Looks like we aren't alone in complaining

[Pyre 3,485]

Diver I was gonna come back and argue with you, but everyone else already made the points I was gonna say.

[Guest]

I guess you will accept no facts at all then.  But to finish this conversation I'll grant you that Tanki X uses a client and that depresses it's web ranking. But if Tanki X was as popular as you seem to be inferring in your comments, it should still be reflected, to a degree, in it's web traffic rating. You so kindly criticized earlier my use of EVE Online because of it's seemly low  player numbers, so we will continue to use them as an example. It uses a client in order to play but it's Website is still rated at 9,627. Now here is a game which you claim is on par with Tanki player numbers wise. Hmmmm, if that is the case then it still shows that Tanki X is a horrible failure with ratings of 67,109 or 153,144 (depending on which service you use).

 

Tanki X is a failure.  I've laid in evidence my observations, what is being said on the forums(that you yourself says is there), and also information from  independent monitoring services and you dismiss ALL that information. Well, I'll leave you with one last set of hard numbers that I can get of the number of players playing Tanki X. Now while it's true that  Tanki doesn't publish the actual numbers playing Tanki X, Steam does publish the actual numbers using that platform. When Tanki X went live on Steam it reached a peak of 451 players playing Tanki X on April 24, 2017, It is now at an average of 112 players over the last 30 days. Seems to be pointing in the same direction as Tanki online. I would say that there is plenty of evidence that Tanki X is a dead end.

 

- end of line-

(ps. That's a reference to the movie TRON when a conversation comes to an end)

There is just one tiny problem with steam... it only counts how many STEAM USERS, that means people with STEAM ACCOUNTS, logged into the game via Steam. Hence, using Steam as an example is faulty. 

Here is proof that the steam counter doesn't display the full data (unless the game is steam only, in which EVE online is not):

 

If you claimed that EVE online was popular for 30+ years (the game was out for 15 years and I can prove it), then explain this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to list every bad decision the Dev's have made. I don't need too, just look at the numbers. The Dev's have never listened to the experienced players and have never pulled back a change that was obviously wrong and was causing people to leave the game. So like I said I'll let the number's speak for themselves. You started in 2016. Back then you would have 50000 to 60000 during peak times. Now it's 30000 to 40000. All during that time the Dev's and Pony Tail Boy have been making great and wonderful changes to the game. (I say that sarcastically) What does the evidence point towards? And don't say it's because the game is just getting old. I can point to many games that are going strong even after 20 years. Best example Eve online (now over 30 years). It was out for 15 years not 30. 2018-2003 is 15. If you have a good game people will play it no matter how old it is. Pony Tail Boy and the Dev's ruined this one.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but the steam counter isn't reliable for this debate. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Guest

[Dliver 436]

There is just one tiny problem with steam... it only counts how many STEAM USERS, that means people with STEAM ACCOUNTS, logged into the game via Steam. Hence, using Steam as an example is faulty.

Here is proof that the steam counter doesn't display the full data (unless the game is steam only, in which EVE online is not):

 

If you claimed that EVE online was popular for 30+ years (the game was out for 15 years and I can prove it)

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but the steam counter isn't reliable for this debate.

 

My mistake, however I only said 20+ years. I stand corrected. If my previous post says anything different it was a typo and I will correct it.

 

The steam data I gave was applicable however. It may not show the total picture, but when added to the other information presented it does help provide evidence that Tanki X is at a minimum a flop.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Dliver

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

 

But if Tanki X was as popular as you seem to be inferring in your comments, it should still be reflected, to a degree, in it's web traffic rating.

Well here is the problem: I never claimed Tanki X was particularly popular. Of course it is nowhere near as popular as TO, because it hasn't been around for too long. But what I disagree with is the claim that TX is a "total failure." 

 

 You so kindly criticized earlier my use of EVE Online because of it's seemly low  player numbers, so we will continue to use them as an example.

I criticized your example of EVE Online not because of its low player numbers, but that you used it as an example of a highly successful game in contrast to TO, even though player population pattern of these games is very similar. It seems to completely contradict your point.

 

Well I'll leave you with one set of hard numbers that I can get of the number of players playing Tanki X. Now while it's true that  Tanki doesn't publish the actual numbers playing Tanki X, Steam does publish the actual numbers using that platform. When Tanki X went live on Steam it reached a peak of 451 players playing Tanki X on April 24, 2017 (1 year ago today), It is now at an average of 112 players over the last 30 days. Seems to be pointing in the same direction as Tanki online. I would say that there is plenty of evidence that Tanki X is a dead end.

Blue is TX, green is TO.

 

 

So there are several problems I have with this. First off all, your assumption is that because TO is dying, and TX has similar Steam trends, TX must be a failure too. Again, it is your personal opinion that TO is dying even though the amount of work put into development currently is higher than it has been in a long time. Regardless of whether it is dying or not, comparing the Steam figures of an 8 year old game vs a 2 year old game just doesn't work. You can't come to a conclusion on that front. Of course we also know that the majority of TO players don't play on Steam and the same is true for TX.

 

Second, my problem is that judge the success of TX by player count. I cannot stress the fact that TX has been around for 2 years and officially released for only a month enough. Tanki has had 8 years to build a playerbase, it didn't happen overnight. Of course the playerbase of TX will be lower. Once 6 more years pass then I will find it a relevant comparison.

 

The reason I disagree with the notion that TX is a failure is because it attracts a different audience compared to TO. The reasons as to why TO was successful are obviously subjective, but I think two reasons universally agreed upon are that the system requirements are low and it's a simple game easy to get into. Both mechanical and strategic skill-caps in TO are fairly low. Contrast this with TX: the system requirements are much higher and the game has more depth. It seems obvious why so few TO players switched to TX; it's a very different game at its core.

 

TX has much more potential. It more modern, both in graphics and mechanics, and thus is more appealing to new players. It is less P2W; there are regular, quality updates, and the devs seem to listen a lot more to the community. TO is an archaic game. Without a major overhaul, there isn't very far it can go. The peak has come and gone. With TX the future looks brighter, and it's far too early to judge whether it's a failure or not.

[Guest]

Let's get back on topic guys.... this isn't an argument about if TO is gonna die or not.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

The grass is not greener. Every multiplayer game I've played is miles beyond TO, it's not even funny how horribly unbalanced Tanki is currently.