Valid Trading with a special pass

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

On 1/3/2024 at 6:29 AM, Maf said:

Every option is an overall negative for Tanki, so why bother adding it

Though I do agree that this idea would be border line economical suicide for the devs, lets not forget that just about every update they have added to the game has had a "NEGATIVE" impact on the majority of players. Let the devs give back to it's players with an update that benefits EVERY player, an update with real meaning that players can benefit from. 

I won't go through the HUGE list of negative updates, been there, done that, got the Tanki -T-Shirt, etc, etc but this idea is a novel one and it's an idea that could be implemented to a certain degree and with enough careful thought put into it, "as a one off opportunity to bring another account up to levels good enough to compete."

I have several accounts created over many years (like a lot of players) which have now become obsolete, due mainly to the amount of augments that have infested the game.

These were decent/good accounts that I played, especially when I got bored with my main and wanted a different kind of challenge.

My proposal is simple:- allow the exchange between two accounts only, regardless of how many accounts you have, only a select two can be part of the exchange.

Set a date and a 24 hr time limit to do the exchange between accounts. These will include crystals, skins, modules, hulls, turrets and augments, including all supplies, tankoins (maybe set a limit on the tankoins you can give to another account, say 3000.) Also set a rank limit, WO1-General so as not to have an inundation of lower accounts with MK-7 capabilities, though I do confess that there could/probably will be some accounts with MK-7 gear after the exchange.

WO1-to General means you can only exchange between "these two ranks" it does not imply that you can give to these two ranks from say an alt Legend account, that would break the game even more than it is now. I mentioned augments, these would have to be curtailed to one augment per turret and hull for blatantly obvious reasons, the same reasons why you can't give from a alt Legend account, far to game breaking.

I have no doubt that some players in the forum will find fault with my proposal, so any and all tweaks are welcome, though I'd say I have made a fair and reasonable attempt at implementing this novel idea that gives something for players to look forward to, floating trash cans not withstanding.

On 1/3/2024 at 6:29 AM, Maf said:

Trading will only be added if every trade involves a substantial fee in tankoins. And I'm talking hundreds, if not thousands of tankoins per trade.

Just read through your post again. I always do my best to understand a post I'm replying to and to make my response worthy and valid. 

Why does it have to involve the devs making wads of cash from it.

Can the devs for once not give back to it's player base without exacting a heavy price which would make the exchange, "TOTALLY NOT WORTH DOING"

On 1/3/2024 at 7:06 AM, frederik123456 said:

And easily exploitable via alts..

Which is why I have given it some thought and put provisos in to minimise the obvious exploits.

Let's all get on the same page shall we.

Every player with a reasonably functioning brain knows this will probably never happen. "IT SHOULD HAPPEN" for the reasons I have stated, to give back to players who have committed lots of time and probably at the very least some form of revenue to the game.

The devs have systematically over the years devalued players accounts so much it makes a lot of them useless.

The devs can and should make this happen. It's the very least they can and should do for those players who have remained loyal over the years to this game, even though the "GAME" has done it's best to alienate a lot of these players. 

Just realised you actually made this topic "valid." Care to explain why you would do this for such an outlandish proposal!!! 

Just to clarify. Exchanges are only between two of your own accounts, not amongst friends. 

Edited January 3, 2024 by MEXICAN-SKY

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/3/2024 at 5:05 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Just realised you actually made this topic "valid." Care to explain why you would do this for such an outlandish proposal!!!

Is this a problem? I can decline it if you insist

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

On 1/3/2024 at 6:02 PM, Maf said:

Is this a problem? I can decline it if you insist

Typical non answer.

Now how about answering the question.

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/4/2024 at 12:14 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Typical non answer.

Now how about answering the question.

Something like a trading system falls into the overall economic balance of Tanki Online, which is an aspect completely separate from things like gameplay mechanics, interface design and equipment balance. For that reason I'm not too keen on having such ideas, because it's obvious that players want it to be added not because it's a cool or interesting feature, but because it would help them benefit by getting the items they want cheaper or easier. In fact, I'd even argue that trading should fall under rule 2(d) of I&S - no ideas regarding refund or sale of items. But whatever, we'll keep this one valid.

On 1/3/2024 at 5:05 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

My proposal is simple:- allow the exchange between two accounts only, regardless of how many accounts you have, only a select two can be part of the exchange.

I don't even understand what exactly you're proposing above. What does it mean to "only trade between two accounts" and how is that a restriction? If I have a hundred free-to-play accounts of similar ranks, I can just trade between them, doing one trade at a time, to get the items I want on one account.

The rank range is not a problem. Devs already established a long time ago that they're comfortable with allowing low ranks to have Legend-tier equipment, because "those accounts will rank up very fast when they play, and they will soon reach Legend rank anyway".

The problem is that by opening random free containers on many accounts, on some of them you will eventually get some augments, paints or skins that you like. So then you can just trade those items onto your one main account (in exchange for some trash status augment you don't care about) and enjoy them all on your main. The result is as I said above - instead of having an incentive to spend real money to get more container keys, you're just funnelling good items from your alts onto your main for free. This is why any kind of trading system would inevitably require a very high payment for every trade.

On 1/3/2024 at 5:05 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

hy does it have to involve the devs making wads of cash from it.

Can the devs for once not give back to it's player base without exacting a heavy price which would make the exchange, "TOTALLY NOT WORTH DOING"

This is why I don't like to discuss features that affect the game's economy. They're difficult to understand and difficult to explain, so I'd rather just leave it to the experts and focus on gameplay/interface/community ideas instead.

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

On 1/4/2024 at 8:29 AM, Maf said:

I don't even understand what exactly you're proposing above. What does it mean to "only trade between two accounts" and how is that a restriction?

Okkkkkkk.

You have 100 accounts.

You are only allowed to trade between two of them.

Pick the two accounts you want to trade with, the other 98 are null and void in the trade.

Simples.

On 1/4/2024 at 8:29 AM, Maf said:

The rank range is not a problem. Devs already established a long time ago that they're comfortable with allowing low ranks to have Legend-tier equipment, because "those accounts will rank up very fast when they play, and they will soon reach Legend rank anyway"

Lets digress a moment into MM.

This concept/thinking about low ranks being able to acquire high ranked equipment is one of the "MANY" reasons that so many Legends have pathetic garages, not least because their protection modules (for what they are worth) are blatantly sub standard on a good day. This is because there are so many of them and they cost "FORTUNES" to upgrade.

On 1/4/2024 at 8:29 AM, Maf said:

So then you can just trade those items onto your one main account

That's the point/incentive to this idea.

Like I wrote in my earlier post. This would be a one off good gesture by the devs to give players something to "want" to play for, something to look forward to with genuine anticipation.   

It's a novel concept and would genuinely win the hearts and minds of the players. 

On 1/4/2024 at 8:29 AM, Maf said:

so I'd rather just leave it to the experts

And who might they be? 

Edited January 6, 2024 by MEXICAN-SKY

[Dopamine 2,161]

On 1/6/2024 at 2:12 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

You have 100 accounts.

You are only allowed to trade between two of them.

Pick the two accounts you want to trade with, the other 98 are null and void in the trade.

Simples.

Not really "simples".

If I understand correctly, you propose each account can only have one exclusive trading partner.

Now imagine you actually pick a real player, not your alt account. what happens if this player stops playing the game, are you not allowed to trade with anyone anymore? Can you change your trading partner? Will that be free with a cooldown or paid for?

This is just one scenario that already complicates the implementation of the idea.

I am not saying it's impossible, but again, alternativa platform is first and foremost a private company and it would be really hard to convince the executives to allocate worktime to developers for implementing a feature that:

1. will yield no economic benefit

2. has high probability of being exploited

3. has potential unforseeable consequences

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/6/2024 at 5:12 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

This would be a one off good gesture by the devs to give players something to "want" to play for, something to look forward to with genuine anticipation. 

Adding an ability to refund items could also be considered a "one off good gesture", but it would also completely destroy the economic balance and likely kill the game. That's why we don't accept ideas for things that directly benefit players' ability to get more currency/items, and that's why this idea is on the verge of being declined for the same reason.

On 1/6/2024 at 5:12 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

And who might they be?

We don't know Alternativa's company structure, but it's almost certain that they have a full-time employee who keeps track of sales and revenue. This person will be able to predict/calculate the impact of adding or removing freebies, and this is the kind of person who decides "yes, we can give a token of apology with a thousand tankoins" or "no, we can't give players a higher reward for rankups".

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

On 1/6/2024 at 8:11 AM, frederik123456 said:

Now imagine you actually pick a real player, not your alt account.

-Let me stop you right there. 

I obviously didn't make my original post clear enough, even though I did. Try reading the bottom line of MY ORIGINAL post.

YOU (any player) can only trade with your own accounts. If you DO NOT have an alt account, then the trade does not apply to you.

There you go-SIMPLES.

On 1/6/2024 at 8:11 AM, frederik123456 said:

1. will yield no economic benefit

After doing the trade, any particular player will imo feel more obliged to keep on top of their new, shiny, up to scratch and better upgraded account, I would, because after this one off opportunity I/any player, would be dumb not to.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 8:11 AM, frederik123456 said:

2. has high probability of being exploited

Already covered this, so point 2 does not apply.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 8:11 AM, frederik123456 said:

3. has potential unforseeable consequences

With my idea, can't really see this as being a problem.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 7:22 PM, Maf said:

but it would also completely destroy the economic balance and likely kill the game.

You seriously believe that, or is that you either playing devils advocate, or just going against me because it's "my" idea. To rebut your post, the economics of the game would at best take a small hit for a very short period of time and as I have said, imo it would benefit "THE GAME" as a whole, players and the devs/the company alike.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 7:22 PM, Maf said:

or "no, we can't give players a higher reward for rankups".

That last bit is just downright greed.

At the moment this game still has a hard core player base of buyers, how long they will have them is anyone's guess. You can only screw players over for so long that even the brainwashed buyers will say, "enough is enough". 

I wonder how many genuine new players will spend on this game to match the old guard, (the brainwashed) 

On 1/6/2024 at 7:22 PM, Maf said:

and that's why this idea is on the verge of being declined for the same reason.

Decline away.

Edited January 7, 2024 by MEXICAN-SKY

[PirateSpider 1,489]

On 1/4/2024 at 12:29 AM, Maf said:

don't even understand what exactly you're proposing above. What does it mean to "only trade between two accounts" and how is that a restriction? If I have a hundred free-to-play accounts of similar ranks, I can just trade between them, doing one trade at a time, to get the items I want on one account.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 12:11 AM, frederik123456 said:

If I understand correctly, you propose each account can only have one exclusive trading partner.

I think he means that once the first exchange has completed, no two other accounts can take part in another exchange.

For example, if A and B already traded between each other, C and D cannot make an exchange amongst themselves, neither can E and F or G and H, etc.

[Dopamine 2,161]

On 1/7/2024 at 1:43 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

-Let me stop you right there. 

I obviously didn't make my original post clear enough, even though I did. Try reading the bottom line of MY ORIGINAL post.

YOU (any player) can only trade with your own accounts. If you DO NOT have an alt account, then the trade does not apply to you.

There you go-SIMPLES.

Wow, alright, I honestly did not expect that.

Do you realize how selective that is?

Why should players with alt accounts be prioritized in such way over the rest of the playerbase?

In fact, the whole point why multiaccounts are even allowed in this game is the idea you should not be able to interact and gain advantage over other players using these accounts (rules 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 hint at this).

This would already be pushing it a bit even if the feature was for all players, alts included. Making it for mutliaccounts-only is on a whole another level.

Disregarding all the aforementioned arguments, it would also be met with a lot of criticism by the playerbase for such a selective update.

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/7/2024 at 4:43 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

You seriously believe that, or is that you either playing devils advocate, or just going against me because it's "my" idea. To rebut your post, the economics of the game would at best take a small hit for a very short period of time and as I have said, imo it would benefit "THE GAME" as a whole, players and the devs/the company alike.

I've been involved with this project for over a decade, so I've watched it change and noticed how certain updates affect further development.

Remember the Rebalance of 2012? That's when the developers made fundamental changes to equipment and decided to completely refund players' whole garages into crystals and give them a fresh start. Everyone was very happy that finally devs are "giving back for once". But do you think they were so happy that they decided to reward developers by spending real money? Nope, quite the oppposite.

Because everyone suddenly had enough crystals to buy all the equipment they needed, revenue was at a record low, so a few months later came the infamous Update 123, which slashed battle funds in half and made battles not worth playing. It was so bad, that myself and a few other people decided to play only private PRO battles without supplies, because normal games were unplayable. Mind you, this is 2013, i.e. the time that many people often say was the "best Tanki".

My point is that the game's economy is a sensitive subject and features like trading between accounts cannot be added without proper consideration, meaning that such a massive benefit would have to be compensated either by unreasonable limitations (pay 2000 tk for each trade), or by removal of other freebies (such as fewer containers from missions and challenges).

On 1/7/2024 at 4:43 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

At the moment this game still has a hard core player base of buyers, how long they will have them is anyone's guess. You can only screw players over for so long that even the brainwashed buyers will say, "enough is enough". 

Idk man, people have been saying "enough is enough" and "this is the final straw" for every bad update since 2012, yet here we are 12 years later. Devs wouldn't be able to keep the game alive for so long if their mindset was just greed.

[Hypersomnia 1,695]

On 1/8/2024 at 1:03 PM, Maf said:

Remember the Rebalance of 2012? That's when the developers made fundamental changes to equipment and decided to completely refund players' whole garages into crystals and give them a fresh start. Everyone was very happy that finally devs are "giving back for once". But do you think they were so happy that they decided to reward developers by spending real money? Nope, quite the oppposite.

I love how F2P players in this game keep saying that devs are greedy yet they're one of the greediest F2P players i've seen and I played many games with gigantic playerbases. What Maf said here is correct. Similar thing happened in a game I knew that was extremely F2P friendly and guess what? It's servers were shut down after 2 years. In every game I play F2Ps know that "Whales" and Buyers will be stronger than them no matter what and they're completely fine with it. Yeah some complain but its like 1%. Nobody complains about free rewards and instead discusses if they should buy this or that with guess who... BUYERS. Every game I play F2P and P2P co-exists peacefully with Buyers helping F2Ps make decisions meanwhile here F2Ps see buyers are the Boogeyman that killed their family which makes P2Ps hostile towards F2Ps and it's a never ending circle of chaos lol. 

 

On 1/8/2024 at 1:03 PM, Maf said:

Idk man, people have been saying "enough is enough" and "this is the final straw" for every bad update since 2012, yet here we are 12 years later. Devs wouldn't be able to keep the game alive for so long if their mindset was just greed.

Forgot the "dead game".

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

On 1/7/2024 at 7:03 AM, frederik123456 said:

o you realize how selective that is

Not really.

I think every player has at least one alt account.

Making it so you could trade between "different players" would be a bad idea, hence you can only trade with yourself to concentrate on your main and one other good account.

I have several accounts that before certain updates were good strong accounts that I always kept up to date. Now they are just a waste of space and never get used.

On 1/7/2024 at 7:03 AM, frederik123456 said:

Disregarding all the aforementioned arguments, it would also be met with a lot of criticism by the playerbase for such a selective update

With the parameters I have set out, I doubt that very much. And since when do the devs care about "dissatisfied players" after the abysmal updates they have brought into the game over the years.

 

On 1/8/2024 at 11:03 AM, Maf said:

Remember the Rebalance of 2012?

Nope. I didn't start until mid 2013.

 

On 1/8/2024 at 11:03 AM, Maf said:

But do you think they were so happy that they decided to reward developers by spending real money? Nope, quite the oppposite.

Spending real money is the root cause of all the bad press they get. It's the nefarious way in which they do it, and the overpricing of gear that always gets nerfed when they can't make anymore from it.

 

On 1/8/2024 at 11:03 AM, Maf said:

Mind you, this is 2013, i.e. the time that many people often say was the "best Tanki"

I wasn't one of them.

 

On 1/8/2024 at 11:03 AM, Maf said:

such as fewer containers from missions and challenges).

Suits me.

The containers are filled with so many useless fillers and the fact they got nerfed, makes them unworthy of even thinking about finishing any challenge.

On 1/8/2024 at 11:03 AM, Maf said:

Devs wouldn't be able to keep the game alive for so long if their mindset was just greed.

The devs keep the game going because they know the mindset of the player base, which is why they get away with what they do.

The buyers just have to have the latest overpriced gimmick. They lost their free will a long time ago and have been slaves to the game ever since. This is exactly what the devs want and the more players this happens to, the better it is for the game.  

Once the devs have players like these in their pocket then greed just goes into overdrive, because the buyer slaves just can't help themselves.

So yeah, their mindset is based on greed and nothing else.

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/9/2024 at 2:10 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Spending real money is the root cause of all the bad press they get. It's the nefarious way in which they do it, and the overpricing of gear that always gets nerfed when they can't make anymore from it.

Unfortunately, P2W is what the people actually want to buy. The only cosmetic non-P2W items that people care about are either exclusive skins, which are very time-consuming to create, or brand new types of cosmetics, like the very first animated paint, the very first custom sound shot effect, very first skin, etc., which aren't a sustainable source of revenue.

Devs already tried to make a game that was mostly focused on selling cosmetics instead of P2W items. You can see where it ended up. If Tanki Online is to stay alive, it needs to maintain a certain level of P2W and devs can't afford do implement features like a trading system that would allow players to easily exchange exotic augments and funnel them from their alts to their main account.

On 1/9/2024 at 2:10 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

The devs keep the game going because they know the mindset of the player base, which is why they get away with what they do.

The buyers just have to have the latest overpriced gimmick. They lost their free will a long time ago and have been slaves to the game ever since. This is exactly what the devs want and the more players this happens to, the better it is for the game.  

Once the devs have players like these in their pocket then greed just goes into overdrive, because the buyer slaves just can't help themselves.

So yeah, their mindset is based on greed and nothing else.

You may have a valid point there. I think Tanki's audience is more loyal compared to the typical online F2P user in other games, so that might allow developers to get away with implementing more extreme monetisation strategies while still retaining the audience.

That being said, Tanki Online is far from a typical "pump and dump" greed-fuelled scheme. I'll say this again — it takes serious dedication to retain an audience in a browser-based video game for over a decade, and this can only be achieved if the project managers really care about the game's survival. And if they care about the game's survival, they will be careful to only implement features that benefit the game in the long term.

In fact, I believe that this is what they've been doing the whole time and I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I challenge you to prove me wrong.

 

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

On 1/9/2024 at 7:20 AM, Maf said:

it takes serious dedication to retain an audience in a browser-based video game for over a decade, and this can only be achieved if the project managers really care about the game's survival

The dedication comes in at the beginning. Once the devs realise that players are hooked, then they implement their cash driven idea's and they do this at an ever increased rate.

THE biggest criticisms about the game are the lag issues, (especially their useless re-mastered maps) the constant nerfing of gear, the increased shop prices, never, ever acting on player feedback and I don't mean stupid childish complaints by idiotic kids who have no idea whatsoever what is happening. This list is nigh on endless and I would need at least a couple of hrs to list and explain everything that makes this game more often than not, useless. 

As for proven you wrong! That's a bit of a non challenge from you to me. I also believe this is what they have been doing for all these years, and making cash by any means possible is all the motivation they need. 

On 1/9/2024 at 7:20 AM, Maf said:

Tanki Online is far from a typical "pump and dump" greed-fuelled scheme.

That is all it is. All you have to do is go to the shop to see their massively over inflated prices.

The devs are greedy beyond description, but it's the addicted players that keep the process going. 

On 1/9/2024 at 7:20 AM, Maf said:

devs can't afford do implement features like a trading system that would allow players to easily exchange exotic augments and funnel them from their alts to their main account

Why do you mods never read my posts properly. What you posted above is not what I suggested.

My idea had certain criteria to make sure that high accounts could not trade.

If your going to critique me, then at least do it on what I actually wrote and not what you thought I wrote.

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/13/2024 at 2:40 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

That is all it is. All you have to do is go to the shop to see their massively over inflated prices.

Cant argue with that. The prices are pretty insane.

But that doesn't make it a "pump and dump". Prices in any market are driven by demand, so if people are buying the offers, then prices will stay as is.

On 1/13/2024 at 2:40 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

As for proven you wrong! That's a bit of a non challenge from you to me. I also believe this is what they have been doing for all these years, and making cash by any means possible is all the motivation they need. 

Well? Give an example then.

An example of a feature or update that developers added, which intentionally does not help the game in any way, short term or long term.

On 1/13/2024 at 2:40 AM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Why do you mods never read my posts properly. What you posted above is not what I suggested.

My idea had certain criteria to make sure that high accounts could not trade.

Can you explain it in a different way please? Your explanation was not very clear and we had to guess what you meant.

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

On 1/13/2024 at 6:52 PM, Maf said:

Your explanation was not very clear

Really.

 

On 1/3/2024 at 1:05 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Also set a rank limit, WO1-General so as not to have an inundation of lower accounts with MK-7 capabilities

 

On 1/3/2024 at 1:05 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

WO1-to General means you can only exchange between "these two ranks" it does not imply that you can give to these two ranks from say an alt Legend account,

 

On 1/3/2024 at 1:05 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Just to clarify. Exchanges are only between two of your own accounts, not amongst friends.

I seriously do not know how this is not "CRYSTAL CLEAR".

This proves that you did not read through my post with any thought as to what it was referring to, mainly in regards to moderating the ideas I had mentioned. My solution to provide a one off trade between "TWO OF YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS" is rather good AND very clear. Of course like all new ideas it will need a few tweaks, just to bring it up to speed. 

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

On 1/13/2024 at 6:52 PM, Maf said:

Well? Give an example then

I wasn't going to comment on this. I have gave multiple examples over quite a few years, so to go over them again is pointless, so I'm not going to. 

 

On 1/13/2024 at 6:52 PM, Maf said:

which intentionally does not help the game in any way

Lets re-word this a tad shall we.

Which intentionally does not help the "PLAYERS" in any way.

On 1/13/2024 at 6:52 PM, Maf said:

An example of a feature or update that developers added,........THAT SCREWED PLAYERS OVER BIG TIME and when enough players complained about it and they had made loads of cash from it guess what, "they fixed it" so that vulcans heat immunity no longer worked in conjunction with it's incendiary ability. They said it was a glitch and that it was now fixed. A BLATANT, LOW LIFE, AND DISPICABLE MISERABLE LIE.   

I am going to list just one of the dozens that I could mention. If you do not believe that I have a list that is very long then offer me 1000 tk to "ALL OF MY ACCOUNTS" for every one that I know I can list, because obviously you (foolishly) are doubting me. Go on mod, call me out.

I have already mentioned this by editing your post, but here's a freebie, no tk needed.

Vulcan's ability to shower enemies with bullets that dealt massive heat damage on top of the normal damage whilst not over heating.

Next time you ask for evidence about the nefarious way in which this lot operates I think you had better do some homework first.

Your challenge to me has now turned into my challenge to you.

I need tk for my major account to get MK6 gear, so if you don't mind get a move on and call me out.

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/20/2024 at 9:19 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

This proves that you did not read through my post with any thought as to what it was referring to, mainly in regards to moderating the ideas I had mentioned. My solution to provide a one off trade between "TWO OF YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS" is rather good AND very clear. Of course like all new ideas it will need a few tweaks, just to bring it up to speed. 

In that case, your idea is 100% declined for reasons outlined in previous posts. Just to reiterate:

• It makes no sense for developers to encourage users to create multiple accounts. This is true for ANY online service*.
• It's unfair to users without multiple accounts.
• There is no benefit whatsoever for devs implementing this. It just allows players to get more stuff for free, unless there is a massive price for each trade.

You're not the OP of this topic's initial idea though, and the original is somewhat different. So it stays valid.

*besides scammers and pyramid schemes, but even if you think that Tanki is a scam, for this discussion we'll assume that Alternativa is genuinely trying to maintain a legitimate online business.

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/20/2024 at 9:44 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

I wasn't going to comment on this. I have gave multiple examples over quite a few years, so to go over them again is pointless, so I'm not going to. 

I'm not gonna go through all of your posts from all of your forum accounts, just like how I don't expect you to go through all of my posts to find something that I already said in the past. I repeated myself countless times, and I'm willing to do it again if it helps the conversation.

On 1/20/2024 at 9:44 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Lets re-word this a tad shall we.

Which intentionally does not help the "PLAYERS" in any way.

Not every update is meant to help every player. In fact, some updates are "necessary evils" that negatively affect ALL players, but are essential to implement anyway in order to help the project survive. That's how F2P games (and services as a whole) work and it's not going to change, ever.

On 1/20/2024 at 9:44 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Let's re-word this a tad shall we.

If you start editing my quotes, this whole conversation becomes pointless. I phrased my request very carefully.

My original statement was that developers are doing everything they can to help this game survive and retain an audience for as long as possible, and that every new feature or update they implement is on the path towards making the game better.

To counter my statement you gave an example that devs gave Vulcan an OP ability.

• If this change was indeed a bug, then the argument is invalid, because I asked for examples of changes that were made intentionally, and bugs are not intentional.
• If this change was intentional, then its purpose was to get more people to spend money on the game to get their hands on this shiny new OP Vulcan. Therefore, the game generated more revenue and this update was beneficial overall. Thus my point still stands.

It's important to note that for an update to "make the game better", the update does not necessarily need to "make players happier". Adding new types of monetisation is an example of an update that's good for the game overall, but doesn't benefit F2P players at all.

[RED-69 0]

On 1/20/2024 at 7:01 PM, Maf said:

f this change was indeed a bug,

It was not a bug.

 

On 1/20/2024 at 7:01 PM, Maf said:

because I asked for examples of changes that were made intentionally,

It was made intentionally, (are you so blind or just mimicking two short planks.) It was to make loads of cash from players/buyers to get hold of the latest and very OP gear.

 

On 1/20/2024 at 7:01 PM, Maf said:

and that every new feature or update they implement is on the path towards making the game better.

For who, because it certainly very rarely helps the players. 

Adios mod, your a waste of space and a drain on my intellect. I can only converse with someone several tiers below my intelligence before I become bored of trying to explain simple, yet very effective ways in which the devs rip players off on a whim.

 

[Maf 32,300]

On 1/20/2024 at 11:41 PM, RED-69 said:

It was to make loads of cash

Exactly, which is good for the game, once again proving my point.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯