update Continuing experiments

[Alterity 13]

Experiment 2.0 (16 v 16) is an interesting experiment that has garnered mixed reviews from the community. One thing I can confirm is the addition of new maps to matchmaking is well received by the community. It is refreshing to play in new maps. Games are more intense and overall create an amazing gameplay experience. Also, being able to play with 4 players in a  group is a great way to play with friends. On the topic of player reception of the experiment, from my experience in the experiment as well as speaking to various players and gathering their opinions, I understand both perspectives of the experiment being good and bad. Below, I listed various ways the developers could utilize the experiment and improve the game. 

*Disclaimer: I am speaking through a lens of pure gameplay regardless of turrets, hulls, augments, overdrives, and drones. Yes I know there are some controversies regarding drones and such. They are part of the gameplay and I am grouping all of this as whole.

*Disclaimer 2: I am legend rank 21. I've played Tanki since 2009 on multiple accounts. My opinion may be clouded by my experience longtime experience. Just pointing that out to create an understanding of my view. I will attempt to be as objective as possible.

*Disclaimer 3: This is my opinion and not factual.

8 v 8 for small maps

10 v 10 for medium maps

12 v 12 or 14 v 14 for large maps

The game mode should also matter too. 16 v 16 in certain game modes are not great. I've listed modes ranking in order of fun with the gameplay I've had.

CP: This mode is the best gameplay experience for me.16 v 16 is great for CP as there is more teamwork involved in capturing points and games are usually very competitive to the last second. 

Siege: The second best gameplay experience for me. It is pure intensity rushing for the point with your teammates. 16 v 16 for siege is great. 

CTF mode: The most popular mode. 16 v 16 is too much for this mode on certain maps. There are moments in games where it is impossible get to the enemy base. There are also moments where a game becomes very one-sided leading to a fast game. 

Assault: Gameplay experience in this mode is intense and fun. However, 16 v 16 may be too much in certain maps. 

TDM: Decent. Feels like regular TDM but with more players and much more intensity

Juggernaut: This is my least played mode. Personally, I do not like this mode. I feel that my disdain for this mode will severely cloud my judgement of how 16 v 16 feels in it. I will try to be as objective as possible. 16 v 16 in Juggernaut mode is in a good direction for those who enjoy the mode. There are times where I found myself, a person who usually does not enjoy Juggernaut mode, truly having a fun gameplay experience. 

Concluding Statement:

This experiment presented itself a lot of promise. I will be honest when I first heard of it, I made the assumption that I would hate it. I do not. 16 v 16 enhanced gameplay and the increased intensity is amazing. One key word I keep noticing when I speak to other players about it is intensity. Intensity creates an atmosphere within games that allow players to become fully immersed in the game. 16 v 16 has its positives and negatives and I feel like it could be a stepping stone for Tanki's improvement. The implementation of new maps is definitely a positive and I feel Tanki developers should look into implementing more maps. The Tanki developers should look into balancing the amount of players in each map and each mode. Some modes and maps should have a certain amount of players to keep gameplay intense and balanced for all. This is my first post on the forum. I hope this reaches you guys well. 

Thank You,
SelenophiIe

[Spy 14,687]

8 minutes ago, SelenophiIe said:

 

Topic merged.

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

Thanks for the deadline date. The 16th of December is tomorrow, so today is the last day of this experiment. Please keep this thread open for as long as possible so that all players taking part in this experiment can give their feedback on how it all went for them.

[DestrotankAI9 1,513]

Hey, well a lot of players have already given great feedback and covered most of the important points about this 2nd experiment, but having played it quite a bit over the last 2 weeks I thought I might as well give my feedback also, so here are a few things (sorry in advance for the long post, but a lot needs to be said):

Overall: Overall this experiment shows some promise as to new things which could be added to the game (larger team sizes and new maps) but there is no doubt that if either the first or second experiment were made permanent with the changes exactly as they were implemented then overall gameplay would be worse. WITH some changes, some new things based on these experiments could be added to the game to improve the gameplay experience.

How I felt when playing the experiment: As others have said, certain modes and maps were a lot better and more suited to this experiment than others. CP mode for instance is relatively unaffected in terms of balance with different team sizes, so having larger 16v16 battles in this mode was really fun. ASL however is terribly imbalanced in favour of the defending team, both because points from kills now come a lot faster with so many players, and the larger maps make capping flags harder also. As the defending team racks up kills too fast also, the games are too short. TDM suffers from a similar problem - with kills now coming so fast the games end far too soon with a 70 kill limit.

In CTF on large maps, it is painfully hard to capture with so many defenders, and such a lot of ground to cover. In TJR the Juggernaut is proportionately much less powerful with so many tanks in the game, and it is now very risky as the Juggernaut to go on the offensive - so TJR has devolved into a much more defensive mode which is a lot less fun than in 8v8.

It has been really interesting however to try games with a larger team size, and new (to MM) larger maps, but if any of these are actually implemented into MM some big adjustments would be needed to balance everything to make it fair/fun in the long term. One other thing is that with larger maps and larger team sizes, melee/ close range turrets are much less effective - as we can see from the number of Shafts/Gausses roaming around, and also splash damage turrets like Gauss and Thunder are so much more effective with many more enemies to splash.

One important thing to note is that missions were a bit messed up during this experiment. With 32 player teams "Finish in the Top 3" and "Capture flags/balls/Kill Juggernauts" missions were MUCH harder, however missions to "Finish games in a mode" or to "deal X damage" were slightly easier. However overall missions were a lot harder as some missions were almost impossible for certain combos to to complete.

Possible changes that could be implemented: As others have said, trying different team sizes has been interesting. So what we could have is a variety of team sizes in battles, perhaps 8v8, 10v10, 12v12 depending on map size, or even also 6v6 and 16v16 for very small or very large maps. However to balance everything, everything must SCALE, the keyword is SCALING. When you have TDM on 16v16 players, the score limit must be at least double what it is for 8v8 or the game ends too fast. So if we have 70 kills in 8v8, we need to have 140 kills to win in 16v16. For example, the score limits could like this for 6v6, 8v8, 10v10, 12v2, 16v16 respectively : 60, 70, 85, 100, 120, 140.

In ASL balance is more difficult - as team and map size increases getting points from kills becomes easier and points from flags becomes harder. So one idea might be to increase the points to win to 140 in 16v16 AND award 10 points for every flag capture rather than 5. However, there may even need to be an additional multiplier depending on map size - it may even need to be 15 points per flag on very large maps.

In CP balance is fine with larger teams because nothing really changes too much as team sizes increases - score to win can be kept at 70 for all team sizes.. For TJR the Juggernaut may need to have increased health for 16v16 compared to 8v8 to allow it to go on the offensive without being mowed down by massive numbers of defenders.

Having some of the new larger maps such as Berlin, Deathtrack, Dusseldorf in the map pool would be fun along with different team sizes, but everything needs to be adjusted for balance along with it - if these are implemented.

In addition, missions would need to be looked at. For instance, a "Capture 3 flags" mission should be changed to "Earn 150 points from capturing flags" or something along those lines. I don't know how many battle points you earn for capturing flags with different team sizes but lets say you earn 50 points in 8v8 and 100 points in 16v16, with 10 poins for an assist in 8v8 and 20 for an assist in 16v16. Then you could complete Capture 3 flags with 3 flag captures in 8v8 ctf, or with one 8v8 capture and one 16v16 capture for instance. And with assists counting towards the mission now this would encourage team play rather than selfishness much more. You definitely need to be rewarded with more battle points, and better mission progress for capturing flags/balls in 16v16 compared to 8v8 as this is a MUCH harder task.

"Finish in top 3 of the winning team" should be changed to a more general "Earn a high placement in the winning team" which varies depending on team size. Top 2 for 6v6, top 3 for 8v8, top 3/4 for 10v10 and top 6 for 16v16. This would be more fair.


Final very important point: There is one critical issue which arose during this experiment, which must be fixed before any larger maps or team sizes can be implemented into Matchmaking. Battle loading times are MASSIVELY long, and games often fail to load at all. I very frequently spent 1 - 2 minutes on the loading screen for matches, and very often after being on the load screen for 2 minutes the game failed to load at all. This was even with minimum settings. Loading times ( and games failing to load whatsoever) were bad even in the normal 8v8 version of the game but with this experiment they have become worse. Also, on Flash we had the "infinite loading screen" bug, and a simple game restart solved this. On HTML5 it seems as if a similar bug exists, but even if you restart the game this does not solve the problem, you will still be stuck on a loading screen for 2 minutes and the game may fail to load. These awful loading bugs and huge load times need to be looked at, this made playing the game during this experiment a massive frustration. In general, even before the expriment, HTML5 loading seems to have gotten worse, games are frequently failing to load. This makes the game very frustrating to play and must be dealt with before any other changes are made.

Edited December 15, 2020 by DestrotankAI9

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

There are too many buildings on the Dusseldorf map. However, this map is perfect for playing with juggernaut on 16 vs 16 players.

It is easy to finish first place with juggernaut on 16 vs 16 players. Just wait for players to come towards you and zap them dead one after the other.

[Risk 1,249]

36 minutes ago, DestrotankAI9 said:

Hey, well a lot of players have already given great feedback and covered most of the important points about this 2nd experiment, but having played it quite a bit over the last 2 weeks I thought I might as well give my feedback also, so here are a few things (sorry in advance for the long post, but a lot needs to be said):

Overall: Overall this experiment shows some promise as to new things which could be added to the game (larger team sizes and new maps) but there is no doubt that if either the first or second experiment were made permanent with the changes exactly as they were implemented then overall gameplay would be worse. WITH some changes, some new things based on these experiments could be added to the game to improve the gameplay experience.

How I felt when playing the experiment: As others have said, certain modes and maps were a lot better and more suited to this experiment than others. CP mode for instance is relatively unaffected in terms of balance with different team sizes, so having larger 16v16 battles in this mode was really fun. ASL however is terribly imbalanced in favour of the defending team, both because points from kills now come a lot faster with so many players, and the larger maps make capping flags harder also. As the defending team racks up kills too fast also, the games are too short. TDM suffers from a similar problem - with kills now coming so fast the games end far too soon with a 70 kill limit.

In CTF on large maps, it is painfully hard to capture with so many defenders, and such a lot of ground to cover. In TJR the Juggernaut is proportionately much less powerful with so many tanks in the game, and it is now very risky as the Juggernaut to go on the offensive - so TJR has devolved into a much more defensive mode which is a lot less fun than in 8v8.

It has been really interesting however to try games with a larger team size, and new (to MM) larger maps, but if any of these are actually implemented into MM some big adjustments would be needed to balance everything to make it fair/fun in the long term. One other thing is that with larger maps and larger team sizes, melee/ close range turrets are much less effective - as we can see from the number of Shafts/Gausses roaming around, and also splash damage turrets like Gauss and Thunder are so much more effective with many more enemies to splash.

One important thing to note is that missions were a bit messed up during this experiment. With 32 player teams "Finish in the Top 3" and "Capture flags/balls/Kill Juggernauts" missions were MUCH harder, however missions to "Finish games in a mode" or to "deal X damage" were slightly easier. However overall missions were a lot harder as some missions were almost impossible for certain combos to to complete.

Possible changes that could be implemented: As others have said, trying different team sizes has been interesting. So what we could have is a variety of team sizes in battles, perhaps 8v8, 10v10, 12v12 depending on map size, or even also 6v6 and 16v16 for very small or very large maps. However to balance everything, everything must SCALE, the keyword is SCALING. When you have TDM on 16v16 players, the score limit must be at least double what it is for 8v8 or the game ends too fast. So if we have 70 kills in 8v8, we need to have 140 kills to win in 16v16. For example, the score limits should lcould like this for 6v6, 8v8, 10v10, 12v2, 16v16 respectively : 60, 70, 85, 100, 120, 140.

In ASL balance is more difficult - as team and map size increases getting points from kills becomes easier and points from flags becomes harder. So one idea might be to increase the points to win to 140 in 16v16 AND award 10 points for every flag capture rather than 5. However, there may even need to be an additional multiplier depending on map size - it may even need to be 15 points per flag on very large maps.

In CP balance is fine with larger teams because nothing really changes too much as team sizes increases - score to win can be kept at 70 for all team sizes.. For TJR the Juggernaut may need to have increased health for 16v16 compared to 8v8 to allow it to go on the offensive without being mowed down by massive numbers of defenders.

Having some of the new larger maps such as Berlin, Deathtrack, Dusseldorf in the map pool would be fun along with different team sizes, but everything needs to be adjusted for balance along with it - if these are implemented.

In addition, missions would need to be looked at. For instance, a "Capture 3 flags" mission should be changed to "Earn 150 points from capturing flags" or something along those lines. I don't know how many battle points you earn for capturing flags with different team sizes but lets say you earn 50 points in 8v8 and 100 points in 16v16, with 10 poins for an assist in 8v8 and 20 for an assist in 16v16. Then you could complete Capture 3 flags with 3 flag captures in 8v8 ctf, or with one 8v8 capture and one 16v16 capture for instance. And with assists counting towards the mission now this would encourage team play rather than selfishness much more. You definitely need to be rewarded with more battle points, and better mission progress for capturing flags/balls in 16v16 compared to 8v8 as this is a MUCH harder task.

"Finish in top 3 of the winning team" should be changed to a more general "Earn a high placement in the winning team" which varies depending on team size. Top 2 for 6v6, top 3 for 8v8, top 3/4 for 10v10 and top 6 for 16v16. This would be more fair.


Final very important point: There is one critical issue which arose during this experiment, which must be fixed before any larger maps or team sizes can be implemented into Matchmaking. Battle loading times are MASSIVELY long, and games often fail to load at all. I very frequently spent 1 - 2 minutes on the loading screen for matches, and very often after being on the load screen for 2 minutes the game failed to load at all. This was even with minimum settings. Loading times ( and games failing to load whatsoever) were bad even in the normal 8v8 version of the game but with this experiment they have become worse. Also, on Flash we had the "infinite loading screen" bug, and a simple game restart solved this. On HTML5 it seems as if a similar bug exists, but even if you restart the game this does not solve the problem, you will still be stuck on a loading screen for 2 minutes and the game may fail to load. These awful loading bugs and huge load times need to be looked at, this made playing the game during this experiment a massive frustration. In general, even before the expriment, HTML5 loading seems to have gotten worse, games are frequently failing to load. This makes the game very frustrating to play and must be dealt with before any other changes are made.

Thanks for your feedback!

[Joeguy 941]

While constructive feedback may seem valuable on the surface, the feedback, no matter how well-intentioned or detailed, is pointless.  One can find good in anything if you try hard enough..."you just had both of your hands amputated, but hey, think of the money you will save on gloves and manicures!".  

The reality is that this experiment is a total unmitigated flop and is best left to become a distant memory filed in the "plans gone awry" folder with the Tanki historians of the Wiki.  The 16vs16 is a complete disaster that Tanki's dime store coding can't accommodate.  It boggles the mind to think that they would even try something as silly as this when they have had trouble keeping the game running smoothly with even 8vs8.

Unless Tanki wants to cut off another huge hunk of the remaining player base, this 16vs16 thing is for the scrap heap.  The game doesn't work with 16vs16 on many many many players computers (maybe everyone's...dunno)  Doesn't matter how you "adjust" maps, modes, battle times, missions, whatever, the game doesn't work with 16vs16.  With the ridiculous 16vs16 it crashes every couple of games.  The waiting times have been multiplied by at least three if not four or five.  The lag is horrible.  I played for an hour and counted how much time i actually got to play...11 minutes in more than an hour.  I tried again later in the week and it was even worse.  With this experiment the vast majority of your time is spend waiting and waiting, logging in, re-logging in and waiting.  The frustration level is massive...who's going to put up with that on a long term basis?

I look forward to tomorrow when I can play Tanki again.

 

 

 

 

[Tokamak 1,021]

9 minutes ago, Joeguy said:

 

Please, give your feedback on your experience, and don't assume what the other players might or might not experienced.

[DestrotankAI9 1,513]

41 minutes ago, Joeguy said:

While constructive feedback may seem valuable on the surface, the feedback, no matter how well-intentioned or detailed, is pointless.  One can find good in anything if you try hard enough..."you just had both of your hands amputated, but hey, think of the money you will save on gloves and manicures!".  

The reality is that this experiment is a total unmitigated flop and is best left to become a distant memory filed in the "plans gone awry" folder with the Tanki historians of the Wiki.  The 16vs16 is a complete disaster that Tanki's dime store coding can't accommodate.  It boggles the mind to think that they would even try something as silly as this when they have had trouble keeping the game running smoothly with even 8vs8.

Unless Tanki wants to cut off another huge hunk of the remaining player base, this 16vs16 thing is for the scrap heap.  The game doesn't work with 16vs16 on many many many players computers (maybe everyone's...dunno)  Doesn't matter how you "adjust" maps, modes, battle times, missions, whatever, the game doesn't work with 16vs16.  With the ridiculous 16vs16 it crashes every couple of games.  The waiting times have been multiplied by at least three if not four or five.  The lag is horrible.  I played for an hour and counted how much time i actually got to play...11 minutes in more than an hour.  I tried again later in the week and it was even worse.  With this experiment the vast majority of your time is spend waiting and waiting, logging in, re-logging in and waiting.  The frustration level is massive...who's going to put up with that on a long term basis?

I look forward to tomorrow when I can play Tanki again.

 

I do agree with you in part (although I would say it in a different way) but I was trying to find some positives here, which there are some. My feedback post was very long (so I'm guessing few people will read it!) but if you note at the start I said that overall if either the 1st or 2nd experiment were implemented exactly as they were with no changes, the gameplay overall would be worse. With appropriate balancing regarding scoring/missions and so on however, having different team sizes and new larger maps added to the existing MM 8v8 games and maps could be fun, and an improvement to the game. But also, most importantly of all...

I totally agree with you on the loading issues, as I mentioned at the end of my post the major problems with loading matches overrides everything else. The game right now is almost unplayable, because you have many matches that don't load at all (after forcing you onto a load screen for 2 minutes, which you can't avoid even by re-starting the game) and many matches that take one minute to load. Considering that you also have to wait 30-60 seconds for a match the total time waiting to get into games (when you also end up in the match when 2 minutes of the game are already gone) the proportion of time spent in game vs waiting to get into game is ridiculous. Loading times in general seem longer these days on HTML5 but there have been huge issues during this experiment, and until all these problems are fixed going beyond 8v8 games is unthinkable right now. IF the infinite load bug and long loading times can be fixed, then and ONLY then can we start thinking about having larger team sizes and maps - until then nothing can change.

Edited December 15, 2020 by DestrotankAI9

[Venerable 2,967]

I kinda agree with Joeguy - if one cannot play, what's the point of any change?

I haven't been able to play on PC (even with all graphics settings set to minimum) without eye-strain or headaches. While I did play on the Android app on phone, and I did enjoy large maps & 16v16 gameplay, BUT the problem remains that I cannot play on a not-so-decent PC.

Even if I play a Pro battle in a large map with more than 10 odd players, my frame-rate drops and lags become frequent. Imagine my plight in MM.

This 16v16 change is something that should NOT be made permanent or compulsory (if we play MM). That's for sure. 

[Blutaar 1,904]

3 minutes ago, The_Pakistani said:

Nice joke. I am sure your blood pressure gone up writing this

You forget new AP augments (pure skill based feature in tanki) which make your equipments worst then mk0 and those burning augments and drones. These are pure skill base features. Very hard to use features and winning with them is impossible a noob free player can beat them without any effort or skill.

That joke has become old - you are not the only one who attempted to make a funny pun - but my blood pressure is not cooking ;). The only time I made a noticeable in-game purchase was during Black Friday when I bought the Special Offer; I do not consider myself a hardcore-buyer in any way, but I do admit that my purchase definetely boosted my garage - I am also planning on never doing such thing again. 

The effectiveness of these AP-augments differs per weapon. For example, using AP-Ricochet is hard to use and relatively less viable for teamplays; on the other hand, AP-Shaft proves to be incredibly strong for individual usage as well as being team-oriented. AP-Gauss and AP-Railgun can also be considered viable as well. AP-Freeze, AP-Smoky and AP-Striker are not that viable for pesonal usage. 

[Venerable 2,967]

4 minutes ago, cosmic666 said:

Well riddler would disagree . and wannabe and acne would disagree with me if i said the moon orbits around the earth and affects the oceans causing tidal fluctuations every day 

Mr.Riddler will most probably disagree, but even he know that he has a good PC suitable for games. I specifically mentioned that one cannot play on "not-so-decent" PCs. 

No one will disagree with you if your opinions are truths. Irrespective of how they see/treat you. 

[The_one_and_only 97]

1 minute ago, Venerable said:

Mr.Riddler will most probably disagree, but even he know that he has a good PC suitable for games. I specifically mentioned that one cannot play on "not-so-decent" PCs. 

No one will disagree with you if your opinions are truths. Irrespective of how they see/treat you. 

TRUE. I tested the game out on two PCs, one with 4 GB RAM and the other with 16 GB RAM

[Joeguy 941]

 

3 hours ago, DestrotankAI9 said:

Spoiler

I do agree with you in part (although I would say it in a different way) but I was trying to find some positives here, which there are some. My feedback post was very long (so I'm guessing few people will read it!) but if you note at the start I said that overall if either the 1st or 2nd experiment were implemented exactly as they were with no changes, the gameplay overall would be worse. With appropriate balancing regarding scoring/missions and so on however, having different team sizes and new larger maps added to the existing MM 8v8 games and maps could be fun, and an improvement to the game. But also, most importantly of all...

I totally agree with you on the loading issues, as I mentioned at the end of my post the major problems with loading matches overrides everything else. The game right now is almost unplayable, because you have many matches that don't load at all (after forcing you onto a load screen for 2 minutes, which you can't avoid even by re-starting the game) and many matches that take one minute to load. Considering that you also have to wait 30-60 seconds for a match the total time waiting to get into games (when you also end up in the match when 2 minutes of the game are already gone) the proportion of time spent in game vs waiting to get into game is ridiculous. Loading times in general seem longer these days on HTML5 but there have been huge issues during this experiment, and until all these problems are fixed going beyond 8v8 games is unthinkable right now. IF the infinite load bug and long loading times can be fixed, then and ONLY then can we start thinking about having larger team sizes and maps - until then nothing can change.

 

I think your original post was well thought out and well written.  I didn't mean to slight it in any way other than all the posts that give positive feedback seem to sort of go against the horrid reality of this experiment.  If we had to endure facets of this farce in an ongoing basis, I think a lot of players would just quit...a lot.  I hate to see the devs encouraged in their foolishness by any compromise in terms of acceptance of their misguided experiment.  One can find a silver lining in anything...anything at all and I believe any of the positive aspects of this experiment are exactly that...a silver lining in a thunder storm...it's still a thunder storm.  I certainly want none of this experiment in the game with the exception of the new MM maps (about time) and I cringe when posters give the devs fodder for changing things in the future.

I think we all tend to try and see the good in all things, but I also think in a situation like this finding good in this experiment may only help bring negative changes into the game on an ongoing basis.

I could tell from your well written post that you don't actually like the experiment either and I think the majority of posters with positive feedback don't really care for the exp overall...how could they possibly?  I've seen what Tanki has done in the past with spin and stretching things to suit their agenda and I fear that some things said here could be used to justify more toxic change to the game.

 

 

 

 

[Joeguy 941]

4 hours ago, Tokamak said:

Please, give your feedback on your experience, and don't assume what the other players might or might not experienced.

Huh? 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Joeguy

[fighter44 5]

>>MAP SIZE :- All the maps being large is a bit boring.

>>NUMBER OF PLAYERS :-16 per side is too many...tanks are crashing into each  other all the time....10 may be a better number

>>FPNs :- All my graphic settings are all on zero apart from 'show FPNs and PING, no sky box, resolution, quality of tree sprites and anisotropic filtering are all on lowest setting

B U T  my FPN has been  terrible since the start of the experiment...it is really affecting my enjoyment of the game

>>If we do by any chance get smaller maps back....then there should be less palyers

>>I have so many times looked at the amount of time left and thinking there are 2 minutes left to play deployed shield defence to find the dam game ends 2 seconds later..T A N K I Please display the real amount of time left til the end of the game

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

I am going to miss this experiment when it ends tomorrow. I miss it more than the first experiment because there are 16 vs 16 players which was a lot of fun to battle with on large maps, especially in the team juggernaut mode.

[DestrotankAI9 1,513]

1 hour ago, Joeguy said:

 

I think your original post was well thought out and well written.  I didn't mean to slight it in any way other than all the posts that give positive feedback seem to sort of go against the horrid reality of this experiment.  If we had to endure facets of this farce in an ongoing basis, I think a lot of players would just quit...a lot.  I hate to see the devs encouraged in their foolishness by any compromise in terms of acceptance of their misguided experiment.  One can find a silver lining in anything...anything at all and I believe any of the positive aspects of this experiment are exactly that...a silver lining in a thunder storm...it's still a thunder storm.  I certainly want none of this experiment in the game with the exception of the new MM maps (about time) and I cringe when posters give the devs fodder for changing things in the future.

I think we all tend to try and see the good in all things, but I also think in a situation like this finding good in this experiment may only help bring negative changes into the game on an ongoing basis.

I could tell from your well written post that you don't actually like the experiment either and I think the majority of posters with positive feedback don't really care for the exp overall...how could they possibly?  I've seen what Tanki has done in the past with spin and stretching things to suit their agenda and I fear that some things said here could be used to justify more toxic change to the game.

Thanks for the encouragement  Don't worry I didn't see your post in any way as insulting towards me, I know you are frustrated with many aspects of the game and the experiment along with the developers' general attitude and that your anger was towards that direction. I try to be positive when I can but yes, I was careful to say that a lot of changes would need to be made before anything from this experiment can be put into the game - and also wanted to emphasise the fundamental issue of games regularly not loading or having hugely long load times which must be fixed as a priority, and was much worse during this last 2 weeks.

I know that the devs need no encouragement to bring bad changes into the game, because in the last year there have been a lot which have created new and serious problems and have made gameplay worse - Heat Immunity Augment (destroyed Firebird gameplay and made Incendiary Brand Vulcan both boring to use and massively overpowered), Emp Gauss (totally imbalanced and destroys all fun in modes such as Siege) and I also strongly disagree with the new changes to Team Juggernaut mode, which again have hurt Firebird (is this turret to be removed from the game?), and discriminated against certain hulls. There are major bugs such as 20-30% of Magnum shots doing nothing in HTML5, and the most major one is the matches regularly not loading, and forcing you to wait 2 minutes on the load screen (while even restarting the game will not solve the problem unlike with the old bug on Flash).

Before any changes are made to maps and modes, the developers need to focus on fixing major game imbalances (most of which they have actually brought into the game in the last year with relatively recent updates) and fixing major bugs in HTML5. To improve the game experience, this all needs to be fixed as a priority BEFORE any changes are made - and many of these issues the community have been shouting about, while apparently receiving no answer which is immensely frustrating and discourages anyone from bothering to give feedback. Emp Gauss and Heat Immunity have been in the game for months with no nerfs, destroying previously fun gameplay at high ranks, and nothing has been done about it despite the large number of complaints and large number of players that have been lost (and I have no doubt imbalanced gameplay has had a big part to play in quite a few players leaving).

I do think there have been some good changes in the last year - the changes to missions/challenge system are great, and although Hopper needs balanced it is an interesting concept. I also like the increased Exp (though NOT the increased exp in events, that is another matter) because in the past, levelling through ranks simply took far too long. The developers have also improved the shop Showcase to now have a higher chance of showing kits for Crystals which was something I complained about, so I am glad to see that feedback was actually listened to.

So I don't think everything has been bad, but the devs need to start listening to the community more, and they need to focus on balance/bug fixes rather than making wild changes which can cause more problems before anything else. The game is broken in many fundamental aspects - especially at higher ranks where more people have access to the problematic equipment. If they can fix these issues and have a new and better attitude to listening to the playerbase, Tanki Online has a good chance to survive and thrive (as fundamentally it is a fun game with a lot of potential), but if not this game will soon be doomed to failure, without a change of course.

Edited December 15, 2020 by DestrotankAI9

[wolverine848 13,097]

4 hours ago, At_Shin said:

This augment can allow you to freeze enemy tanks as well as put AP effect upon them. I think it's one of the better AP augments. With it you can use DD supply to deal nearly the same damage as normal freeze but your allies can also help you out by dealing full damage.

Well, normal freeze does this already, no?  And how does a freeze with "toxic mixture" freeze an enemy when it "Swaps out the cooling agent"?  That makes no sense.  No cooling agent should = no freezing...

And in WIKI it says AP duration is 1 sec.  How the heck does that work when applied via a DPS melee turret?  One second after damaging enemy the AP status disappears?  So friendlies basically have to shoot at target simultaneously?

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

2 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

Well, normal freeze does this already, no?  And how does a freeze with "toxic mixture" freeze an enemy when it "Swaps out the cooling agent"?  That makes no sense.  No cooling agent should = no freezing...

Freezing speed is decreased by 50% when this augment is equipped. 

 

3 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

And in WIKI it says AP duration is 1 sec.  How the heck does that work when applied via a DPS melee turret?  One second after damaging enemy the AP status disappears?  So friendlies basically have to shoot at target simultaneously?

Each consecutive tick of damage resets the AP timer. 

[RandomGuy 19]

9 hours ago, RIDDLER_8 said:

Thanks for the deadline date. The 16th of December is tomorrow, so today is the last day of this experiment. Please keep this thread open for as long as possible so that all players taking part in this experiment can give their feedback on how it all went for them.

u want feedback??? i hate this experiment. u know how hard it is to get jug or cap a flag or cap an assault flag? idk how u love this experiment. they shoulda at least made it just a week long, not 12 days long.

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

One week is too short for developers to get good feedback about this experiment, so they made it last for two whole weeks.

[Only_Event 252]

My feedback: this experiment is very very bad! When I join battle is crash and getting 5-10 FPS. Hope tanki stop release these experiments. Let's us play normal!

[Spy 14,687]

7 minutes ago, RIDDLER_8 said:

One week is too short for developers to get good feedback about this experiment, so they made it last for two whole weeks.

In my opinion 1 week would be more than enough.

[RIDDLER_8 5,552]

@Spy

That's your opinion.