But not funny ha-ha...

And I'm accusing you of also being a troll with the same talking points I stopped listening to last time. LOL!!!! Ok, bud. They're all on the first page of your profile. But I guess you don't want to acknowledge that. Trolls be trolling. The time duration of troll behavior is irrelevant. Notice how 'time' is not included in the definition...? Again. I owe you zero explanation. I really about what you think of me or my posts. I think this is what you fail to understand. So, at this point, it's attention getting behaviors and you don't care if it's positive attention or negative attention. You can reply to this, but I'm stopping reading the insanity of the supreme irrelevance of this discussion. This applies to anything you write in future. (see how easy it is to not read someone's posts. I'll show you...)

We keep on forgetting to include bot algorithms as a factor that can make the game more imbalanced and has nothing to do with player Gear Scores. So even if the GS appear close, the behavior of the bots influence the games' outcome.

I'm not even sure augments are taken into consideration when making MM teams (we'd need congo in here to tell us if they do). But I've been on a team where only 2 players had hull augments and the other team had 10 augments (out of 12 players). Needless to say, the other team won by a landslide.

One of my suggestions was to limit the number of F2P turrets/hulls to just 3 or 4 of them (each). After you paid a subscription (or per turret, or whatever) you'd get access to more of them. But after you bought a 'subscription-turret/hull', you'd be playing with the P2W players and not the free players. I thought that was a good idea, but as I stated earlier, I don't know all the business aspects of tanki's income streams.

LOL. Ok, dude. I guess neither was I, LOL. Since you weren't (complaining) replying to me, I didn't address them. And I ain't crying over any post on this forum. LOL. I used to give constructive criticism. Years ago. Exactly zero of my ideas were implemented. My constructive criticism doesn't make tanki any money (see how that works?). No one is in this specific thread for 'constructive criticism'. Including you. My criticism of tanki's pursuit of money remains valid, however. And if you go back far enough in this thread, you'll see this conversation started about imbalanced matchmaking and not money. That wasn't the 'gotcha' you thought it was.

Nobody comes to this forum anymore. But I mean, it looks like you're complaining about complaints in the replacement for the Complaints Thread--and taking offence (for whatever reason). So, you haven't really stopped complaining either. And as I have stated 47 trillion times before, it's possible for you to scroll right on past my 'trolling' or 'complaining' or 'moaning' and pay zero attention to what I type and stop caring about my comments. As for me, I'm here for the exact moment the owners of tanki decide this forum isn't worth the cost anymore and shut it down.

It is a game that is perfectly balanced and still has millions of players interested in playing over the entire course of their lifetime. So, I was disputing the theory that perfectly balanced games decrease player base. It just has to be marketed correctly. Online or not is incidental. Every form of entertainment is competing with each other. Not just online vs not online. You can see the game has been in steady decline--in terms of popularity--right? Pretty sure I read something Opex wrote about the natural lifespan of games like tanki and how long they last. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of all of tanki's business, but I'm pretty sure (behind the scenes) tanki's costs on maintaining this game have mostly decreased over time (developer's salaries notwithstanding). And that (lets use Hyper's example) 20% are squeezed and squeezed with higher and higher prices for less and less value to maintain profits, switching the game to smaller servers, etc. That's just one or two ways to last 15 years. But I don't actually consider 15 years to be very long in terms of game lifetime. **I still maintain if it wasn't for COVID, tanki would have naturally died out a while ago and it was only the fact that people were isolating (trapped) in their homes--bored--with nothing to do but go online and game that saved it** There is no such thing as 'overall'. We agree.

The comparison was of a game (tanki) specifically designed to be unbalanced, fast paced, and created to make money vs a slower paced, evenly matched game that is still around. You can mentally substitute (let's say) monopoly (or whatever) if it helps your understanding of the comparison.

Sorry, one last point to add which I don't think is accurately conveyed above. And that point is: tanki is actively choosing to present their game this way--unbalanced, static, ever changing, and increased prices for less of a return--dopamine rushes. That is the business path they are going down--and you can never return from making that choice. Ever. Perhaps with classic, the other path (chess) is the direction that game will take. I doubt it. The love of money...

I counter with chess is 100% balanced and seems to be still hanging around as something people play... No need to find/link the theory. I know of it as well. But the theory is used primarily for revenue generating. Hypersomnia is correct with his post. Maybe tanki was steered (in 2015) towards a certain demographic of customer in the online community that tends to spend the most amount of money on online games such as this. I have never spent any real-world currency on this game and I never ever will, so I am obviously not their target customer. But then, I still play chess, so... Either way, tanki has actively chosen to follow this path with maximizing revenue for whatever the return on that revenue is. Maybe games like tanki have a finite lifespan and this course of action is necessary to maximize profits. Tanki is playing the short-viral money-game vs the long, slow money-game. If you are already a buyer (in the case above), you already have fallen for tanki's shtick. The rest is incidental. If you spend money once, you will spend it again because the unchanged variable is the player's (addictive) personality. Perhaps they turn their attention to a brand new account with a different turret? Or maybe a (lol) paint/skin. Or perhaps it follows the 'sunk-cost' theory/fallacy, or the drug-dependency feelings that Hyper pointed out above. Or maybe that individual person doesn't spend any more money, but is replaced by someone else who does. Or all of the above.

I wasn't referring to you with my comment--but you were witness to the silly exchange I had to endure about 'balance' in another thread with people who didn't think tanki was a business (oh to be that young and foolish again...). But to your point, nobody expects perfect. But nobody expects blatant lop-sided battles either. With the addition of bots, there is no excuse for lop-sided battles anymore. None. But--as we have discussed in exhausting detail--balance doesn't make tanki any money. And that's why there is none. None of the developers at tanki are 'stupid'. Not a single one. They know exactly what they are doing. And what they are doing is exactly what they are told to do by their owners. Rank progression and matchmaking game balance are unified under the umbrella of: Make money. You can make them separate entities if you wish, but it's really not necessary. Example: As I have perpetually exposed, there is no valid reason for a 7k to be on one team and two 2ks on the other. None. Other than: 'make money'. Replacing 7049 and 6790 with two 6090's would probably make this particular match 'balanced enough'. But would it make tanki money...? Not sure. As it stands, you know exactly who is going to win this game and who isn't. (I won't discuss augments, even though there are 5x as many on the stronger team than the weaker) ***I would be interested to know the statistics of how many players leave battles vs stay until the end.

Can I ask what makes you think they can't solve it...?

4 5 Tanki Offline.

And there was a time where players argued (continually for days and days) with me saying this game wasn't a business, saying matchmaking was 'balanced', and it was a 'skill issue' and whatever their naive little minds came up with (lol). (Not referring to anyone specifically who posted on page 232, of course.)

Then, if it was such an important position, you'd think there would be more of them. Not less. I would say a lack of battle moderation (because of less battle mods) is a far greater reason for people to stop playing the game altogether.

True. But lets just look at the list of helpers that tanki has that put in the work. First: battle mods/admin (This list hasn't been updated since 2015, so it's probably different by now. But count the number of helpers on this list). And let's compare it with the list of chat moderators/admins (also probably not updated, but count the number of chat helpers). You quickly realize where tanki would rather spend its time moderating based on where they assign the numbers of helpers. It isn't the game.

Bots with the blaster augment.

I guess that counts as 1 each...

Still putting 7ks with 2ks

If there can be two sets of GS for bots in any one battle (GS6220, GS5520): Then there never, ever, ever, ever needs to be a player with 5k GS higher than the lowest GS in any battle. Ever. Seriously? That's just a ridiculous match. Not even including the augs.

Anything for a turret I actually use.