The splash damage of thunder nano tech could accidentally kill my teammates when they are against a blaster hull augment, so if my teammate would die against a blaster and I shot him to heal but the splash damage of this shot killed the blaster guy, my teammate will die because the splash damage took effect before the healing. Now it is not realistic if the splash took effect before the shot itself, because the splash cannot happen before the shot. The splash is a result of the shot, therefore the shot must happen first in order for the splash to exist. If my teammate health is 100 and I shot him to heal near a light hull blaster augment (the splash damage killed the blaster) he should not die because of that 1500 damage the blaster will cause, but he will get 1800 healing instead and the 1500 damage will take place after the healing, so he will have 100+1800-1500= 400 Health left.

It is not just about golds. Hopper was always a game breaking hull designed without an idea of game balance or game physics in mind, just like other hovering hulls they were all designed just for the sake of it.

Thunder Nanotech is OP. The amount of heal you do every 2s is unreal. Healing augments should not have the boosted damage supply buff, like it is called boosted DAMAGE for a reason, why does it boost the amount of heal as well?

Same in MM. When I play MM I don't want to lose and i could go to XP to chill and don't mind losing. You could say that for YOU MM is less competitive which is fine, but talking in general and applying such mindset (don't mind losing) to all players is not objective. In XP just like MM if you did a mistake you can get carried by your teammates so i don't see the point being made here. In MM you can calculate every move you make just like XP. In MM you can miss shots and lose because of it just like XP. Now you can say that XP is more competitve because players playing XP is generally more competitve, unlike MM which is a valid point, but here you would be comparing players not modes which is not the argument you making. MM can have high skill ceiling but a lot of players choose to just camp and shoot, now does this mean MM can not have high skill ceiling? No it is just diffrenet way of playing MM. I just said the other side of the coin you are not saying, because you are not comparing MM with all of its potential and possibilities regarding skill ceiling, you only compare it to your liking which is not objective. The fact that MM can get a lot harder skill wise for players who have weak garage in high ranks does imply that MM has different skill ceiling based on the way you play, but you only looking at the less skill demanding aspect of it which is not objective when you compare two modes. It would not be fair for XP if i only compare it by using Sandbox as an example, since it is a basic simple map that does not require that much of thinking and skill like other XP maps such as: Parma, Station. There is no need to judge my experience here but i get it since you love XP that much. I have 1300+ hours in XP you can check it by looking at my profile since i never play Railgun and hornet in MM. To me you are limiting any skill based ability to XP. In MM you can communicate just as much if you want to try hard and players do actually communicate via chat. In XP they say basic info such as f1 or f2, in MM they say info about nuclear and flag as well. Both modes can be hard and competitive in their own ways.

Same logic applies to XP. You don't have to play the objective you can just lose. You don't have to hit every shot. You don't have to position right. The same tank thing is not in the favor of XP here, because in MM you can just make it harder for yourself and play wasp isida with mediocre augments in big maps. I think it is wrong to say that XP is harder than MM because MM has different skill floor and skill ceiling, true i can make MM easy if i just abuse OP stuff, but i can do the opposite as well. When you compare two modes, you take into consideration the potential and different possibilities of each one. So saying they are both competitive is the right answer IMO. For Esports I think it is much harder than XP when you do it right, the communication aspect of Esport itself is harder than XP. Esport has much higher skill ceiling.

Matchmaking is just as competitive as XP.

Sure. But so called variety is less relevant in a small sample size. So a game like Tanki with a low player-base count is not affected by variety that much, meaning a player who abuses an OP augment could ruin the experience for a large percentage of that low player-base count of the game. As a player who plays frequently you could meet same players over and over again in MM due to that low player-base count, so variety is not really a thing in such game. One OP augment abuser could easily ruin the gameplay for a lot of players simply by playing frequently. Lets say Tanki has 7k player-base count, if that one OP augment abuser plays 10 games a day he could ruin the gameplay experience with that unfair advantage he has for 100 players which is 1.42% of the total 7k player-base. Therefore, the chance of a player meeting an OP augment abuser is much higher compared to games with high player-base count. Balancing an augment on the get-go is much more efficient (if you only balance based on parameters) compared to: Step one: Release an OP augment so it will appeal to buyers. Step two: Make it exclusive for a while till players who have it increases slowly. Step three: Release it again. Step four: When a lot of players have that augment, you only then balance it. Now you could just say we doing this from a business perspective which is understandable, but trying to justify it with other things such as variety is just not it IMO.

I feel the devs should stop nerfing or buffing augments based on how many players are abusing or using them. Like shaft heal went on a streak for a whole 3+ years being OP without getting a nerf that really balance it. Augments should be nerfed or buffed based only on the parameters of the augment itself. Funny enough phoenix augments are getting nerfed despite being used by only 1 or 2 players each augment. I guess because they are F2P unlike other augments.

Why? just remove it from the game entirely.

Trying to "equalize the odds" between different ways of control will never be fair and balanced.

Can you provide an evidence that supports your claim? Experience is irrelevant here, because the whole topic is not related or affected by subjective points such as yours, but rather only objective points based on numbers and in-game facts.

Just to clarify the point I mentioned, the hitbox of hovering hulls is not related to it. Meaning hovering hulls' hitbox is actually 1:1 to their visual shape/volume which is the same for tracked hulls. So the autoaim mechanism of the game engine will detect their whole visual shape as hitbox (Crusader, Paladin). That is why I said physical shape instead of hitbox (described as Physical shape/volume when it is an interaction with objects/obstacles created by the game engine). But the desync of hovering hulls' visual shape happens with any obstacle created by the game engine (Crusader, Paladin). Which gives them huge maneuverability advantage over tracked hulls, since tracked hulls hitbox is 1:1 to their visual shape as well as the physical shape, which is the standard in any game design. So Crusader's hitbox is not the same as Paladin's hitbox but rather noticeably smaller, which is of course an advantage for Crusader over any hull in the game, since the compactness of it makes its hitbox small while having an even smaller physical shape for maneuverability, while being 3000HP with faster acceleration than other medium hulls.

What players do not seem to understand about hovering hulls is that their physical shape/size is actually smaller in size than their Visual shape. You can notice that by hitting any obstacles with a hovering hull and you will see a part of it just went through/in the obstacle, which add a lot to their maneuverability. Unlike tracked hulls their physical size is 1:1 to their Visual size. which is funny considering this game has its own design team who spend a lot of time perfecting the game engine visually, but they stumbled on this rookie mistake that existed for far too long. Crusader Paladin

I just read the description of Crusader found both in Wiki and In-game garage. Which state the following: "Medium hovering hull. It is characterized by good passability and a compact silhouette The «Crusader» hull belongs to the second generation of hovertanks. To create a compact but powerful hull with attacking possibilities, a lot of ingenious solutions were used. Compactness of the second generation anti-grav allowed engineers to equip enough armor to the tank for it to be a medium hull without decreasing its speed. Just by looking at the bold words you can notice that they (the Devs) had no clear vision or reasoning behind the design of Crusader or enough understanding of what makes a hull medium or light. It feels they just designed Crusader with advantages of both medium hulls (3000hp) and light hulls (Compact and "good passability"). Why would Crusader has features that are exclusive to light hulls while being a medium one?

Well my point is discussing hulls in theory without the randomness factor such as your point, because if we talk about other implementations and bugs we won't reach a solid point based on numbers. Based on that argument Crusader should not be easier to deal with in vast situations and scenarios than Paladin. The point you mentioned about Paladin, I think it is a bugged implementation of the autoaim mechanic. Why does it seem hypothetically to happen to Paladin more than other hulls? Can't say for sure it could be due to a lot of reasons contributing to this, it could be ping, servers, or Paladin as a design is not optimized well enough for the autoaim mechanism and vice versa, since it is a bit thinner in size (Paladin feels more compressed, you can notice that by looking at Paladin's side profile) than other hovering hulls, so that could be the reason autoaim can't catch Paladin's hitbox sometimes. If we bring someone who has no knowledge about light or medium hulls, but we explained to him that based on the volume of the tank you can judge whether it is a light one or a medium one, and by looking at each tank side profile (just take screenshot of each one in the garage and compare). Now, after we tell him that one of the two tanks (Hopper and Crusader) is a medium hull and the other one is a light hull, I bet he wont be able to tell the difference between Hopper and Crusader. Of course you can argue about other sides and the mass/weight (in-game garage it is mass but in wiki it is weight), but this is not the point, the point is a medium sized hull should be a medium sized hull with a clear increase in size in comparison to light hulls. It is not called a medium hull or light hull based on just speed but also the volume, because size/volume affects the speed of it. It is common sense.

This is true to some extent, but for me Crusader is just the extreme of them all.

Shape and other parameters I mentioned have everything to do with it. It is better and easier to drive Crusader because of its small shape, it means that it wont hit obstacles that you would hit with another hull. Driving small cars is always easier than driving big ones. Controlling a 3m of volume is always easier than controlling a 4m or 5m of volume. Therefore, Crusader has smoother/better experience to control/drive. This is without talking about the benefit of having smaller hitbox which is crucial in any kind of design in competitive games, while being a 3000HP hull. Crusader literally have less length than hopper the light hull.

Imo, Crusader is the most OP Hull in the game, its small volume compared to other medium hulls is just unbalanced even compared to light hulls, due that it can easily strafe and make small accurate movement better than any hovering hull while being harder to hit plus the 3000HP. It has higher power (900) than Hopper (800) which plus its compact shape and higher weight makes it much more stable (less affected by impact force and recoil) and more fluid in movements. For some reason Crusader has higher Reverse acceleration (20) than Paladin (18) despite them both being medium hulls, not only Paladin but it is higher than Wasp (18) and Hunter (18), which makes Crusader not only more responsive to change in movements but also more fluid due to its small volume and the ability to strafe. The volume, weight and the power of the tank are always in a direct relationship. For example, Dictator having higher weight (3600) and power (1700) than other medium hulls due to its higher volume. But for some reason despite Crusader being clearly smaller than Paladin they both have the same weight of 2300 and power of 900, this does not mean that both Paladin and Crusader have the same stability even though the numbers say so, because the shape of the tank also plays a role in its stability not only the weight of it, which means that Crusader is more stable and more fluid in movements than Paladin because of its compact shape. Volume alongside speed were always the criteria in deciding whether a hull is light, medium or heavy, but it is not the case for Crusader. I don't think Crusader was designed with the idea of it being a medium hull, because no parameters of it indicate that it is indeed a medium hull, it is just numbers being randomly thrown without a clear vision or reasoning behind it.

Yeah the buffs for Vulcan's augments are not necessary at all.

Hovering hulls already have strafing, they should not be equally as fast or even faster than tracked hulls. I rather the acceleration to get nerfed than top speed, since top speed is not always utilized, but I will take it. Good change. MM battles should not take long to finish, it can get very boring in games where no a winning objective points for either team been made. Also with the current camping mindset of most players in MM, turning every other mode into TDM. Turning speed for a constant fire rate turrets is very crucial, since you have to track the target with each shot. Rico and Twins will get hurt with this one, which I like. Good patch overall.

Just delete Crusader from the game already.

We can't just throw random vague stuff and words in there and say that they are the reason in why the game does not have ME servers or Arabic language. If the player base count is not the deciding factor then what factors are more important than it? ME servers and the Arabic language are no different than other languages and servers in terms of implementation, there is no discrimination in there. The idea of Tanki not supporting Arabic language and ME servers should not be the reason of thinking that it is the Arabic's fault or ME servers' fault, it simply means that Tanki staff did not care enough. I think the Arabic language should have been implemented years ago before some existing languages right now.

You downgrading the importance of adding servers and a language to the game to support an already existing community and let it thrive more by talking about speculation that has no grounds. Why adding other languages and servers such as Japanese, Brazilian, Polish and Germany, but When it comes to ME and Arabic language which they already occupy a good portion of the player base, suddenly there is a problem and speculation. Many famous game titles and companies around the globe have ME servers and Arabic language supported, why would Tanki be an exception? Tanki is clearly suffering from low player base count, adding servers and Arabic language will only help the game to grow.

It is baffling to me that the devs after all these years did not add ME servers nor Arabic language to the game.

What I'm saying is that the combo affect the effectiveness of any augment even the most OP ones like Striker vacuum is noticeably easier to control when equipped with Paladin than hunter. Now the realistic discussion to be made here is not deleting Paladin but rather nerfing Vacuum, because we all know hovering hulls are in the game forever and no way for it to be deleted, so no point in discussing how OP augments are by making hovering hulls the deciding factor. I don't think anyone disagree with the fact that hovering hulls are superior to tracked ones, the key here is how many option we have to solve a problem, deleting hovering hulls is not even an option because it will never happen.