Twins are indeed not very demanding, but if the questione is: "which turret is easiest to use and get results" it has to be Rico.

^ I agree, Rico is current OP turret. Bought Hammer M1 for my alt last sale, I can compare it to Thunder M1, and.... meh. I tried to compare both in several battles, changing turrets mid-batlle. Thunder was better in every situation, DM, CTF, CP, TDM - better range+AoE damage (that is not split between opponents)+possibility of indirect damage and not that much slower reload made Thunder twice as effective as Hammer every time. Of course there is remote possibility that Thunder is also OP... :rolleyes:

^ Thought the same. It gains more from DP than any other turret. And it works very nicely in "limited drugs" environment. But recent experience changed my mind. Believe me, I have used Isida as my main turret for some time, and "unlimited drugs" proved that its not the weapon of choice for full drug war.

Isida is (make it WAS) my favourite turret. But recent event with unlimited drugs opened my eyes. When everybody had free access to unlimited first aid kits Isida suddenly became useless. While I was attacking everyone (literally everyone) waited until I burned most of ammo, then... first aid, I'm out of ammo, with dodging as only option. While I was healing... err who needs healing when everyone has first aid kits? My old, dust gathering Twins M1 proved ten times more succesfull. If (as I suspect) drugging is much more prominent at higher ranks, than I have to rethink my grand strategy.

Rico player I pressume? :)

According to Wiki MUing does increase projectile speed, probably it increases with damage (or impact force?). But top speed is still slower then M0 Rico.

Vulcan as it is now is probably weakest turret in game. Long range it's weak and easy to avoid. At medium range it could be dangerous when there is nowhere to hide, and that's rarely a case. At short range its hopeless, I suspect even Shaft could kill Vulcan using arcade shots and circling around. Excuse me, achieving status of "difficult to kill" with help of two other tanks and repair kit is hardly a merit. Combination of time needed to start shooting + time needed to deal damage makes it easy to get close to Vulcan (or just get a few pot shots from cover). Then gyro effect makes it easy to get out of firing cone. Ok - maybe M3 Vulcan is strong enough I don't know that, but M1 and M2 I've met so far were disturbingly easy to kill. Even better - they were easy to ignore.

Got to try that. But my previous experience with Shaft doesn't give me much hope. I will probably get mad after 4th death and change to other turret. :D

Ok, you got me there. How do you use Shaft in ping-pong??? I've seen that once (I mean shaft in ping-pong) and it was sad to watch. Even at Combe, which is (arguably) more shaft-friendly, shaft is more slow-moving target than a threat.

For me, there is obvious cause/effect in latest changes: 1. To make game more dynamic predictable drops were introduced. Unfortunately that also indtroduced new kinds of crystal boxes -> suddenly nobody is playing, everybody just collect boxes. 2. To improve that situation crystal boxes were removed from play altogether. That took one of advantages of light hulls (ability to collect boxes) and gave advantage to campers (they could get even more crystals now, thaks to to high score) -> everyone grabs their Railguns, and (especially) Shafts. 3. Again, to bring more dynamic, and get rid of campers, Shafts are being nerfed (ok, not precisely nerfed - just they ability to camp is diminished)... What do you think will happend next? - Railguns will take Shafts place as campers and will be nerfed as well? - absence of Shafts at defence will change balance in CTF battles = more freezes and firebirds? Let nobody be mistaken - I do think those changes are for better (no crystal boxes + less campers), but, as we all see, each change brings new problems to the game. BTW - if we want Shaft to be "no-so-much-camper-weapon", they could use some boost to help in dynamic play. Faster turret rotation? Quicker arcade shot maybe?

While I like the update, I have one question: Was really Shaft so overdominant in high-ranked battles that it needed a nerf?

Great changes, especially forced timer at battle creation, as timed battles are much harder to raid. Good job.

Note that not all hulls/turrets have their modifications spread evenly. For example Wasp have a huge hole between M1 and M2 - 12 ranks. Hornet is much friendlier in that department. Likewise Ricochet - M2 at First Lieutnant, M3 at Commander - 11 ranks! Isida and Railgun are better here. If you "like to go in close but have the option to go from afar too" you can probably forget about Shaft, there is no other weapon in the game less suitable for close combat. Probably Railgun is most "universal" turret, but (IMHO) is also hardest to master. Thunder could be nice if you can live with late M1 unlock. Having said that I agree with others. First try all the turrets and find what you like, especially if you are going to be stuck with it entire game.

WIth both my accounts I managed to catch 5 gold boxes. You know what? Current gold box system is MUCH better. :P

I like the change, but I see some problems with it: 1. If you drop out of learning curve, falling behind others with skill, there is no way to gain crystals without gaining exp (ok - no way without buying). And - with way battle fund is divided - you still gain more and more exp, with les and less crystals. 2. Similarily - several lost battles, a few battles that you have to exit prematurely and BAM - you have just gained a lot of exp with no crystals to cover future expenses. 3. From when "experiment" started I play almost exclusively in DMs. Any team play is too risky, as income depends too much on other players. When I screw something in DM its my fault, but I hate when we lose team match eventhough my play was good. 4. You say dropped crystals are added straight to battle fund. You are probably right. But now I have to play from the very beggining of match, to very end, at 100% of my skills to gain about as much crystals as I gained from battle fund + drops before. My exp skyrocets, incomes are more or less same as before. There is no conlusion to it. I still think that its better with no dropping crystals. But I feel those problems should be somehow "addressed".

This! For each achievement half crystals to battle fund, another half instantly to player who scored. Of course there is self-destruct thing... it lowers score... should it also drain player crystals?

And that attitude is perfect reason to get rid of crystal boxes once and for all. Players should be rewarded for trying to win, not for collecting boxes ignoring the play. And gold boxes coul be gone too... just a distraction really.

As I said before - I like this update. Players should be rewarded for what they did to win a match, not for randomly picking crystal boxes without playing attention to the game. But, as many other said, way of splitting battle fund could be different. Frequently I have to abandon game before it ends. In new system that would leave me without a single crystal gained. Likewise - in CTF which is lost to a 0 on one side, losers get nothing. No difference if they actively fought like a lions for every single flag, or just cruising around map shooting randomly. Maybe players could get crystals each time thay gained score? Lets say (just an example) - 5 crystals each time they score passed 20 points? Of course that amount would have to be deducted from battle fund splitted at end of game. So a player that would score 400 points and would have been forced to abandon game, wouldn't came out empty-handed, but with 100 crystals. And player that would score 400 points, but finished tha game would gain 100 crystals + his share of battle fund. Edit: I recalculated that, and my figures are probably too high (crystals per score). But, as I said its just an example.

That is AWESOME. And believe me, I'm crystal gatherer myself. Matches were never as intense. I say we should keep that update.

Hmm.. strange. I find it most used of all short-range turrets. Sometimes 3-4 Isidas per side, with no Firebird or Freeze. And that's too much. I do hope it is lees present at higher ranks...

I had so beautful plan. Go to second lieutnant, wait for sale (exp alt), get Hornet and Isida M2, than to colonel, wait for sale (exp alt), get Viking and Shaft M2.... and now this. Just when I managed to get rid of an idea of buying most expensive turret in whole TO. Should I resist... or just go wild...?

Just tried open test server with Isida Hornet. Sad thing - Thunder/Viking combo owns me. I didnt MU my stuff fully, but I did (after several deaths) buy Emerald, and that didnt help a lot. I wasnt doing so bad against other combos, (Rico, Smoky, Railgun, Firebird), but those were on light hulls. Maybe that was doing the difference. Still, perhaps my idea to make Isida my main turret was not the best I could take. :(

Yep, obviously we've got two most OP turrets in the game here. One has SHORTEST range of all turrets, with not-so-great DPS. Second depends SOLELY on outmaneuvering opponent. Definitly "U need no skill to use this weapons".

Two tankers, immobile, one in front of another, just stay there pressing space. Yes, in this realistic looking scenario Isida has advantage, especially when they are drugged.

I mean that too. My Isida vs enemy Freeze face to face. He frozen me, and backed off until he saw I'm outta range. Than he just kept that distance. I was pretty impressed.