Every year I'm waiting for this mini game to be named "Yawn of the Dead" (a name that is at the same time spooky and fun).

This may just be a Russian Hallowe'en "shpook" ?

@PLAYING_AFTERYEAR3 I had to check, but the Wiki mentions the additional consumption in mines, among other things: https://en.tankiwiki.com/Crisis I assume the "reason" for the additional mine consumption is the reduced cooldown time for mines (same with repair kit - I am not claiming that this makes any sense, but it seems to be the "rationale").

It's called inflation. This way they hope they can make you spend real dinero one day.

I think there is a big misunderstanding on the part of the developers. If you have a game that depends on both F2P and P2W players, you will have to design a reward system that potentially keeps all items available to F2Pers, but gives an incentive to P2Wers to buy in order to save in-game time. Logically, there must be an imbalance, creating a disadvantage to F2Pers, making them think "oh, if I invest some money, I will gain an advantage - is it worthwhile? Great, I'll buy an item." This would be what we call an "incentive". Now, the incentive part seems to be what you don't quite understand. The developers seem to have decided that their way of creating the necessary imbalance is to punish F2Pers by making it completely uneconomical to play, as the disadvantages from ranking etc. etc. are designed to leave F2Pers at a completely helpless position (just look at what you have done over the last years, and the things you have taken away from F2Pers in order to make them purchasable). The grand scheme behind it seems to be "let's change the game, so that basically everybody has to buy - or else be frustrated". What kind of a game philosophy is that? It will only work if a) your game is dead attractive, so people are intrinsically motivated to buy (but we can rule that out, otherwise you wouldn't have to go to such lengths to *force* people to pay) b) your game is the only alternative for players, so it's either "do or die" for them (but last time I looked, you didn't have a monopoly on the gaming market) Now, you must be intelligent people, otherwise you wouldn't be able to make a game like this, but might it be that you are somewhat lacking a perspective that your game will only survive if it is fun (at least to some extent)? It's a leisure activity, guys, and it is not meant to feel like self-punishment to play. It should be like that: "oh, what an exciting game - ah, if I pay a little money, I'll get even more out of it." This is not supposed to be Rura Penthe (the Trekkies among us will get the notion).

I'd assume they'll sell tanki bottles next that you can use if you're in a calamity while playing.

I really think they should change the hammer sound effect to "oink" now.

If there were an in-game system that would reward active and constructive gameplay, that would be great, too.

Good suggestion. I'll just let my accounts lay to sleep peacefully. ?

"This game is so great, if we increase the effort players have to put in to get only minimal rewards, they'll be more likely to play intensely - or pay us real money." (faint sounds of laughter muffled by padded cell walls)

Are disconnects a category of their own by now? Or do they go in here? It's appalling, by the way.

Yeah @Maf , the illusion here is that the whole experience points / ranking mechanism isn't totally broken, so that "playing battles normally" isn't totally against your interests as a player. But it is indeed - and that is the main flaw in the whole game setup. If you have a game, and the economically sound option is *not* to play too much, you have a broken game.

@Atomic_Tanker however, that amounts to accusing them of breaking the game rules. I think I'd advise against such public speculations as to what people do or do not do in the privacy of their or their parents' homes.

No, @emrakul said "per pack", that is if you buy 3 packs to enter the draw, your chances of a win increase of course Note two things though: 1) if it is a true randomizer that is being used, even buying so and so many packs will not guarantee you a win because even if your odds are 999 to 1 now (or higher) you can still lose out of mere bad luck 2) the packs you can buy several times are so costly that they will not increase your return on investment

No majority wins the fund. The majority loses tankoins here - as is intended by tanki ... BTW it's always around a 1 in 7 chance to win. If you enter with 14 accounts, two of them might win - that basically means you're transferring the tankoins from 12 accounts to two, as all accounts will have entered spending a minimum of 990 TK. For such players as MAPC_1 - MAPC_200 it actually pays well because he's probably entering the draw spending the 3000 TK token of apology we were handed a few months ago. I assume he created the accounts F2P just for the sake of this token thing. Even he seems to be running dry slowly, though. As for those who actually spend money on tankoins and then enter this kind of lottery - I can't understand how someone would do it, but it's not my money they're wasting, so I don't really have a say in all this.

I am literally laughing my behind off here - "oh, let's remove features from the game so we can sell them for 50 bucks a piece on special occasions. no one will notice" ?

I think one of the main purposes of the funds is to bleed out F2Ps, which seems to have worked. Or, in Noam Chomsky's terms, the purpose is "the distribution of wealth and power to those who already have it."

I think it should be spelled "ultra Weakend".

Clearing the browser cache did it for me. Thanks!

Since the patch update on Friday I have trouble accessing the game with Opera (recent Version 87.0.4390.45). The load screen just stalls when I call up https://tankionline.com/play/ . Is that a known issue?

Yeah. You can tell a user-friendly update to a button by the fact that it now takes one more click to get where you want to go. ? That must be Tanki's definition of "mindfulness". I mean how does the decision-making process even work here? Do the developers get together like "Hey guys, I have a great idea for the interface! It will make entering a battle more cumbersome for the user ... let me tell you!"

Those XP points are a complete and utter pest.

I assume the underlying calculation is that running the servers becomes cheaper the fewer players are playing. You can therefore save a lot of money if you ruin the game for as many players as possible. If at some point we reach a threshold beyond which not only no one wants to play anymore, but fewer than zero players are playing, the costs become negative, i.e. turn into profit. A brilliant thought!

I thought that was the business model. And then suddenly it all makes sense. Better yet, you should have spent hard currency maxing the item.

Falling player numbers are considered a sign of the game dying, but that may be the wrong angle. It may just be that the intention is to cleanse the game of useless players a.k.a. F2Ps such as me. Looking at it this way, I think the developers have been quite successful. If enough people like me leave, those players who remain will offer a more sensible expense-profit ratio from a business perspective. It may look like economical suicide from the outside, but there probably is quite an intelligent strategy behind it. It is just different from the customer-oriented ideology that I am used to from where I live. But in and of itself the idea of increasing pressure on your non-paying clientele makes sense. Let's face it: the likes of me have never contributed anything to the game revenue, really. Instead, we've eaten up game resources, server time, electricity, you name it. After all we're utterly expendable. It's obvious that this kind of parasitic behavior isn't tolerated anymore.