Do you think that turrets/hulls will become balanced with this update?

[DageLV 940]

Well, they technically can do that. Now, why they would ever do it is a whole other matter.

..like wiping all garages completely, rendering the players alone without any crystals, setting them to recruits and expecting them to continue to pay and pay even more?

Oh.. hmm.. I think they actually _can't_ do anything.

Yes they can and they once did it.

In previous rebalance i had smoky m3 at rank of  and hunter m3

[r_tommyla1 0]

the damage per second of railgun is higher now not lower so it will be less affected by paints fordmustang12345

[r_tommyla1 0]

after this update isida will be more of a support weapon, rather than the demon of deathmatchs lol

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

railgun -

+3% DPM.. you wont even notice that

 

edit: for M3

Edited October 17, 2016 by BlackWasp777

[r_tommyla1 0]

railgun -

+3% DPM.. you wont even notice that

its penetration is also higher

[r_I_already_won0 2,339]

But not at m4. I only look at m4 stats, for the 526th time lol.

[r_tommyla1 0]

But not at m4. I only look at m4 stats, for the 526th time lol.

 

what do you mean? railgun m4? its slightly lower dps after update

 

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

its penetration is also higher

I know, but those low ranked players can not line up shots.

Actually the most gismos I play against can not either :P

 

 

But not at m4. I only look at m4 stats, for the 526th time lol.

I remembered that ;)

but acctually it was not your post I answered ;)

As M3 are more common then M4.. I like to stick to them.. except we talk abnout something then I take your M4-based thinking into account of course  ;)

Edited October 17, 2016 by BlackWasp777

[NoobTanker18 63]

M1 Railgun needs its damage lowered, since when bought you basically bought permanent double damage.

[pwhite 120]

Yeah this is stupid. The shaft changes seem like that they might help for smaller maps, but the hull update is a complete fail.

[Metaphor 538]

the damage per second of railgun is higher now not lower so it will be less affected by paints fordmustang12345

Not really, there was only a small change ( 2-3%) in dps. Maybe if it were like 10-15% change in dps.

[2shots2kills 2,366]

I am starting to think that tanki goes on this pattern: A bad update -> Losing players and money -> introduce another update that upsets the players even more but it is supposed to let the devs earn some more money to balance it out -> losing players again-> another bad update/rebalance to gain money -> losing other players... and so on.

 

I mean, this game exists since 2009 but it did not gain a big popularity or a very big player base. IMHO, the downfall of the game started with the very first rebalance, since then players got more and more frustrated and started leaving, bringing the necessity to release money-focused updates to keep the game alive.

 

I wonder what would have happened if the Devs had kept the Tiers and released some new tier 3 weapons and hulls. The game would have been more varied, with a sense of progression, and players would have not been upset.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like this game, I really do, I am an old player who once was a buyer, but I lost my trust in the game after all those costant changes/updates.

 

I hope Tanki won't die, or that at least Tanki X will be succesful.

[r_tommyla1 0]

Not really, there was only a small change ( 2-3%) in dps. Maybe if it were like 10-15% change in dps.

So the dps increase is bad?10- 15% would be over the top for a long ranged turret.

[Opex-Rah 5,375]

I am starting to think that tanki goes on this pattern: A bad update -> Losing players and money -> introduce another update that upsets the players even more but it is supposed to let the devs earn some more money to balance it out -> losing players again-> another bad update/rebalance to gain money -> losing other players... and so on.

 

I mean, this game exists since 2009 but it did not gain a big popularity or a very big player base. IMHO, the downfall of the game started with the very first rebalance, since then players got more and more frustrated and started leaving, bringing the necessity to release money-focused updates to keep the game alive.

 

I wonder what would have happened if the Devs had kept the Tiers and released some new tier 3 weapons and hulls. The game would have been more varied, with a sense of progression, and players would have not been upset.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like this game, I really do, I am an old player who once was a buyer, but I lost my trust in the game after all those costant changes/updates.

 

I hope Tanki won't die, or that at least Tanki X will be succesful.

Fun fact about that rebelence thing — back in the day I was one of testers team who have seen Rebalance before update was released. I wasn't employed by Alternativa at a time, to be clear. So, even on test servers Rebalance felt like not a very good idea. There were obvious balance problems and rank problems and... well... it felt poorly designed. When changes were released they were poorly timed as well. It was December, right before New Year celebrations with biggest discounts. Nobody bought anything and stayed with their crystals for a few months. You can guess who did that turned out to be for project revenue. Then Thunder was nerfed despite whole testers team reported it was overpowered before the update. Then they released infamous Update 123 and cut buttle funds...

 

So the fun fact? I quitted the game. Just like many others, I quitted the game after those updates.

 

Somehow (long story) I ended up to be employed by Alternativa. I had a chance to find out why this update even happened. I am obviously can't say much due to NDA, but it will suffice to say that certain people with certain powers loved to revolutionize everything way too much. Rebalance was unnecessary. After all this years I can tell you that much. It was the worst update this game ever experienced. Even after all this years (omg it is FOUR already) there are still things to be corrected after that update. Even the fact that most of active players this game ever had happened after rebalance, changes nothing about it being the worst update.

 

Being frank, this is not how I pictured my experience as a game developer. I thought I could make new awesome games and it will be the best games there is due to my experience with many bad games in the past. Yet, so far my experience was about fixing broken stuff and being hated for that. There are a lot of people who will say that updates only make things worse, but hey, they talk about final nail in the game's coffin every single update since I joined dev team, so... let's skip that part :D

 

Tanki won't die. Games without updates dies. This game got its development back on rails recently. You can tell that by number of updates released only in recent few month. I must apoligizes that almost every recent update in one way or another involved money, it always happens at summer time due to "low" season, but hey! At least we were creative enough to come up with Gold Box idea rather than selling power for money. As summer goes away, development can focus on new things. Like updating gameplay meta with this balance update. And we are still got those new turrets and clan system under development.

 

You can say that new turrets certainly are there for money, but I have to point out one really important thing. New turrets and Alterations (and shop paints and golds e.t.c.) are aimed to be optional items, rather than mandatory. Update 123 was mandatory and wasn't optional. This is very important thing. This shows that there were some lessons learned by dev team. And it works, I can tell you that. If things will keep going this way who knows.. maybe there is a chance to undo bad updates, even worst ones.

[Metaphor 538]

So the dps increase is bad?10- 15% would be over the top for a long ranged turret.

Yes. All I am saying is that a 2-3% increase is barely noticeable; 10-15% would be fair (especially for m2) after the re-balance. 

[swede2 36]

I am touched by Semyon Strizhak aka 's open and honest post, and must say it is refreshing to see such maturity from Semyon in recent posts.

 

I've contributed to of much of the hostility directed towards you over the last several years. it is unfortunate that Alternativa made you the figurehead of the development team to bare the full brunt of animosity from the players, and it is quite obvious that much of this has been misdirected, for that I am truly sorry.

 

I think the jury is still out on the future of this game, but confronting criticism with sincerity is a good start.

 

I must offer that the game is seriously broken, and while it may be generating profit of 3 to 4 million annually, "not being as bad as other Russian games" is not the achievement Alternativa should strive for. This is something people say, who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong. Being fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other (usually worse) actions.

 

John Koraen aka @swede1

Edited October 19, 2016 by swede2

[Opex-Rah 5,375]

must say it is refreshing to see such maturity from Semyon in recent posts.

Say again? :ph34r:

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=337781

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

[...]

Thanks for the statement.. makes a lot of things clear.

 

There are some things in this rebalance, that players (incl me) are not very happy about.. but at least I can understand the motivation of most. They feel like moves in the right direction - altough they sometimes overshot (or just make room for alternations).

 

But there is one thing, which I cant understand.. and maybe you could enlighten me:

 

Can you tell us the reason why Hunter an Viking are literally exchanged by their characteristics?

Most Hunter-pilots want a Viking now; and most Viking-pilots want a Hunter now.

This does not really balance things out.. it just exchanges them IMHO.

[Opex-Rah 5,375]

Can you tell us the reason why Hunter an Viking are literally exchanged by their characteristics?

Most Hunter-pilots want a Viking now; and most Viking-pilots want a Hunter now.

This does not really balance things out.. it just exchanges them IMHO.

This is a conclusion of a long term process of moving Viking from position of the most heavy medium hull to the most light medium hull.

 

Viking's balance place was poorly choosen at rebalance. As recent changes fix rank issues of rebalance, we fixing this as well. I am too not found of this kind of swaps, but as I seen end result side by side with old one I can tell that this settings feel more suitable. This statment is arguable and we might never agree on this one, I understand. When I weighted pros and cons I concluded it is worth it. To be clear, I doubt that someone will hate new settings so much he will be forced to buy new hull. Money can never justify poor balance desicions.

 

My idea is that old balance had too much economical influence on final decision to choose between V and H. A fresh look can make a change. As balance changes are there to make a change in how game feel, I decided to go for it. At least I can tell you that this should be last major parameters swap. From now on we will adapt small incremental changes as we do it in TX.

 

Something that was long overdue.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

This is a conclusion of a long term process of moving Viking from position of the most heavy medium hull to the most light medium hull.

Well.. todays Hunnter has some advantages vs Viking - if you read the stats. But the "daily operation" prooves Viking to be simply superior on the battlefield. So there was definitely a need to balance both.

But the swap.. -> hurts.

 

I guess this would even be fine for most tankers, if you offer the players a chance to swap hulls in garage if a player decides for it.

 

I think of something like this:

 

 

• Free trial for the other hull:

  Every player that owns a Hunter gets a free trial for a Viking with same M-class (M2, M3, ...) and same MU level.

  On the other hand Viking players are offered a free trial for Hunters that are the same modification as their owned gear.

  Alternative could make use of the free-trial + personal discount that you have implemented already - with some tweaks of course.

• Trials are given (started) within in a time period of 7 days

  ..so everyone gets a chance to get one, even if this players is not online for 4 days or just weekends

• Once received, the free trial lasts for 3 days

  so everyone can make a decent picture of what he likes or not, in respect to the new weapons changes.

• After the trial..

  the players are offered to purchase the tried hull for 15% of it's base-price (price of hull without microupgrades). Payable in crystals - or for 1 EUR/USD in cash (So the company can make some benefit through offering this)

  If the player decides to swap and purchases the other hull, their old hull gets removed from the garage. As stated above their new hull has same MU-level as before (so if I owned a Viking M3+14/50, then I will receive a Hunter M3+14/50; for 15% of a Hunters price payable in crystals)

 

 

 

This would help both - Tanki could make some earnings and the players would feel treated more fair.

Alternative could show that they care for their customers, while they earn some money at the same time ;)

 

At least I can tell you that this should be last major parameters swap. From now on we will adapt small incremental changes as we do it in TX.

Something that was long overdue.

Thats.. good news

Edited October 19, 2016 by BlackWasp777

[swede2 36]

Say again? :ph34r:

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=337781

Hahaha, you can't fool me Semyon, you're getting old, wisdom will follow shortly  :ph34r:

[wolverine848 13,097]

 When I weighted pros and cons I concluded it is worth it. To be clear, I doubt that someone will hate new settings so much he will be forced to buy new hull. Money can never justify poor balance desicions.

 

I bought the Viking because I liked how Viking performed.

Because of this decision I will effectively no longer have a Viking. I will have a Hunter. That's not what I paid for.

 

Many revisions tweak items here and there. Tankers may not embrace that, but for most part the change is not drastic.

But - imagine if you swapped the stats for Smoky and Thunder. Though the weapons are quite similar, they are different enough that tankers would be upset - and rightly so.

 

Will we current Viking users be given choice to swap to new Hunter for free?

[Phoenix.Rising 2,519]

I bought the Viking because I liked how Viking performed.

Because of this decision I will effectively no longer have a Viking. I will have a Hunter. That's not what I paid for.

 

Many revisions tweak items here and there. Tankers may not embrace that, but for most part the change is not drastic.

But - imagine if you swapped the stats for Smoky and Thunder. Though the weapons are quite similar, they are different enough that tankers would be upset - and rightly so.

 

Will we current Viking users be given choice to swap to new Hunter for free?

I'm afraid not.. :(

[CuT_TheRe_HeaRTs_OuT 640]

 

NOOB don't nerf my twins titan combo!!! , why did u have to touch twins anyway the turret was awesome before.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

NOOB don't nerf my twins titan combo!!! , why did u have to touch twins anyway the turret was awesome before.

Sorry for your combo.

Please consider another wording, as the Dev's are not paid to participate here - Hazel comes here voluntarily.

They for sure have better use of their time, then to come here and get callend noob.

 

So.. no matter if you or I or someone else likes this rebalance or not.. lets keep the usual respect up.

Having some direct contact to devs and the possibility to ask questions and deposite ideas a valuable thing.

 

If you insist to call someone noob, you might try (i hope you don't!) the community manager: He will not enjoy this either, but at least he is payed for this ;)