Do the Devs even realize that their new "cool" ideas are ruining the game?

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

1 hour ago, SONIC-BOOM said:

Boil your head reject

I'm sorry?

[wolverine848 13,097]

4 minutes ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

Oh, I see, can't respond to my whole paragraph? It's okay to admit defeat.

What I mean is, they decided to use the number 7, which would be a lot harder to be divvied up from 4 Modifications. If they used 8, they would've been able to divide each modification by 2. 2 marks would equal 1 Modification. Simple. Sorry if you can't count to 8. That's a bummer. 8 is a real good number.

Rest of the paragraph was irrelevant.

And have you changed your mind?  Is more (8) better than 4 or not?  I can't tell because you switch gears to support your argument.

They have 1 skin now because of HTML5 and they want to base all new modification skins off of that one skin.

And news flash - there's a ton of stuff buyers pay cash for. Have you actually played in the past 6 months?

[alkyng 3,080]

10 minutes ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

Oh, I see, can't respond to my whole paragraph? It's okay to admit defeat.

What I mean is, they decided to use the number 7, which would be a lot harder to be divvied up from 4 Modifications. If they used 8, they would've been able to divide each modification by 2. 2 marks would equal 1 Modification. Simple. Sorry if you can't count to 8. That's a bummer. 8 is a real good number.

M0 = Mk1

M1 = Mk3

M2 = Mk5

M3 = Mk7

M3+ (M4) = Mk7+ or (Mk9)

[EmeraldCat 562]

1 hour ago, DieselPlatinum said:

Not just from the forum but apparently they also accept horrible ideas from their YT comments section.

For example: guess where the idea of gauss's electromagnetic salvo augment came from.

You gotta point there, Gauss is too op, I'm not sure why they haven't nerfed it yet. They even decided to give it an almost unbeatable augment which allows you to delete other people's supplies. It's pretty frustrating.

[EmeraldCat 562]

1 hour ago, wolverine848 said:

Rest of the paragraph was irrelevant.

And have you changed your mind?  Is more (8) better than 4 or not?  I can't tell because you switch gears to support your argument.

They have 1 skin now because of HTML5 and they want to base all new modification skins off of that one skin.

And news flash - there's a ton of stuff buyers pay cash for. Have you actually played in the past 6 months?

Only irrelevant because of your own opinions. At least I put effort to give good reasoning with my responses, I also put effort to actually read what others have to say. 

I don't think you read anything I said. I thought I said, "8 was still a bad idea, but it's still better than 7." Somewhere in between that. Sometimes I wonder if people even read what I have to say.

1 skin for each equipment because of HTML5? Didn't they say something about HTML5 giving them a lot more room to add more polygons to the equipment? HTML5 is way better than Flash, so it made no sense to remove the skins. If they can add more polygons, they could just keep the current skins for each modification, and give them more detail.

And yeah, there's tons of stuff for buyers, there's so much, that this game turned into a pay to win game. Only buyers can get the augments and skins they so desire. They can have the highest equipment at their rank as soon as they rank up and get the next modification. Sadly for us non-buyers, we have to work every day just to get 3 containers that will give 125 mines, or an augment for a turret I never use. 

So yeah, tons of stuff for buyers, wouldn't you say?

[EmeraldCat 562]

1 hour ago, asem.harbi said:

M0 = Mk1

M1 = Mk3

M2 = Mk5

M3 = Mk7

M3+ (M4) = Mk7+ or (Mk9)

Actually, it wouldn't be Mk9, it would be Mk8. Mk7 20/20 is just like Mk7 10/10, but each MU is divided into 2 MU's, so you get Mk8, or Mk7 20/20, also Augments don't define an extra Mk to your turret, if you're one of those players who think that.  The Mark system is still a bad idea. Modification System was way better. 

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

11 hours ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

Ah, a great opportunity to gain players and revenue, ay? Hmmm, were you playing the game back in the late 2018s, because, that was the time when player count dropped dramatically because recent updates messed the game up, the devs still haven't fixed these problems and I still haven't seen an increase in players since then. Now, Tanki mobile has been out for like, a year? 2 years? Somewhere in between? It was active during the time when Tanki lost most of its players, but, oh, Tanki is still dead, so please explain to me why Tanki Mobile hasn't helped gain more players and more revenue.

Most of this is tangential to the matter at hand. Can you deny that TO mobile was an opportunity to gain players and revenue, regardless of what happened afterwards and regardless of whether things happened as you claim? It would tap into a market that was previously untouched by TO, and target a playerbase that would likely have lower standards for online games, than say, PC users. PC arcade shooters are a dying genre. Tanki X was an attempt to modernize and refine the TO model - and while in my opinion it succeeded in this goal, it failed as a game anyway. On mobile things are a different story. The developers see more potential in TO as a mobile game than as a browser game.

And to address your claims, how do you know that TO mobile hasn't gained players and revenue? Perhaps if it were not for the mobile version TO would have lost all its players and died already. How do you know that it is updates that have caused a decline in players? Do you know whether new player retention is lower than it was before? It is true that player count has declined since 2015. But I would not be so quick to point to a specific reason as to why.

11 hours ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

Now, my Tanki rank is Colonel, I'm in, what was supposed to be, the M2 ranks. Here's a picture of a battle I joined on Matchmaking just now:

GS Scores

So, you said that Mk's helped? Explain to me why players who are 1 rank above mine have a GS score of 3-4k. Pretty sure players should have GS scores near mine at this rank, but it looks like they all are still low powered because they gotta save for these "more expensive upgrades," because they can't earn enough crystals. Sound familiar? Well, it should compared to what you told me. Now, this is just one picture, but I assure you, most battles I join look like this. 

Players who started playing the game after the Mk conversion should not have GS scores near yours. Note how you are an outlier - the majority of players in the battle have GS in the 3500-5500 range, while you have 7500. Most battles you join look like this because you are the exception rather than the rule. You were one of the people who greatly benefitted from the Mk conversion because you had a full upgraded M2 hull which was converted into a Mk7. Judging by their GS, most other players have Mk5 and Mk6 equipment, which is exactly what they should have at their ranks. The conversion from M to Mk was certainly botched, resulting in players like you who ended up with better equipment than they should have had, but the progression system for players who started playing after the conversion improved.

The situation before Mk was worse. Take Viking for example, the M2 modification of which unlocked at Lieutenant Colonel. Viking M1 unlocked all the way back at Warrant Officer 4. The rank difference was enormous. Buyers could MU their Viking M1 and have arguably the best M2 medium hull at the time at WO4. If you were not a buyer, you either had to invest in MUs, which was a slow process and limited how much you could take advantage of sales, buy a different M2 medium to bridge the gap (I bought Dictator M2 for example), or be severely underpowered. The Mk system fixed all of these problems. Buyers cannot gain an extreme equipment advantage through MUs, there is no need to MU equipment except at Mk7, and you don't need to buy another piece of equipment to hold yourself over while you wait for the next modification of your desired hull or turret because the difference between unlock ranks is smaller.

Edited December 5, 2020 by ThirdOnion

[alkyng 3,080]

27 minutes ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

Actually, it wouldn't be Mk9, it would be Mk8. Mk7 20/20 is just like Mk7 10/10, but each MU is divided into 2 MU's, so you get Mk8, or Mk7 20/20, also Augments don't define an extra Mk to your turret, if you're one of those players who think that.  The Mark system is still a bad idea. Modification System was way better. 

You didn't understood the Mk - M system correctly, so I had to explain it to you. First every upgrade in the past have a two counterpart of upgrades now, but first upgrade with Mk system start with Mk1, and M system start with M0... in the past every turret full MU's gave you the next upgrade, M0 10/10 is the same with M1.. so we can assume M3 20/20 is M4.. so M4 to convert it into Mks system it will be Mk9.. with this rule in Mathematical language (upgrade in Mark system x 2 + 1)  so M4 x 2 = 8... + 1 = 9).

Also it's just your assuming that I consider Augments define as an extra Mk

34 minutes ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

Mk7 20/20 is just like Mk7 10/10,

34 minutes ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

but each MU is divided into 2 MU's, so you get Mk8, or Mk7 20/20,

2 hours ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

If they used 8, they would've been able to divide each modification by 2. 2 marks would equal 1 Modification

That's why you still have confused

 

[Son_Goku 514]

is what the Wiki is saying, so this is correct. There is no Mk8, Mk9 or Mk7 20/20. It's Mk7+

[Venerable 2,969]

7 minutes ago, Son_Goku said:

is what the Wiki is saying, so this is correct. There is no Mk8, Mk9 or Mk7 20/20. It's Mk7+

Mk7+ is unofficially called Mk8 in the Tankiverse...

[alkyng 3,080]

1 hour ago, Son_Goku said:

is what the Wiki is saying, so this is correct. There is no Mk8, Mk9 or Mk7 20/20. It's Mk7+

yes it's Mk7+, no one said that wrong. But that didn't mean that we don't have to define it as the human wiki editors didn't

Edited December 5, 2020 by asem.harbi

[Catbird 117]

10 hours ago, Picassoo said:

 

I just don't see how a game that's in active development with new skins, game mechanics and even hulls, is a game that's trying to wrap up its profits before it dies. There would be no point in wasting resources in game dev then. My thinking is more that Tanki's current model is likely profitable, by making more money out of less players, and they are desperately trying to maintain this balance by rolling out updates regularly, as most modern games do.

[EmeraldCat 562]

39 minutes ago, ThirdOnion said:

Most of this is tangential to the matter at hand. Can you deny that TO mobile was an opportunity to gain players and revenue, regardless of what happened afterwards and regardless of whether things happened as you claim? It would tap into a market that was previously untouched by TO, and target a playerbase that would likely have lower standards for online games, than say, PC users. PC arcade shooters are a dying genre. Tanki X was an attempt to modernize and refine the TO model - and while in my opinion it succeeded in this goal, it failed as a game anyway. On mobile things are a different story. The developers see more potential in TO as a mobile game than as a browser game.

And to address your claims, how do you know that TO mobile hasn't gained players and revenue? Perhaps if it were not for the mobile version TO would have lost all its players and died already. How do you know that it is updates that have caused a decline in players? Do you know whether new player retention is lower than it was before? Different people give all sorts of dates for when "TO started losing players."

No, players who started playing the game after the Mk conversion should not have GS scores near yours. Note how you are an outlier - the majority of players in the battle have GS in the 3500-5500 range, while you have 7500. Of course most battles you join look like this because you are the exception rather than the rule. You were one of the people who greatly benefitted from the Mk conversion because you had a full upgraded M2 hull which was converted into a Mk7. Judging by their GS, most other players have Mk5 and Mk6 equipment, which is exactly what they should have at their ranks. The conversion from M to Mk was certainly botched, resulting in players like you who ended up with better equipment than they should have had, but the progression system for players who started playing after the conversion improved.

The situation before Mk was worse. Take the rank before yours, Lieutenant Colonel. Viking M2 unlocked at this rank. Viking M1 unlocked all the way back at Warrant Officer 4. The rank difference was enormous. Buyers could MU their Viking M1 and have arguably the best M2 medium hull at the time at WO4. If you were not a buyer, you either had to invest in MUs, which was a slow process and limited how much you could take advantage of sales, buy a different M2 medium to bridge the gap (I bought Dictator M2 for example), or be severely underpowered. The Mk system fixed all of these problems. Buyers cannot gain an extreme equipment advantage through MUs, there is no need to MU equipment except at Mk7, and you don't need to buy another piece of equipment to hold yourself over while you wait for the next modification of your desired hull or turret because the difference between unlock ranks is smaller.

Yes, TO saw an opportunity to gain players and revenue, but did they succeed to gain players and revenue? Were they able to bring the game back to how it was back in 2018 with mobile? Did tons of players start rushing back into the game when they heard hovering hulls and hull augments were added? The point is, you should know when an idea doesn't cut it, you should know that if something is not working out and you can't think of any other possible way to fix it, then the best idea is to drop it. If Tanki has to convert every hull in the game to a hovering hull and defy what a tank is, just because it's hard to control on Mobile, then your answer is right there, it should not be a mobile game. There are a lot of games that attempt to give a platform for mobile players, but most of them end up failing. The Devs believe they see potential in TO Mobile, but it's just going to change their game if they keep making things more beneficial for Mobile players.

Now consider this scenario. Tanki decides to fully convert to Tanki Mobile, what do you think would happen? Would you like to play Tanki on your phone? Apparently it's hard to use the normal hulls on Tanki, it'd suck if you could no longer use your Hornet, or your Viking, or perhaps Titan. The whole game is just gonna be players using hover hulls because the equipment they spent their whole time upgrading and playing is pointless. Now, if I'm not wrong, most of us are PC players in this game, we prefer the keyboard/mouse controls, but, if you convert to phone, and controls are impossible to use, and your hull is completely impossible to use, I'd assume players would leave the game, since PC players can't play on PC anymore. Tanki already has a low amount of players to begin with, and if Tanki fully invests in Tanki Mobile, well, that's the end of this game.

The problem with Tanki X was that it was too complicated. Too many things were added, as a starter, you'd never know what to do. Tanki X exceeded in EPIC graphics, I mean, they seriously outdid themselves, but they were too focused on the graphics more than the actual gameplay, which is why they couldn't gain revenue from it, it wasn't that interesting.

How do I know that Tanki lost players due to their updates? Well, because I was there when it happened. Summer 2018, was the peak, we had that animal war(lions, wolves, bears), we had daily missions that gave us awesome rewards every week that gave us non-buyers a chance to gain the upper hand, I loved just playing Tanki every single day, there was nothing wrong with it. Even my friend and brother enjoyed it. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the game. Then, on October 2018, it was announced that missions were getting a change, new alterations being added, more drones being added, and a few other things. Now, I've been a Tanki player for over 10 years, and there wasn't a single update that made me hate the game. Sure, there were some that were questionable before 2018, but it never stopped me from playing the game. But October, that really changed my mood about things. Coincidentally, Tanki started losing players a few months later, I saw it happen. After the updates, I played for a few months thinking that it was alright, and that I can live with these changes. The player count on Tanki was dropping a lot faster than before, I remember my friend and I keeping watch on that. We were always up to date on things that changed. Eventually, I gave up, the count wouldn't stop dropping, the General 1 Chat went from 1 message every few seconds to being able to have a conversation with your friend without the message being sent sky high. But, my friend and I were up to date on the changes, my friend was actually still playing the game. I just looked at the news. Ah, but you do prove a point, most games do lose popularity overtime, that would mean Tanki would slowly lose players till there's barely any players left, BUT, Tanki lost about 75% of its player in the span of just a few months, right after the updates in October 2018. 

That whole paragraph might've not persuaded you enough, so let's check out this recent topic on Discussions called "What is your opinion about the current state of Tanki Online?" Now, only 334 people voted on this, but that's enough to give an estimate on how much 10k people think of the game.

Love it = 10.78% of people voted this

Satisfied = 19.78% of people voted this

On Edge = 41.92% of people voted this

Hate it = 27.54% of people voted this

 

Now, "Love it" means that Tanki is perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with it. "Satisfied" meaning it's okay, "On Edge" meaning you're literally about to quit, and "Hate it" means the game is ruined and I'm leaving the game because of it. Shoutout to @yellowghetto for this topic.

Now, if we combine the "On Edge" people with the "Hate it" people, we'll get roughly 69.46% of players. it works the same as 10k, not exact, but pretty close to 69%. I've done stuff like this many times. Us 70% of players outmatch your 30% satisfied/love it players. 

I believe I've given enough evidence to state my claim.

 

As for the Mark system. I'm kinda grateful that I was able to get a Mk7 Viking from my M2 10/10 Viking at Second Lieutenant, I was never a buyer, but I definitely knew how to spend my crystals and how to gain crystals back then. If you were smart, you'd be able to have advantages. I practically could stand up against all the high level buyers. That's why the modification system was great, if you were smart, you could get the best equipment, the old Modification system gave that opportunity. As for a player who was once weak, I never had a problem with the higher leveled players, if someone had Smoky M1 10/10 and a Titan M1 10/10, and everyone else just had M1's, it wasn't that big of a deal, sure I got mad when he was stronger and could kill me easily, but that brought a bigger challenge to the game. It's not always about what equipment you got, it's also about the skill. Sure, buyers have all these op weapons, but they never earned it with their own skill, they just bought it so they have an easier chance to not die and kill easily. They have op gear, but are they actually good at the game? You think a player's skill is decided on what equipment they got? Cuz I don't.

I probably have more things to say but this reply is getting too long so I'll cut it off from here at the moment.

[EmeraldCat 562]

1 hour ago, asem.harbi said:

You didn't understood the Mk - M system correctly, so I had to explain it to you. First every upgrade in the past have a two counterpart of upgrades now, but first upgrade with Mk system start with Mk1, and M system start with M0... in the past every turret full MU's gave you the next upgrade, M0 10/10 is the same with M1.. so we can assume M3 20/20 is M4.. so M4 to convert it into Mks system it will be Mk9.. with this rule in Mathematical language (upgrade in Mark system x 2 + 1)  so M4 x 2 = 8... + 1 = 9).

Also it's just your assuming that I consider Augments define as an extra Mk

That's why you still have confused

 

Wether I'm right or wrong about Mark system, I still mentioned that this many modifications/marks is still a bad idea. Best to keep it at 4.

[EmeraldCat 562]

10 minutes ago, Catbird said:

I just don't see how a game that's in active development with new skins, game mechanics and even hulls, is a game that's trying to wrap up its profits before it dies. There would be no point in wasting resources in game dev then. My thinking is more that Tanki's current model is likely profitable, by making more money out of less players, and they are desperately trying to maintain this balance by rolling out updates regularly, as most modern games do.

At that point, they're not gonna make it far.

[alkyng 3,080]

30 minutes ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

Wether I'm right or wrong about Mark system, I still mentioned that this many modifications/marks is still a bad idea. Best to keep it at 4.

completely agree with you.. but I must to elaborate you something you confused about.

[EmeraldCat 562]

10 minutes ago, asem.harbi said:

completely agree with you.. but I must to elaborate you something you confused about.

Well, thank you for correcting me.

[Picassoo 191]

1 hour ago, Catbird said:

I just don't see how a game that's in active development with new skins, game mechanics and even hulls, is a game that's trying to wrap up its profits before it dies. There would be no point in wasting resources in game dev then. My thinking is more that Tanki's current model is likely profitable, by making more money out of less players, and they are desperately trying to maintain this balance by rolling out updates regularly, as most modern games do.

I agree with what you say because I think you didn't exactly understand what I wrote.

I do not mean Alternativa wants to start phasing the game out next month. But the updates that the devs keep introducing lead TO to a decline yet they still roll them out. They clearly prefer making more profit in shorter terms rather than trying to maintain stability.

New hulls and skins are easy to add — they involve mostly old mechanics. AP augments and resistances aren't a complicated mechanic to add. Now that the devs have learned to make flying hulls, they are adding new ones, just like they add new skins/drones/turrets/augments, because these things are stuff people pay for and apparently still generate profit.

So they are adding new features while it pays off, but they do not seem to care about the game's future.

 

[Picassoo 191]

6 hours ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

It's a good theory, I'd assume it's semi-correct, but Tanki X was announced to be shut down back in September 2019. The Devs started losing their players back in October 2018 for Tanki Online, because they added a few updates during that time that really upset a lot of players. I know because I was one of the many people who disliked those updates. Tanki had a dramatic decrease in numbers after 2018.

I'd treat my theory the same way — it may be inaccurate.

I had to make an assumption regarding that. So I assumed TX had never generated much profit, but when it was first introduced Alternativa still had hope for the game to grow. After some time they started thinking what to do about it and in late 2019 they made their final decision.

[Blutaar 1,904]

@Son_Goku @Venerable @asem.harbi

Also, few people call a maxed piece of equipment Mk9 since fully upgrading an Mk7 item requires double the amount of MUs; theoretically a 10/20 can be considered Mk8 and 20/20 would be Mk9 then. So in a way, they are not wrong.

I do not know who made up the term Mk10...

[wolverine848 13,097]

10 hours ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

Only irrelevant because of your own opinions. At least I put effort to give good reasoning with my responses, I also put effort to actually read what others have to say. 

I don't think you read anything I said. I thought I said, "8 was still a bad idea, but it's still better than 7." Somewhere in between that. Sometimes I wonder if people even read what I have to say.

1 skin for each equipment because of HTML5? Didn't they say something about HTML5 giving them a lot more room to add more polygons to the equipment? HTML5 is way better than Flash, so it made no sense to remove the skins. If they can add more polygons, they could just keep the current skins for each modification, and give them more detail.

And yeah, there's tons of stuff for buyers, there's so much, that this game turned into a pay to win game. Only buyers can get the augments and skins they so desire. They can have the highest equipment at their rank as soon as they rank up and get the next modification. Sadly for us non-buyers, we have to work every day just to get 3 containers that will give 125 mines, or an augment for a turret I never use. 

So yeah, tons of stuff for buyers, wouldn't you say?

It was irrelevant because it had nothing to do with the m to mk conversion.

How you figure more level-breaks in equipment is bad is hard to understand.  Before, buyers could go from m1 to m2 in a short span of ranks with that m2 equipment being way too potent for lower ranks.  Now buyers need to keep ranking up before they get to that power level.  How is that not beneficial to the balance of the game?

I didn't say 1 skin for each equipment.  I said they are starting with 1 skin (what we have now) to base all new skins off of. Now that Flash is gone they can begin that work.

This game has always been P2W.  Kits and supplies were always beneficial to buyers.  Then it became MUs.  Now the P2W aspect is in Augments and Drones.  P2W has evolved, but it's always been in the game.

How does any of the above make the conversion from m to mk "bad"?

[Tokamak 1,021]

20 minutes ago, BloodPressure said:

Also, few people call a maxed piece of equipment Mk9 since fully upgrading an Mk7 item requires double the amount of MUs; theoretically a 10/20 can be considered Mk8 and 20/20 would be Mk9 then. So in a way, they are not wrong.

I do not know who made up the term Mk10...

MK10, is the MK9 as you said but driven by a skilled players 

[Catbird 117]

7 hours ago, Picassoo said:

 

Ok I understand your position better, and yeah for the most part I think we agree. The whole pay to win is clearly fairly short term oriented, and aggressively pursued.

That being said, I'm not entirely convinced that the devs have no overall "vision" for the game, as things like hovering hulls were given a convincing rationale (making the game more accessible), and I see the currently ongoing experiments as a genuine effort to find how to increase player engagement and enjoyment.

I have been playing this game for barely a year, so I have a very different perspective on this game that one might call clueless and uninformed, potentially. But I wasn't there during the golden days, I didn't see the game being torn down. What I came upon was a game with two clients, one old and falling apart and the other full of potential but far from complete, and it always gave me the impression of being stuck in the middle of a transition. This made me want for this currently incomplete new game that's being carved out of the rubble of an older game to become fully fledged. It's quite possible I will be proven wrong and that the devs will keep adding things until the game crumbles under its own weight. But for now at least, I'm fine with the direction we're heading in, and I think once the game is fully emancipated from its origins, it could maybe find a new playerbase.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Catbird

[alkyng 3,080]

3 hours ago, BloodPressure said:

I do not know who made up the term Mk10...

Yes, I before.. I did some calculations on 3 turrets and I noticed last upgrade is Mk10... but after that I did more calculations on some hulls/turrets and I noticed most of them are Mk9. So yes it's Mk9.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

14 hours ago, Emeraldcat345 said:

You gotta point there, Gauss is too op, I'm not sure why they haven't nerfed it yet. They even decided to give it an almost unbeatable augment which allows you to delete other people's supplies. It's pretty frustrating.

Oh I got an answer to that. Because it's uncle hazels favorite toy. He and his team love showing favoritism. That's why they let it be for the last year or so. That's also why they didn't "nerf" hornets OD until recently. It's only real nerf is being used to milk $$ out of.