update Patch Update #741 - Released 13th October 2023

[MEXICAN-SKY 308]

I rest my case.

[Devastate 108]

Jug is OP now. I've suffered through 3 10-0 shutouts already today

[Bydo 20,119]

On 10/14/2023 at 9:52 AM, Romantically said:

JGR can't use own supplies, it only works on boxes that they pick up (camping in enemy base as a JGR relying on repair kits from boxes is a one-way ticket to dying fast)

 

Only the surrounding tanks

I normally would agree with you , but for some odd reason this player ( which I forgot to take a photo of) was using them. first it was shields and then speed ups, and kept on changing them as soon as it ran out.

another Hacker it's starting to look like in the system. and now there is now place to report in the English form, only Russian which I don't know how to read it.

[Gabe2607 215]

On 10/14/2023 at 1:30 PM, Opex-Rah said:

It is actually genuinely for the money. 

How about a $100 button: "Press here to win the battle right now"?

[CocoleVG_tanki 40]

The game is not fun, that's the problem.
You can't play out of META without getting melted. Unless you max out everything that is.
But that takes a long time, and since the way to maxed out isn't fun, why do it?

The solution is getting more new players (= more GS variety in matchmaking), sadly that is not happening since it is very frustrating to rank up fighting against smurfs who know what is good.
 

Yes, everything is clear and explained in tutorials, it is simple to learn.
But it doesn't matter to explain everything if half of everything you learn to use (including TURRETS and HULLS) is not VIABLE to play with.

[Opex-Rah 5,375]

On 10/15/2023 at 2:55 AM, Gabe2607 said:

How about a $100 button: "Press here to win the battle right now"?

ACTUALLY, this troll comment made me remember something.

So you know how it usually goes with higher-ups. They ask for more monetization like loot boxes, battle passes, and such. Everybody in the industry looking for new ways of monetization especially if someone else tried and proven new methods. The usual stuff in the industry these days.

But what if I tell you that there was a proposal of monetization mechanic so bizarre I was outright denied of even trying it?

The idea was about making pay-to-win into literally a pay-to-win, but with a caveat that the player would not gain any real power advantage. Instead, a player would pay to receive more battle points (they are called 'reputation points' in the current version of the game) for the same actions. In this case, the game would have no system at all that allowed for more power, not even a stats progression. But upgrades and purchases would increase the earned reputation in battle instead.

This system is largely unexplored in games. You can perform worse in the game than the other guy but you end up higher on the final scoreboard nevertheless. How would it impact your feelings as a buyer? Or as a non-buyer? If you are objectively playing better and defeat players with ease, would you care that someone else ends up higher on the TAB screen? On the other hand, will you pay to make it to the top of the score and feel good about it, sorta of a revenge, even if you know you didn't play that well? One can say it is even more unfair than current P2W mechanics. I would argue against that but what is the point in arguments if the better way to settle it is to make it, right?

Eventually, I tried this mechanic without telling anyone what I was doing. Certain drones can give you more RP for certain actions. The results are peculiar and I will not explain anything beyond that. Let's just say the time is yet to come.

It is insanely curious. Imagine if you end up on the end game score screen and you actually see that "Press here to win the battle right now" button? When you press it, the score is changed, the cool effects are played, your score goes up, the DEFEAT turns into VICTORY, and you are an MVP. You can have your WIN right there. Go ahead and make a screenshot to share.

Would it be fake? The game is not real you know, so would you be able to tell the difference? Pls, someone make a PvP game with this button.

[Jeers4U 665]

On 10/14/2023 at 7:10 PM, Opex-Rah said:

ACTUALLY, this troll comment made me remember something.

 

Eventually, I tried this mechanic without telling anyone what I was doing.

Seeing as how you tried it, I would purport your comment to be rude, and Gabe's comment to be accurate.

 

[PirateSpider 1,489]

On 10/14/2023 at 4:10 PM, Opex-Rah said:

Pls, someone make a PvP game with this button.

Ok, just a few questions.

Do you want a button that takes over the whole screen with appropriately sized text? Or do you want an appropriately sized button with ridiculously small text?

[Opex-Rah 5,375]

On 10/15/2023 at 4:30 AM, PirateSpider said:

Do you want a button that takes over the whole screen with appropriately sized text? Or do you want an appropriately sized button with ridiculously small text?

If you'll make it I'll take it!

[PirateSpider 1,489]

On 10/14/2023 at 4:33 PM, Opex-Rah said:

If you'll make it I'll take it!

Sorry for the inconvenience, we don't have any left. Please allow us some time to make another.

[Bydo 20,119]

On 10/14/2023 at 7:10 PM, Opex-Rah said:

ACTUALLY, this troll comment made me remember something.

So you know how it usually goes with higher-ups. They ask for more monetization like loot boxes, battle passes, and such. Everybody in the industry looking for new ways of monetization especially if someone else tried and proven new methods. The usual stuff in the industry these days.

But what if I tell you that there was a proposal of monetization mechanic so bizarre I was outright denied of even trying it?

The idea was about making pay-to-win into literally a pay-to-win, but with a caveat that the player would not gain any real power advantage. Instead, a player would pay to receive more battle points (they are called 'reputation points' in the current version of the game) for the same actions. In this case, the game would have no system at all that allowed for more power, not even a stats progression. But upgrades and purchases would increase the earned reputation in battle instead.

This system is largely unexplored in games. You can perform worse in the game than the other guy but you end up higher on the final scoreboard nevertheless. How would it impact your feelings as a buyer? Or as a non-buyer? If you are objectively playing better and kick asses would you care that someone else ends up higher on the TAB screen? On the other hand, will you pay to make it to the top of the score and feel good about it, sorta of a revenge, even if you know you didn't play that well? One can say it is even more unfair than current P2W mechanics. I would argue against that but what is the point in arguments if the better way to settle it is to make it, right?

Eventually, I tried this mechanic without telling anyone what I was doing. Certain drones can give you more RP for certain actions. The results are peculiar and I will not explain anything beyond that. Let's just say the time is yet to come.

It is insanely curious. Imagine if you end up on the end game score screen and you actually see that "Press here to win the battle right now" button? When you press it, the score is changed, the cool effects are played, your score goes up, the DEFEAT turns into VICTORY, and you are an MVP. You can have your WIN right there. Go ahead and make a screenshot to share.

Would it be fake? The game is not real you know, so would you be able to tell the difference? Pls, someone make a PvP game with this button.

Sir I have been playing tanki since 2013 and seen over the years a huge change, seeing  in the beginning we bought more with crystals . but then since about 2016 its been more pay to win, seeing players now have to have a battle pass or buy items to get better stuff. I now have over load of crystals  my accounts and can only use them to update drones, so the only ones in my books who now get anything is players who put real money into the game . the lower players who don't want to or can't  spend money are the ones loosing out .

so why are you now allowing player with no cash flow to be kicked to the curb and loose out on special items . why can't you make it so we all can take part in enjoying the game. By having the same deals in crystals or in cash , allowing players to choose which deal works best for them.

for example have a package of items with a cash price which could be cheaper then if you bought it with crystals. this way we all can gain from it.

we meed to have new items for Legends, were getting board with nothing to use or crystals on.

[PirateSpider 1,489]

@Opex-Rah, your button is ready. You might also be pleased with my beautiful artwork.

Spoiler

 

[Gabe2607 215]

On 10/14/2023 at 7:10 PM, Opex-Rah said:

How would it impact your feelings as a buyer? Or as a non-buyer?

As a non-buyer, I am all for it. But I know the ship has sailed.

Knowing you ran the idea to the upper floor, you have my respect.

[Cleric 1,385]

On 10/15/2023 at 7:10 AM, Opex-Rah said:

ACTUALLY, this troll comment made me remember something.

So you know how it usually goes with higher-ups. They ask for more monetization like loot boxes, battle passes, and such. Everybody in the industry looking for new ways of monetization especially if someone else tried and proven new methods. The usual stuff in the industry these days.

But what if I tell you that there was a proposal of monetization mechanic so bizarre I was outright denied of even trying it?

The idea was about making pay-to-win into literally a pay-to-win, but with a caveat that the player would not gain any real power advantage. Instead, a player would pay to receive more battle points (they are called 'reputation points' in the current version of the game) for the same actions. In this case, the game would have no system at all that allowed for more power, not even a stats progression. But upgrades and purchases would increase the earned reputation in battle instead.

This system is largely unexplored in games. You can perform worse in the game than the other guy but you end up higher on the final scoreboard nevertheless. How would it impact your feelings as a buyer? Or as a non-buyer? If you are objectively playing better and kick asses would you care that someone else ends up higher on the TAB screen? On the other hand, will you pay to make it to the top of the score and feel good about it, sorta of a revenge, even if you know you didn't play that well? One can say it is even more unfair than current P2W mechanics. I would argue against that but what is the point in arguments if the better way to settle it is to make it, right?

Eventually, I tried this mechanic without telling anyone what I was doing. Certain drones can give you more RP for certain actions. The results are peculiar and I will not explain anything beyond that. Let's just say the time is yet to come.

It is insanely curious. Imagine if you end up on the end game score screen and you actually see that "Press here to win the battle right now" button? When you press it, the score is changed, the cool effects are played, your score goes up, the DEFEAT turns into VICTORY, and you are an MVP. You can have your WIN right there. Go ahead and make a screenshot to share.

Would it be fake? The game is not real you know, so would you be able to tell the difference? Pls, someone make a PvP game with this button.

Ah... isn't that common sense that it's a really bad idea? I mean any sensible person would know that, both from the gameplay perspective and the business perspective.

I don't get it. What are you trying to suggest here?

Edited October 15, 2023 by Cleric

[Hypersomnia 1,695]

On 10/15/2023 at 12:01 AM, Bydo said:

I normally would agree with you , but for some odd reason this player ( which I forgot to take a photo of) was using them. first it was shields and then speed ups, and kept on changing them as soon as it ran out.

Im 99% certain it's Godmode_ON. In the game's lore he's a mysterious hacker that can hack the game anytime he wants and to whatever he wants (You can see bloody text saying "Godmode_ON" in Sandbox remastered). But in reality he's just a dev making the game more fun. Seeing Godmode is actually once in a lifetime accurance in this game so you just got very lucky. He uses Juggernaut + Crisis drone and can switch supplies at any time with Juggernaut

Spoiler

 

On 10/15/2023 at 2:51 AM, Bydo said:

Sir I have been playing tanki since 2013 and seen over the years a huge change, seeing  in the beginning we bought more with crystals . but then since about 2016 its been more pay to win

I can tell you with 500% certainty that 2013-2016 tanki was infinite times more P2W than today's tanki. Take off nostalgia glasses. Buyers then were borderline unkillable dying like 6 times in an hour while the players in the map would just give up trying to kill him and just flat out ignore him.

 

On 10/15/2023 at 8:47 AM, Cleric said:

Ah... isn't that common sense that it's a really bad idea?

replying to troll comment with troll comment. that's really it

[DefkwargX 152]

On 10/15/2023 at 3:10 AM, Opex-Rah said:

You can perform worse in the game than the other guy but you end up higher on the final scoreboard nevertheless. How would it impact your feelings as a buyer? Or as a non-buyer? If you are objectively playing better and kick asses would you care that someone else ends up higher on the TAB screen? On the other hand, will you pay to make it to the top of the score and feel good about it, sorta of a revenge, even if you know you didn't play that well?

Well, sarcasm or not, I kind of disagree. 

I call this one what many people would often call it: a ''luck'' issue. For example, if you deal a considerable amount of damage to an enemy tank but your teammate deals the final shot, you can be mad but he's gonna get 15 score points and you're gonna get 5 points all the same. I get this problem often when I group with my friends in MM while using gauss with the armour-piercing augment. For nearly each salvo shot that i deal to an enemy, my friend gets a kill because he shot the enemy right after during the armour-piercing duration. This often contributes leads to my friend being on top of me on the leaderboard.

Another example is in CTF, when someone takes the enemy flag and travels with it across the map but gets killed just before capping it. Then the selfish shaft/mammoth crisis who is just behind a cover next to the flag just has to press 2 and pickup the flag and cap it. The user who carried the flag will most probably try to make other attempts at taking the enemy flag but if he fails, the shaft user will most likely end up on top of him on the leaderboard because he is focusing on killing. The same thing goes for the picking of a flag in assault mode and taking it to the enemy base but getting killed just instants before capping it. You get 0 points for the effort that you made to sneak into the enemy base.

3 unfair examples, right? Well, I think that most of the time, it all boils down to the game mechanics. In the case of the first example that i provided, I find it ABSURD that if I deal 2999 damage to a viking but someone deals the final 1hp damage to him, he'll get 15 points and imma get only 5. The logical change he would be to award 15 points to the killer, yes, but also to award points proportional to the damage dealt to the ones who dealt damage to the dead tank. In this case, I would like to receive 14 points because of my huge contribution to the killing of the enemy tank. This will greatly reduce the injustice of kill-stealing with respect to the score.

The 2nd and 3rd examples concern the same issue: poor allocation of battle points. Imo, points should be allocated proportionally to the distance one carries the flag in CTF and in ASL modes. What am saying here is in the case when one takes the flag, travels quite far, but gets intercepted by an enemy, killed and the flag gets returned, one should get battle points proportionally to the distance travelled with the flag. Of course, the maximum points that he can receive in this manner can be 30 instead of 79. However, in the case that he gets killed and a teammate of his caps the flag, the maximum points that he can receive must be equal to 79.

Keep in mind that this is my opinion, which might be good in essence but practically unrealistic. My point is instead of just adding a ''button'', why don't you attack the problems to the source. Instead of thinking about fixing the ''unfair'' way people are being placed on the board, why not think about WHY they were placed in this specific manner? For me, it's the same as if you are planning on giving painkillers for life to a patient who needs a surgery to ease his pain while refusing to investigate whether or not he needs a surgery. I also wanna mention that I end up in the top 3 most of, if not nearly all of the time when i start a battle from the beginning in MM and i'm a non-buyer. Hence, i personally don't care who comes below me or on top of me as long as i'm in the top 3 because all that matters the most for me most of the time in MM battles is stars. But if you wanna tackle a problem, do it from the source.

The imbalance in MM stems greatly from the lack of players which is preventing developers from making adequate changes to address the matter. I would like to know if tanki is making any moves to promote the game and if not, (if you don't mind me asking), why? I discovered tanki through miniclip, and so did my brother and a major part of tanki's all time playerbase, I believe.
 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Assasin-TO

[Vacuum 76]

On 10/15/2023 at 9:19 AM, Assasin-TO said:

Well, I kind of disagree. 

I call this one what many people would often call it: a ''luck'' issue. For example, if you deal a considerable amount of damage to an enemy tank but your teammate deals the final shot, you can be mad but he's gonna get 15 score points and you're gonna get 5 points all the same. I get this problem often when I group with my friends in MM while using gauss with the armour-piercing augment. For nearly each salvo shot that i deal to an enemy, my friend gets a kill because he shot the enemy right after during the armour-piercing duration. This often contributes leads to my friend being on top of me on the leaderboard.

Another example is in CTF, when someone takes the enemy flag and travels with it across the map but gets killed just before capping it. Then the selfish shaft/mammoth crisis who is just behind a cover next to the flag just has to press 2 and pickup the flag and cap it. The user who carried the flag will most probably try to make other attempts at taking the enemy flag but if he fails, the shaft user will most likely end up on top of him on the leaderboard because he is focusing on killing. The same thing goes for the picking of a flag in assault mode and taking it to the enemy base but getting killed just instants before capping it. You get 0 points for the effort that you made to sneak into the enemy base.

3 unfair examples, right? Well, I think that most of the time, it all boils down to the game mechanics. In the case of the first example that i provided, I find it ABSURD that if I deal 2999 damage to a viking but someone deals the final 1hp damage to him, he'll get 15 points and imma get only 5. The logical change he would be to award 15 points to the killer, yes, but also to award points proportional to the damage dealt to the ones who dealt damage to the dead tank. In this case, I would like to receive 14 points because of my huge contribution to the killing of the enemy tank. This will greatly reduce the injustice of kill-stealing with respect to the score.

The 2nd and 3rd examples concern the same issue: poor allocation of battle points. Imo, points should be allocated proportionally to the distance one carries the flag in CTF and in ASL modes. What am saying here is in the case when one takes the flag, travels quite far, but gets intercepted by an enemy, killed and the flag gets returned, one should get battle points proportionally to the distance travelled with the flag. Of course, the maximum points that he can receive in this manner can be 30 instead of 79. However, in the case that he gets killed and a teammate of his caps the flag, the maximum points that he can receive must be equal to 79.

Keep in mind that this is my opinion, which might be good in essence but practically unrealistic. My point is instead of just adding a ''button'', why don't you attack the problems to the source. Instead of thinking about fixing the ''unfair'' way people are being placed on the board, why not think about WHY they were placed in this specific manner? For me, it's the same as if you are planning on giving painkillers for life to a patient who needs a surgery to ease his pain while refusing to investigate whether or not he needs a surgery. I also wanna mention that I end up in the top 3 most of, if not nearly all of the time when i start a battle from the beginning in MM and i'm a non-buyer. Hence, i personally don't care who comes below me or on top of me as long as i'm in the top 3 because all that matters the most for me most of the time in MM battles is stars. But if you wanna tackle a problem, do it from the source.

The imbalance in MM stems greatly from the lack of players which is preventing developers from making adequate changes to address the matter. I would like to know if tanki is making any moves to promote the game and if not, (if you don't mind me asking), why? I discovered tanki through miniclip, and so did my brother and a major part of tanki's all time playerbase, I believe.
 

come on friend, it is not that bad, it is absurd when someone finishes your kill, but that is a game

 

On 10/15/2023 at 8:03 AM, Kimura said:

I can tell you with 500% certainty that 2013-2016 tanki was infinite times more P2W than today's tanki. Take off nostalgia glasses. Buyers then were borderline unkillable dying like 6 times in an hour while the players in the map would just give up trying to kill him and just flat out ignore him.

indded, back in old days it only matters who had more supplies, and that were buyers

tanki now is less p2w then it was.

Just look what we have now: tanki funds, tons of minigames and events, free tcs every battlepass (you just need to be active) from which you can obtain 2,4 k tcs per year

dont expect you will get tcs if you are not active player, it is the same if you just sit on the couch and think, that you will get muscles -> it is not possible man

 

and @Opex-Rah, i am waiting for snowballs instead of grenades for whole winter and then for valentines I want to see that scorpion's missiles fly only in heart's shape (please thank me later)

 

[Batmobile 30]

On 10/15/2023 at 1:10 AM, Opex-Rah said:

ACTUALLY, this troll comment made me remember something.

So you know how it usually goes with higher-ups. They ask for more monetization like loot boxes, battle passes, and such. Everybody in the industry looking for new ways of monetization especially if someone else tried and proven new methods. The usual stuff in the industry these days.

But what if I tell you that there was a proposal of monetization mechanic so bizarre I was outright denied of even trying it?

The idea was about making pay-to-win into literally a pay-to-win, but with a caveat that the player would not gain any real power advantage. Instead, a player would pay to receive more battle points (they are called 'reputation points' in the current version of the game) for the same actions. In this case, the game would have no system at all that allowed for more power, not even a stats progression. But upgrades and purchases would increase the earned reputation in battle instead.

This system is largely unexplored in games. You can perform worse in the game than the other guy but you end up higher on the final scoreboard nevertheless. How would it impact your feelings as a buyer? Or as a non-buyer? If you are objectively playing better and defeat players with ease, would you care that someone else ends up higher on the TAB screen? On the other hand, will you pay to make it to the top of the score and feel good about it, sorta of a revenge, even if you know you didn't play that well? One can say it is even more unfair than current P2W mechanics. I would argue against that but what is the point in arguments if the better way to settle it is to make it, right?

Eventually, I tried this mechanic without telling anyone what I was doing. Certain drones can give you more RP for certain actions. The results are peculiar and I will not explain anything beyond that. Let's just say the time is yet to come.

It is insanely curious. Imagine if you end up on the end game score screen and you actually see that "Press here to win the battle right now" button? When you press it, the score is changed, the cool effects are played, your score goes up, the DEFEAT turns into VICTORY, and you are an MVP. You can have your WIN right there. Go ahead and make a screenshot to share.

Would it be fake? The game is not real you know, so would you be able to tell the difference? Pls, someone make a PvP game with this button.

It would destroy my ego to the ground.

As a end game player on big account, i need to be the first team player to satisfy my everyday dose of ego of carrying the team to the victory while being the MVP, if i don't have that, i would feel noob and end up buying that battle point pass just for the shake of lying to myself. (Obviously it's a joke)

[DefkwargX 152]

On 10/15/2023 at 11:55 AM, Vacuum said:

come on friend, it is not that bad, it is absurd when someone finishes your kill, but that is a game

Yea, but opex found the idea of adding a p2w button desirable because of the positions of players on the leaderboard, which he deems as unfair but he seems to not show enough consideration as to WHY these players are placed on the leaderboard in this specific way. Addresing this issue will help to reduce this issue. Kill-stealing is an issue that is important and must not be ignored, imo.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Assasin-TO

[DefkwargX 152]

On 10/15/2023 at 10:03 AM, Kimura said:

I can tell you with 500% certainty that 2013-2016 tanki was infinite times more P2W than today's tanki. Take off nostalgia glasses. Buyers then were borderline unkillable dying like 6 times in an hour while the players in the map would just give up trying to kill him and just flat out ignore him.

 

Well said. Tired of tryna make people understand this. 

 

 

On 10/15/2023 at 11:55 AM, Vacuum said:

indded, back in old days it only matters who had more supplies, and that were buyers

tanki now is less p2w then it was.

Just look what we have now: tanki funds, tons of minigames and events, free tcs every battlepass (you just need to be active) from which you can obtain 2,4 k tcs per year

dont expect you will get tcs if you are not active player, it is the same if you just sit on the couch and think, that you will get muscles -> it is not possible man

Agree

[krokorok 837]

On 10/15/2023 at 1:10 AM, Opex-Rah said:

ACTUALLY, this troll comment made me remember something.

So you know how it usually goes with higher-ups. They ask for more monetization like loot boxes, battle passes, and such. Everybody in the industry looking for new ways of monetization especially if someone else tried and proven new methods. The usual stuff in the industry these days.

But what if I tell you that there was a proposal of monetization mechanic so bizarre I was outright denied of even trying it?

The idea was about making pay-to-win into literally a pay-to-win, but with a caveat that the player would not gain any real power advantage. Instead, a player would pay to receive more battle points (they are called 'reputation points' in the current version of the game) for the same actions. In this case, the game would have no system at all that allowed for more power, not even a stats progression. But upgrades and purchases would increase the earned reputation in battle instead.

This system is largely unexplored in games. You can perform worse in the game than the other guy but you end up higher on the final scoreboard nevertheless. How would it impact your feelings as a buyer? Or as a non-buyer? If you are objectively playing better and defeat players with ease, would you care that someone else ends up higher on the TAB screen? On the other hand, will you pay to make it to the top of the score and feel good about it, sorta of a revenge, even if you know you didn't play that well? One can say it is even more unfair than current P2W mechanics. I would argue against that but what is the point in arguments if the better way to settle it is to make it, right?

Eventually, I tried this mechanic without telling anyone what I was doing. Certain drones can give you more RP for certain actions. The results are peculiar and I will not explain anything beyond that. Let's just say the time is yet to come.

It is insanely curious. Imagine if you end up on the end game score screen and you actually see that "Press here to win the battle right now" button? When you press it, the score is changed, the cool effects are played, your score goes up, the DEFEAT turns into VICTORY, and you are an MVP. You can have your WIN right there. Go ahead and make a screenshot to share.

Would it be fake? The game is not real you know, so would you be able to tell the difference? Pls, someone make a PvP game with this button.

The more balanced gameplay would be enjoyable for sure, but there are many unanswered questions left in your proposal that hugely affect both buyers and nonbuyers. First, if nothing is giving any p2w power boost, what will be the main incentive for buyers to spend money on. I mean okay, you spend money, you win battle get more reputation points, crystals, experience, stars, but what exactly is this good for if you are an end game player or enjoy the power that comes from p2w augments that cannot be replicated. For me there seems to be no long term motivation for buyer to spend. Also this proposal does not take into account the fact that the buyer can actually perform very well in battle. If the buyer is skilled or develops skills to win battles the natural way, or at least he stays close to the top, than in practice there is no point for him to spend money, if he already won the battle. Again, even if he gets more experience points, crystals or whatever on top of that, what exactly can he do with those, what can he buy with that that will motivate him to spend. If there is no p2w equipment, your only other option are the cosmetics, since that is the only thing left that does not affect the gameplay in any way. 

Also from the nonbuyer point of view, I personally dont mind my placement as much as actually enjoying the battle, but again it depends. How will this thing affect the progression of a nonbuyer. If a buyer can simply win the battle by paying or place higher than you how much will this affect the progression of a nonbuyer. For nonbuyer it depends how much will the current mechanics be influenced such as getting stars for challenges, completing missions, and gaining crystals to actually buy and unlock new equipment.

[Hypersomnia 1,695]

On 10/15/2023 at 12:00 PM, krokorok said:

For me there seems to be no long term motivation for buyer to spend.

F2P player turned into skilled buyer here. The only reason i'm spending is just for cosmetics. The new shiny toys no matter how OP don't effect me because I know i'll get them eventually. By buying a couple BPs every now and then I got one of the most stacked accounts in just 2 years meanwhile a buyer spends a million tankoins a month just to get a new toy that'll still get outmatched by average augment by a skilled user 9/10 times actually. Long term motivation to spend for me is cosmetics and a random battle pass to get extra 5 containers and maybe get lucky. For your generic 200 cont/month buy it's the new toys that'll get nerfed but he's too addicted to the power of exotic augs.

[Vacuum 76]

On 10/15/2023 at 11:12 AM, Kimura said:

F2P player turned into skilled buyer here. The only reason i'm spending is just for cosmetics. The new shiny toys no matter how OP don't effect me because I know i'll get them eventually. By buying a couple BPs every now and then I got one of the most stacked accounts in just 2 years meanwhile a buyer spends a million tankoins a month just to get a new toy that'll still get outmatched by average augment by a skilled user 9/10 times actually. Long term motivation to spend for me is cosmetics and a random battle pass to get extra 5 containers and maybe get lucky. For your generic 200 cont/month buy it's the new toys that'll get nerfed but he's too addicted to the power of exotic augs.

nice argument, i totally agree

i think in tanki we have 2 types of buyers:

1) addicted buyers (big junkees) who want to have everything just after release so they pay a lot for single exotic, which is, like kimura said, obtainable in next event

2) smart buyers, they pay only for items they really want, like some specail skins or paints

honestly i think smart buyers are actually pro players, but mega buyers are just 90% of hazel's income

[JustBlackWolf 875]

Hazel talking about balance of Skorpion rockets when he fully knows this game won't be balanced ever again because they care more about money over user experience

[DefkwargX 152]

On 10/15/2023 at 3:27 PM, MEXICAN-SKY said:

Are you having a laff. 

Kill stealing is an important issue that needs solving. AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, do you realise what you are claiming, are you totally brain dead.

So, you forgot the context again or you deliberately chose to ignore it this time? Opex was asking if it is fair if someone who played objectively well in a battle gets placed on the leaderboard under someone who didn't play quite as well as the former. He also found the idea of a p2w button fun (he was jk). I argued that the way that his ''injustice'' needs to be tackled is by changing the way that points are allocated to players in battles. Hence, someone asked me about this issue and i told him that kill-stealing is an issue which contributes to this ''injustice''. I also stated that idc, as i am in the top 3 in nearly every battle, if you took care to read the context. However, in hazel's case, this is a relevant and important issue. Care to read the context, fool. Can't wait for you to not take responsibility of this mistake as well.