How much thought did you put into accepting this idea? The game is already way way too busy as it is, do you really think we need yet another complication in the game?

oh god no.... not more turrets .... how many turrets do you think the game really needs??

Hey! I did (as you've probably seen) get a few answers above, but ideally I'd like an answer from the Dev team, just to be sure the answer is correct. ?

Years ago in tanki, if two tanks were next to each other, you could use this to your advantage (especially with Wasp), to go round enemies and hit them while their turret is still turning. For example, you could push them against a wall and their turret turns too slowly for them to attack you before they can aim at you. Similar if you drive up to the side of their hull. But now, when you drive into another tank, you just get pushed on top. Why? Is this intentional, or a bug?

To any admins/devs here, I would be willing to spend real money to get this option in the game via an augment or whatever.. I just want the damn hitbox outline GONE............. edit: to be clear, I DONT want a hitbox to appear on an enemy tank when I am aiming at an enemy. It ruins almost all the fun of my setup (wasp/rail), Ideally I also would not like any enemies to see my outline, as the entire purpose of choosing a paint is for stealth. But I'd be happy with just not seeing an enemy's red outline when I am aiming.

This has been put as merge, but when will this be implemented? It's taken over a year and still nobody has given players the option to turn it off.

First, referring to this thread: However, it does not reference a specific gamemode/server where this should be switched off. Personally, I hate the idea. As someone who uses a different paint depending on the map (for stealth), I don't see the point of having my stealth ruined by someone getting my tank in a hotbox, even when they didn't see me. Especially at legend rank. If people want this option in match making battles then fine, but why is this also part of the "classic" gamemode, the .. *tries not to laugh*.."railgun master" gamemode? Railgun users don't want a hit box at all, but there is not even an option to turn it off in this gamemode. My idea however, is to remove it completely (ie, not even have the option to enable/disable it) in the railgun master and classic gamemodes.

Hi, is this being worked on? It's been over a year and still no option to just turn off a red outline..

the PC version

I only play rail :/

An additional challenge? At legend rank, just as before they added it, this shouldn't even be close to being a "challenge". I am not critisizing you, but rather pointing out the type of game the developers have created, where not being told whether your shot is on target is considered an added challenge. People who joined before they added the red outline, ironically never needed it.

Hello, when will this finally be implemented? As I said already, it is causing my aim to become worse. I don't see any reason why this would take so long to implement, it was never in tanki before. Can someone please take 2 hours to add a button that changes a variable from 0 to 1, so that the if statement that currently checks if you are aiming at an enemy only gives the outline if the variable is equal to 1? How damn hard is it?..

I hope this is implemented properly when it is, because it has the potential to be completely ridiculous, especially when there are many many things that need to change before thinking of ideas like this. Many people are not happy with the game as it is. Although this isn't your fault. I, and the rest of Tanki, do not want a bunch of Juggs roaming the map, nor do we want a bunch of players half the size of wasp either. We want the option to have the red outline removed, better matchmaking etc.

My bad, fix coming shortly.

Striker has a HP per shot of 880 per missile, and railgun has HP per shot of 900 at MK7+. Striker also has splash damage, which is 90% on average of the damage of a direct hit. Ie, it has splash damage of 465 HP. Then, the shots also autoaim, so you have to be lucky to escape them. At max level, incorporating the increasing chance of a critical for striker, it deals HP between 880 and 959 (= normal damage*0.9 + critical dmg*0.1) on average. This is for a single rocket. The reload speed for a single rocket for striker is 1.7s. Thus, it deals between 880/1.7 = 517.64 and 959/1.7 = 564.11 HP/second, including reload time. This doesnt even include the splash damage. For railgun, you have either a 10% chance of a critical on first shot, or 50% chance thereafter. This gives damage per shot of 970 to 1250 (1250 = normal damage*0.5 + critical damage*0.5) on average if you include the chance of a critical shot (see formula). The reload time for MK7+ rail is 3.7s, and the shot warmup time is 1.1s. Therefore, the absolute minimum time between shots is 1.1 + 3.7 = 4.8s. Then, to get the average HP per second, we have 970/4.8 = 202.08 and 1250/4.8 = 260.42 HP/second. When you consider that rail has no splash damage (okay it can shoot through tanks but this is not the same), and has no auto aiming, and it also does not have the ability to shoot 4 missiles at once which also deal splash damage, how on earth is this balanced? Rail should have one of most damaging shots, yet it struggles to deal even half the total damage per second. If you are in a battle with rail vs striker, on average they will have dealt twice the damage you will have dealt to them for every second that goes by. Or to put this in other terms, imagine that you were 1v1 with a striker for 4.8 seconds. You would expect to have dealt an absolute max of 1600 HP (the critical shot dmg for rail at MK7+). The striker however can shoot once every 1.7 seconds, which gives 2 shots during that same time, so assuming they are normal, non critical shots, that would already give you two shots at 880HP each = 1760HP. That's 160HP more at a minimum than rail in the space of only 4.8 seconds.

Hi, I heard I geta free rename because of my r_? Is this true?

You disagree with something that will be effective?

Short and sweet: Tired of having flag as wasp and everyone randomly decided to recover and nobody takes time to think I need to be defended as well. Solution: display a message to the team when your flag carrier is on low health (at 20% HP). Do this also for the Juggernaut, and the ball carrier. This message should stay on the screen until the flag carrier caps or they get their health above 20%.

Is this being worked on?

PLEASE make this a priorty. My aim is suffering more and more and I am coming to the conclusion that the months I spent getting to where I am is being wasted because my aim is relying more and more on the red box. PLEASE remove it, honestly this needs to be a priority for older players, people are losing their playing styles. Edit 1 And it makes the game less interesting. I do not want the red box. I want the games back where I could come from behind a barrier with my aim already set up in my head. Now, I no longer do this because my brain wants the red box, nobody who thought about adding this idea played rail, that is 100% a FACT. Nobody needs it, I used to come out and aim even before I was visible to other players.. The red box would not have even appeared before I shot, I was probably out from the barrier for like a 1-1.5 seconds. Now, it's more like 2-2.5. The red box is ruining my playing style, and the playing style of the people you should have asked before adding this into the game! I really try not to be angry in most of my posts, but this just took too much of my patience. Do we need to worry about adding a new turret to the game when people are actually asking for a red box to be removed? Set the thickness of the red box to 0 fgs in your code, it really does not need weeks of programming!

What topic has this been merged with?

Fair enough, then it's just a problem with the lighter hulls which is fine.

Erm. idk what happened.

Rather than only letting people pass once every 10 seconds, let them pass as many times as they want (I keep passing forward so people cant judge so easily where I am etc), but they only get points again after 10 seconds of the last tie they got points.

I realised that people can play for XP which involves capping, killing enemy players etc. But you do not get XP for everything, for example sometimes when the flag carrier is on very low health and we are about to cap, I will place my tank between the enemy player and the flag carrier so that they do not receive any damage and we can cap. Or sometimes I will bring the flag part of the way through the map and then die but we still cap since I got the flag from the enemy base. This leads to the team winning but you do not get the most XP if you do not cap yourself. I assume that this is reflected in your efficiency. Likewise, you can also play for kills, which obviously is reflected by your DL score. However, neither of these two things fully capture everything, and I feel a good statistic for players would be the percentage of team games where they were on the winning team vs the losing team. So my idea is to add team games won, games drawn, and team games lost, as well as the ratio (won+draw)/lost. - Team Deathmatch - Control points - Juggernaut - Assault - CTF - Rugby - Siege Would all count. Finally, draws would not count towards the (win+draw)/lose ratio. (see edit 2) The reason for including draws in the ratio is as follows: Let there be two players, player A with x1 wins, x2 draws, and x3 losses, and player B with y1, y2, and y3 respectively as for player A. Then, if x1/x3 = y1/y3, but y1+y2+y3 < x1+x2+x3, ie player A has played more games than player B, then this implies that player A has more draws than player B. If we only considered win/loss ratio, then these two players would appear to be equally "good". Imagine player A won 100 games and lost 10 games with 0 draws, then the win/loss would be 10. And imagine that a player has 10,000 draws with 10 wins and 1 loss. Then the win/loss ratio would still be 10, but clearly someone who won 10 games out of 10,011 games shouldn't be "better" than someone who won 100 out of 110 games. Now if we consider the win/(loss + draw) ratio, in the above example we would have, - Player A, the ratio would be 100/(10 + 0) = 10. - Player B, the ratio would be 10/(10,000 + 1) = 0.001. Thus, as expected we would have that player A has a better ratio than player B. With the formula win/(loss + draw), for any two people with the same number wins and losses, more draws brings down your ratio, as expected. If someome has the same number of wins and losses as you, then more draws means they will be below you. If both player shave a similar number of games, then the player who has some draws should be below the player who didn't draw in any games but has the same ratio. If the two players have a huge difference in the number of games played, then they are not entirely comparable. However I believe you would be able to see from the number of games played in total that the two do not entirely compare. Edit 1 Rather than the above, where I stated that it would be obvious from the number of games played that two players are not comparable, I suggest the devs find out the number of hours played before a player reaches their "optimum" skill level, and then only players who played for this many hours will receive a ratio. Edit 2 Fixed some pretty fine logic.