What Is Your Opinion About the Current State of Tanki Online?

[POWER-OF-ONE 226]

On 1/29/2026 at 8:20 AM, NikmanGT said:

Post Moved

So I ask a couple of valid questions and you move it.

Give me the reason why it was moved.

[NikmanGT 4,709]

On 1/29/2026 at 4:46 PM, POWER-OF-ONE said:

So I ask a couple of valid questions and you move it.

Give me the reason why it was moved.

Because your so-called 'valid' questions has been already asked previously. Read the topic rules before posting from now on.

And you post was 90% criticism and not a question, perfectly suited for this topic rather than ques to devs one.

I see you dodge the valid questions and just stick to plain ranting about the game, next time do it here please instead of going off-topic when explicitly warned otherwise in the past. If you still don't seem to comply, we'll come up with a better solution to tackle your forum behavior then.

[POWER-OF-ONE 226]

On 1/29/2026 at 11:24 AM, NikmanGT said:

Because your so-called 'valid' questions has been already asked previously. Read the topic rules before posting from now on.

And you post was 90% criticism and not a question, perfectly suited for this topic rather than ques to devs one.

I see you dodge the valid questions and just stick to plain ranting about the game, next time do it here please instead of going off-topic when explicitly warned otherwise in the past. If you still don't seem to comply, we'll come up with a better solution to tackle your forum behavior then.

They were both questions ("VALID") and a criticism of a game that keeps taking for scant reward.

I have asked similar questions many, many times and NEVER been answered, Questions stretching over years.

Why do you think they never answer. Is it because they would have to lie (which they have done before) or they just avoid them because they are not pathetic cherry picked questions that are easy to answer. 

I re-read my post and there is NOTHING wrong with it.

Get a grip boy.

 

[Maf 32,865]

On 1/29/2026 at 10:01 PM, POWER-OF-ONE said:

They were both questions ("VALID") and a criticism of a game that keeps taking for scant reward.

I have asked similar questions many, many times and NEVER been answered, Questions stretching over years.

Why do you think they never answer. Is it because they would have to lie (which they have done before) or they just avoid them because they are not pathetic cherry picked questions that are easy to answer. 

I re-read my post and there is NOTHING wrong with it.

Get a grip boy.

 

Those are some of the most useless questions you could have asked, so Nikman correctly "dumped" them into here, since they're not worth having in a separate topic, or wherever they were before.

The reputation points are way to high, why is this...
For balance purposes, to ensure players progress through the ranks fast enough.

why do you insist on XP gained for every mission, why do you do this.
To prevent people farming missions on multiple accounts and accumulating rewards without ranking.

Should be pretty obvious for someone like you, who has been in the game for years.

[Dashboard 18]

I'm strictly going through actual gameplay that I've experienced,

 

I don't think the game's at its best state right now, a lot of work needs to be done both with augments and other things that includes gameplay

Personally, I'd say Vulcan, Gauss and Twins are the best turrets as of now (because of Excelsior mostly)

For Hulls, I'd go with Hopper and Crusader, Hopper is perfect for RGB, CTF and ASL meanwhile Crusader is an all-arounder Hull,

 

I play a lot with Crusader and I'd easily put it top 1 in Hulls.

[POWER-OF-ONE 226]

On 1/29/2026 at 7:32 PM, Maf said:

The reputation points are way to high, why is this...
For balance purposes, to ensure players progress through the ranks fast enough.

Are you dense, or does it come naturally.

Let me reiterate for you, as you ALWAYS get it wrong.

Having to Acquire copious amounts of rep points means you have to play longer in order to get whatever rewards are at the end of it.

Playing longer per any mission means YOU WILL rank quicker, which means YOU WILL go against higher ranks who have way better garages than you.

The reason for this "Einstein" (my argument that the rep points are to much per mission) is that ranking, at the lower ranks is very, very bad because the crystal ratio is so poor, meaning you have zero chance of upgrading anything to combat at the next rank. You with me so far ex mod, or do you want me to write my post using crayons and make all the words bigger.

More cry every battle, less rep points., No rep points when collecting on missions. Make staying at any rank longer by increasing the XP needed to rank. This last one (xp) will even help their lame balance issues in their useless MM. 

I have explained all of this in great detail a dozen times and obviously it is to complicated for you, so refrain from trying to comment/counter my VALID argument, because quite frankly, you just don't have the nous for it.

My argument for this has NEVER been about the higher ranks, ever.

The lower ranks have it so bad for a reason, so players are forced to spend cash in order to offset the abysmal rewards, which are further hindered by the high rep points.

My arguments/questions to the devs are always VALID, but because some of them deal with their precious money making, scheming ways they get ignored.

 

[Maf 32,865]

On 1/30/2026 at 3:36 AM, POWER-OF-ONE said:

Having to Acquire copious amounts of rep points means you have to play longer in order to get whatever rewards are at the end of it.

Playing longer per any mission means YOU WILL rank quicker, which means YOU WILL go against higher ranks who have way better garages than you.

Yes, it puts players against higher ranks, which in turn encourages players to spend real money on getting in-game currency to upgrade equipment. Like I said, it's part of the game's balance. The economic balance, that is.

Edited January 30 by Maf

[paul16135 154]

I posted a picture here to amuse you all, however, I got a warning for it.  Sad times.

 

Edit: What will be the severe punishment?

Edited January 31 by paul16135

[Jeers4U 746]

On 1/30/2026 at 2:38 AM, Maf said:

Yes, it puts players against higher ranks, which in turn encourages players to spend real money on getting in-game currency to upgrade equipment. Like I said, it's part of the game's balance. The economic balance, that is.

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.)

 

[POWER-OF-ONE 226]

5000 rep points in the super mission.....not happening.

6000 rep points in weekly.....not happening.

These missions are not worth it. The crystals you get back are not worth it.

None of the missions or events are worth it if you are a low ranker with "NO" protections, what is the point.

You rank, you face stronger players, you get killed quicker than before.

The shop prices are massively overpriced and augments have ruined game play, what is the point.  

 

Edited February 6 by NikmanGT
Kindly refrain from such statements

[Maf 32,865]

On 2/5/2026 at 5:59 AM, Jeers4U said:

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).

Rank progression and matchmaking game balance are separate things, in my opinion. You can have a game that still heavily relies on P2W but at the same time has balanced games. It just needs to have an accurate assessment of each player's skill level and split the teams evenly. One team could have a huge range of players with different ranks, GS and skill levels, but the battle would hypothetically still be balanced if the other team has an equally different range of players that adds up to the same power overall.

But I said it before and I'll say it again — genuine perfect game balance is impossible in both real life and video games, because various external/random factors can influence how people perform from game to game even if all conditions are kept the same.

[POWER-OF-ONE 226]

It's pathetic that they force xp onto you at every turn.

Pure scam artists.

I might play the odd battle but I never collect on their scam missions, not any more.

Legends are the only one's that gain anything from their forced xp. Every other rank suffers because of it, pathetic.

Edited February 11 by POWER-OF-ONE

[Jeers4U 746]

On 2/7/2026 at 3:58 PM, Maf said:

But I said it before and I'll say it again — genuine perfect game balance is impossible in both real life and video games, because various external/random factors can influence how people perform from game to game even if all conditions are kept the same.

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.

 

[Maf 32,865]

On 2/12/2026 at 11:04 PM, Jeers4U said:

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'.

There's this theory that Opex talked about in a livestream a while ago (and I paraphrased his words in another thread) which claims that 100% balanced battles are actually bad for player retention. So while it may seem extremely counter-intuitive at first, studies show* that if every single game was an even match, then people would play less overall.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. If I have non-stop interesting, close matches in a row, which require my full concentration the whole time, then it's going to take much less time for me to become a) mentally fatigued and b) satisfied with my play session, which will result in me closing the game sooner. 

On the other hand, if only 1 in 3 battles is a close and balanced match, then my session will consist of short periods of concentration interspersed by skewed games where the win or loss is obvious from the start, so they become a casual exercise in shooting tanks and scoring points. This way it will take me longer before I'm tired and had enough "good" games to be satisfied with the session, so I'm more likely to play longer.

That's a potential other reason for intentionally bad matchmaking, besides "make money". In fact, I don't even see how making money is a valid reason for bad MM, since if you're a buyer with maxed out equipment who's been given a trash team, then I don't see how playing a game like that would make you want to spend more.

 

*I could find the actual study, but this is just a forum post so I don't really care. You're gonna have to make do with source: trust me bro.

[LambSauce 1,930]

On 2/12/2026 at 7:24 PM, Maf said:

There's this theory that Opex talked about in a livestream a while ago (and I paraphrased his words in another thread) which claims that 100% balanced battles are actually bad for player retention.

This sounds like such cope coming from Hazel  the real reason is almost certainly the lack of players queuing up for MM

[Acecaddy 71]

I am really Impressed
I have never seen a game fail so miserably at handling their game, that even discord members constantly take a gag on how much of a joke this game is.
but hey, what can you do? its all about them green papers that people are for some reason so desperate to throw at this absolute joke of a game.

[Hypersomnia 1,877]

On 2/12/2026 at 9:24 PM, Maf said:

There's this theory that Opex talked about in a livestream a while ago

not much of a theory.

80/20 rule. 80% of your revenue is generated by 20% of your buyers. 

unbalanced MM created environment where new conveniently OP stuff is like soft core cheating. Free dopamine. you toy gets nerfed and is not a cheat code anymore? No dopamine and brain no like that. Brain chase dopamine so it chases the new OP toy.

average peasant with his trash clown emoji equipment beats the OP guy? the peasant gets small amount of dopamine. and so on

coming back from a clearly losing game to winning it generates way more dopamine for both beloved buyers and... peasants... than for example a close but balanced game.

op*x just needs to keep the 20% hooked while giving just enough for the lower tier players to be able to beat the 20% in some situations. as long as that ying yang exist both sides will be happy without even realising it. some peasants and buyers 'escape the matrix'? not a problem, we clearly see that new peasants and buyers are still enough to replace the old generation.

this cannot happen in 'balanced' tanki. thats why they're pushing you to play MM and not PRO battles where balanced games can be achieved pretty easily. thats why the 'average' player quit before even reaching WO1 back when balanced and fair PRO battles were the dominant match type.

[Wry 142]

On 2/7/2026 at 11:58 PM, Maf said:

genuine perfect game balance is impossible in both real life and video games

Who said anything about being perfect? This is a common misunderstanding which is being used to defend poor balance. No one is asking for perfection. Balance can be achieved without being perfect. It depends on how you define the word "balance". Based on how you worded your argument, you think that being balanced means that every team in every single match has 50% win rate which is "perfection" and since we can't achieve perfection, you players should not complain about how unfair MM is. But this is a stupid argument.
An example to compare is League of legends which has 170+ champions, millions of players, so many different builds and items, so many different mechanics, so many different interactions and thus, so many factors that play a role in deciding which team wins the game. Despite all that, if you look at the win rates across all champions in different ranks, you will see that the highest win rate is close to 54% and the lowest is 45%. Now compare that to Tanki which in every single game you can tell by looking at tab that a certain team will 100% win the game in at least 90% of the time.

Edited February 13 by Wry

[Jeers4U 746]

 

On 2/12/2026 at 2:24 PM, Maf said:

100% balanced battles are actually bad for player retention

I counter with chess is 100% balanced and seems to be still hanging around as something people play...

 

On 2/12/2026 at 2:24 PM, Maf said:

There's this theory that Opex talked about in a livestream

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.

 

On 2/12/2026 at 2:24 PM, Maf said:

That's a potential other reason for intentionally bad matchmaking, besides "make money". In fact, I don't even see how making money is a valid reason for bad MM, since if you're a buyer with maxed out equipment who's been given a trash team, then I don't see how playing a game like that would make you want to spend more.

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.

Edited February 13 by Jeers4U
as always, good discussion maf.

[Jeers4U 746]

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...

Edited February 13 by Jeers4U

[LambSauce 1,930]

On 2/13/2026 at 9:17 PM, Jeers4U said:

I counter with chess is 100% balanced and seems to be still hanging around as something people play...

Yes, well there's no such thing as P2W in chess. Also it's mathematically almost perfectly balanced. It's a bit silly to compare that to an online MMO game.

[Jeers4U 746]

On 2/13/2026 at 7:20 PM, LambSauce said:

Yes, well there's no such thing as P2W in chess. Also it's mathematically almost perfectly balanced. It's a bit silly to compare that to an online MMO game.

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.

[Maf 32,865]

On 2/14/2026 at 1:17 AM, Jeers4U said:

I counter with chess is 100% balanced and seems to be still hanging around as something people play...

Apples to oranges comparison. Chess didn't come about as an online game that needs to compete with other forms of online entertainment to stay relevant.

On 2/14/2026 at 1:17 AM, Jeers4U said:

Tanki is playing the short-viral money-game vs the long, slow money-game.

How can you say that Tanki is playing any sort of "short money game" if the game has stayed active for over 15 years?

On 2/14/2026 at 1:17 AM, Jeers4U said:

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'm not sure what your point is here, but to me it seems that a generic P2W game doesn't require battles to be unbalanced. You could have battles where the teams are equal by GS, but within the team itself, there's a massive range of GS, so that the low GS players suffer and will be incentivised to spend money to become more competitive. But the overall battle would be balanced.

So that's why I'm saying that I don't see how a skewed MM that intentionally makes "blowout" battles would help generate more revenue.

[POWER-OF-ONE 226]

On 2/14/2026 at 7:01 PM, Maf said:

 I'm not sure what your point is here, but to me it seems that a generic P2W game doesn't require battles to be unbalanced.

You say.

 Does not require battles to be unbalanced.

Then you say.

On 2/14/2026 at 7:01 PM, Maf said:

You could have battles where the teams are equal by GS, but within the team itself, there's a massive range of GS, so that the low GS players suffer and will be incentivised to spend money to become more competitive.

So the top statement claims a P2W TO does not require itself to be unbalanced. You then backtrack and say low G/S players who want to compete will have to spend cash, or stay "getting smoked" in the majority of battles. (not your words but my words carry more weight) 

 

On 2/14/2026 at 7:01 PM, Maf said:

So that's why I'm saying that I don't see how a skewed MM that intentionally makes "blowout" battles would help generate more revenue.

And this just reiterates how backward your entire post is.

You have never changed, you "ALWAYS" get it wrong.

TO MM=unbalanced on purpose. Reason=To generate cash from those getting wasted in every battle and to empower the buyers at the same time.

@Maf  Can you see how my statement is not only TRUE, but makes complete sense as it reflects how the game has been ran for years.

[Maf 32,865]

On 2/15/2026 at 1:29 PM, POWER-OF-ONE said:

So the top statement claims a P2W TO does not require itself to be unbalanced. You then backtrack and say low G/S players who want to compete will have to spend cash, or stay "getting smoked" in the majority of battles. (not your words but my words carry more weight) 

Balanced teams and balanced MM battles are two separate and non-exclusive conditions. You can have two evenly matched teams (balanced battle), but both teams have a large range of GS, with weak players struggling to compete and gain score on each team (unbalanced teams).