No, it was simply testing different aspects of the system. In particular, the main thing that was being tested was the servers' ability to withstand the load of the system sorting people into battles without crashing. And that was a success.

OK guys, please stop this discussion about spending money on golds. It's not your money and therefore it's not your business how that money is spent.

Topic merged

The test that happened a couple weeks ago was NOT matchmaking. It was merely a test to see how quickly and effectively the system creates battles and puts players into it. The final result should be a lot more accurate with balancing the teams.

Only if the enemy you were shooting gets finished off by your teammate within 10 seconds since the last time you damaged them. If that happens, then you and your teammate will share 15 points between you based on the % of damage each of you dealt.

You got a bit unlucky with the scoring mechanism. You see, you only get scores for flags if the flag you carried actually got captured. You won't get points if you take a flag that then gets returned by the enemy. If you took the flag and someone else captured it, they get 50% of the points while you can get from 20% to 50%. Also, for killing the enemy flag carrier you do get extra points, but it's only double that of a normal kill, so 20 points instead of 10. If you did that 3 times, it's the same as getting 3 extra normal kills. 8 kills in one game isn't that much, so assuming you got 80 points for the kills, 30 for the flag kills and 50 for the capture, that's only 160 total points in the whole game, which is a rather low amount and thus grants you a low reward. What was the overall battle fund, where were you on the score table and how much score did your best teammates have?

Matchmaking will solve this problem in standard battles, while custom battles might get a kick system to help battle violators.

Read the post carefully. I said that before the MUs update, so 5/50 is equivalent to today's 1/10 :P

The anti-cheat keeps evolving to block current types of hacks and hackers keep evolving to produce new hacks that bypass the anti-cheat system. It's a never-ending battle. There is no single update that developers can implement to forever block all hackers. It simply doesn't work that way.

^ hacks? :blink:

Well, yeah. When you rotate your turret, the camera rotates with it. So in this kind of "spectator mode" that's how you rotate the camera without mouse controls.

I don't think the exp/time ratio is as important as you describe it to be. I mean, yeah - it mostly shows an accurate representation of which turrets you are most effective with and which turrets are best for getting exp fast, but it doesn't take into account any change of play style that you possibly had. Like, if you used Hammer a lot only for parkour all the time for a couple years and only now started actually playing in battles with it, no matter how much exp you get, the indicator in Ratings will always show a terrible result since the time you spent in parkour mode will stay. And I wouldn't say that you just have to take the turret with the highest ratio and use that. Just use the one you enjoy most or one that you want to play with at the time. Unless of course you don't care even a little bit about your personal satisfaction and simply want to get experience fast, which is weird since it's like you're working in a job rather than playing the game.

Are you using mouse controls? For mouse you move the move left and right to turn left/right and use the scroll wheel to go up and down. For keyboard it's X, Z, E, Q by default.

0 No, probably more like a coincidence that the people most suitable for wiki admin position also happen to be the biggest forum flooders :rolleyes:

Topic merged

Topic merged

0 I shall continue your legacy :ph34r:

If you're applying for "Most gold boxes dropped in one game", then I'll ask Generalissima to apply with her 1000 gold rain :D

Corrected.

...Which makes Isida (unfairly?) more powerful compared to other weapons. Considering that "an electromagnetic pulse that generates a stream of nanobots" isn't even remotely realistic, I don't see why the sound for it should be more realistic.

The wiki doesn't require that much activity, so I will accept one or two candidates and then close applications again.

I'm still a forum mod :P

Answered. Closed.

Topic merged

Topic merged