-
Posts
23 558 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
265
Everything posted by Maf
-
Topic merged No, developers will not be adding a feature just so that you can spam insults at other players.
- 79 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- Communication
- Chat
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Exactly. The time you spent not charging up your shot's power is added to the reload. So the less you charge up your shot, the longer it will take to reload afterwards.
-
Shooting at short range is actually less convenient now, because the reload is longer when shot power is small. The turret's effectiveness at short range was reduced.
-
Will publish it within the next hour.
-
Valid
-
But this shows the actual effects in game, which is not what we had in the vlog.
- 72 replies
-
- 10
-
-
I hate such people with a passion. Lately I've only been playing JGR battles, where you shouldn't really be fighting other players anyway. Fine, I don't mind if you do sometimes shoot others and finish off damaged tanks or shoot those with light hulls and/or no protection to get easy kills (after all, player with most kills wins). But when I'm a freshly spawned Titan with DA and 50% protection from your turret, minding my own business and trying to aim at the Juggernaut, WHY do you start attacking me with your useless Freeze/Rico/Twins/etc.?!?!? I will never understand these people. I personally always ignore 50% protections unless I have DD and they don't have DA, and preferably they are damaged.
-
Yeah, that's a good point... I think we'll keep them for now. Perhaps devs will change it back. Or we can make it so that the criteria for beating the record is to get 90% or more of the current value.
-
No idea where you get those missions. I just completed 375 score in RGB and got 4 batteries. And I'm pretty sure it's the same every time.
-
valid Hint that nickname has changed to form r_nickname0 after unable to log in
Maf replied to sensei_tanker in Ideas and Suggestions
Valid -
I don't understand what you're upset about. You suggested a record and Musa asked for proof. Please provide it, otherwise nothing will be done.
-
Valid 3 extra module slots that will only work in DM or JGR
Maf replied to GuidoFawkes in Ideas and Suggestions
I guess that's an option... -
You sure? For the more difficult missions if the reward is batteries, then it's usually 5-8.
-
The purpose of that change is to reduce overall waiting times. The faster battles end, the more opportunities there are to get you into a battle from the queue.
-
We can't accept it without a screenshot as proof.
-
Yeah, that seems reasonable. It won't be your record, but it might be added to public records.
-
:ph34r: Most days waited for a response about a record - 16 - @SmellThis
-
The point of those missions is to give people a way of quickly completing a daily mission to keep their weekly chain going. Sometimes you don't have time to get 1500 EXP in a game and you just want to collect 2 repair kits and be done, so that's where these missions are useful. I understand that the rewards are ridiculous (I think my opinion of battery prices is shared with most players), but those missions are balanced to fit with the economy.
-
valid Option to reply to battle invitations ("Coming when done" button)
Maf replied to r_I_already_won0 in Ideas and Suggestions
Topic merged- 26 replies
-
- interface
- communication
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Similar idea: Supply modifications
-
Valid 3 extra module slots that will only work in DM or JGR
Maf replied to GuidoFawkes in Ideas and Suggestions
Under review Makes perfect sense, this bothered me too for a long time. The only problem is that by allowing players to equip more modules you are making buyers more OP, since they will be able to equip more of their purchased game-affecting items. Although a logical alternative would be to allow equipping more than three modules in DM, but their protection gets reduced to fit in with the 150% max protection limit (this was suggested in another topic). However, don't forget that this means that there will be double the amount of protections in DM modes, so if you play with Railgun and there are 10/16 players with Railgun modules now, after the change you propose there will probably be all 16 players with Railgun modules in almost every DM battle. And in any case, more modules = more time to destroy enemies = less deaths = lower funds. -
Valid 7 module slots, but gradually reducing protection value
Maf replied to OKDad70 in Ideas and Suggestions
Well, I'm one of those people and the only protection I don't use is from mines and Vulcan. -
Valid 7 module slots, but gradually reducing protection value
Maf replied to OKDad70 in Ideas and Suggestions
In reality it would probably be a benefit, or at least no change in effectiveness compared to the current system, but in the eyes of most players devs made it impossible for them to use their 50% modules, meaning that all those crystals went to waste. Obviously that's not the case, but I'm sure that's exactly how a lot of people would see it. -
Too much effort to open the PM and type there :lol:Also, might as well keep some aspects of our discussion transparent so that others can contribute.
-
Valid 7 module slots, but gradually reducing protection value
Maf replied to OKDad70 in Ideas and Suggestions
But the 150% limit can still exist with this idea. Only instead of 50-50-50 it will be 50-40-30-20-10, or 45-25-25-15-10-10-10, or something like that. But I can already envision the majority of Legends with full sets of modules being outraged by this idea.
Jump to content









































































