately worthless once OP stuff like this comes into play.

The Crusader changes should have been done years ago... Like Crusader is literally being called "same as Paladin but worse" since day one Paladin is released.

Dude... you really need to see beyond "Tanki Online"... and their official information. I know you guys have gotten used to this pattern, but come on... You are a grown man with independent thinking. About HTML5, like I said, that's a reverse causation. Have you ever considered the options available to them in a "hypothetical scenario" where browser support is not relevant? Switch to a "proper" game development framework like Unity or Unreal? That's almost equivalent to making a new game from scratch. The team skill set, on the other hand, is also another concern. The expected effort and risk simply outweigh the potential return. Or maybe they could revive Tanki X, and make changes accordingly. Oops... that name is taken. That's sucks, right? We can't call just it Revive Revive Tanki X or something like that. That would be really lame. So today, whether the team wants to support browsers or not, keeping the current HTML5 stack is the only viable option for them. And that's not a good thing really. They have already lost the golden opportunity to do so in 2017. At this stage, there is barely any room to recover in this department. About Tanki Classic, first of all, that statement of yours is completely irrelevant to what you quoted me at all. Secondly, Tanki Classic is exactly about capturing new audiences, aka people who played TO a long time ago, but eventually stopped. I mean come on... why would a project team want to focus on existing audiences in this situation? Drawing people away from their main project to a side project that is known to be less monetizable, and expected to have less feature update? This absolutely makes no sense. The question is, whether it will work as they have planned, where there will be enough people decided to jump back into the game. Or like I said, a decent number of existing players get drawn to Classic, leaving even fewer people in the original game? What you have posted previously summarizing the "official information" has some hints of the answer to these questions BTW. Go take a look.

Like I said previously, never fully trust what is being announced from a company. The entire point of public affair is let the public know/believe what the company want them to know/believe. And that's not necessary cover the full picture, nor 100% facts. That's PA 101. If you haven't noticed yet, every statement coming from you on this topic is basically rephrase of what Alternativa has announced. Opex said, Opex said, Opex said... There is no thinking, reaching, and analysis involved at all. Have you taken a look what's the market share browser game is among other sectors like PC games, mobile games, and console games, etc.? Have you made any calculations, with an optimistic assumption that, let's say, 70% of the current players are playing via browsers, how many players are there really? And compared to the uncaptured market, what's the actual percentage it is in fact contributing to? Have you taken a look what HTML5 (that's actually a very generic term) actually is about? And how the industry commonly used it for? And for games specifically, what kind of games are developed in HTML5? That's a reverse causation. They choose HTML5 mainly because they want to support browser env, not the other way around. They did so because they misjudged the market trend, especially on 2017 where Flash is announced to be EOL. And naturally, there will be people prefer not to download anything if given as an option. I have no doubt that there is a considerable percentage of players is playing this game via browsers. But this is a different concepts than "there are still considerable amount of people playing browser games". If your believe is to be believed, then we won't be seeing a sustain drop of players through out the years. And there won't be so many failed side projects. The fact states itself, they misjudged, multiple times throughout the history. Now for Tanki Classic, it is going to a very similar path to those failed projects. And based on the announced info so far, I can see more potential risks than benefits involving this project.

First of all, never trust the entirety of what is officially announced by a corporation/company. A lot of the time, that's not the full picture nor 100% facts. Tanki works back in the late 2000s. At that time, they are able to capture the middle ground between dedicated gamers with their decked-out rig and 3A games, and casual folks who play browser games from time to time, more leaning towards the casual side. An unmet customer need. While today, the previous unmet customer need is no longer unmet. Like I said previously, who TF play browser games since like half a decade ago? Casually players have gotten used to using a "proper" channel like downloading a game client via Steam, with some moving to consoles and mobile. Yet, the team insisted on supporting browsers, which in return severely restricted their technical options and what they could do from it. For example, the graphics, which also affect their ability to capture new customers. This, IMO, is the biggest mistake they have made. One thing I would like to point out is that Alternativa seems to be very hype-driven. There doesn't seem to be a clear long-term plan of how their flagship project should proceed in the next 5, 10, 15 years. The current main monetization method is implemented in a way that is repetitive and will yield quick ROI, but could be potentially harmful in the long run. Basic infra to support this project is barely maintained. They occasionally just randomly throw out ideas similar because "oh it seems to be working in someone else's project" out of nowhere. And the list goes on. This is further illustrated by they "request everyone to share which specific features (old or current) you like in Tanki Online and would like to see added to Tanki Classic". While this seems to be a simple RFC, the fact that such a question is being raised publicly suggests that they don't really have a concrete plan on how this project should proceed, nor really sure what the customers want. This shouldn't be the type of question raised in such a context.

Exactly, and now they even struggle to maintain this legacy. I even doubt whether they understand the customer and the market. Like do they even understand why Tanki was a successful project back in the day, and why a similar formula doesn't work today? Not to mention answering questions like "whether a feature that makes a particular game successful will yield the same success if placed in their own game". All that is saving them from going bankrupt is that there is indeed a group of people who are willing to pour thousands of dollars into this game. I pity their wealth management decisions (or perhaps that's not even their own money for some of them), but, hey, that's not my money.

Well, it depends how you approach that. But that tells me a lot that these groups of devs/product owners are not innovative enough to make their own ideas to keep their market share or keep up with the market. Instead, they blame the environment for causing the business to gradually go downhill. Now, in addition to their "aggressive" earning model, they decided to copy others' ideas, because that causes way less work of course, but the question is, how many times did they go for a similar approach without proper thinking and that didn't end well? Some examples from the past: When mobile games get popular, they try to make one with a new IP, and well, it dies pretty quickly When they saw the success of Overwatch 1, they tried to copy its idea and make Tanki X super competitive. Well, guess what? It drives the players away from an already small enough player base I never claimed the 1st part of the statement, although I do believe that if they are not gonna change their current direction. In fact, the idea of insisting on keeping this game a browser game feels stupid enough to me. Who TF play browser games, since like half a decade ago... And this alone impacts many other factors and decision-making, e.g. the visuals of this game (it is utterly bad by today's standard) That's just one of many questionable decisions made by these folks.

How many times for this topic to be put on the table and then get ignored afterward? I can't even count. It is such an obvious design flaw that no one bothers to fix it. To me, that's just a glorified way to say we don't care nor gonna fix that.