Marshal Ricosck in DM against Legends, again. No problem. Luck of the draw, but, three Ricos, 3 or 4 Freeze, 2 Rails, 2 Twins, Thunder, Firebird, Hammer, Isida, mines seemingly everywhere, and some say we have too much protection. No, three protections is not enough. Respawn is not the game objective. Rico's buff is noticeable. I'm not sure why you did it. You need to reduce Firebird, Freeze, and Isida, not bring Ricochet up to them. Oh, and I finally managed to get a star. Three battles. One star. Stars are frustrating. Stars depend mostly on the luck of the pathetic MM system. I do appreciate the fest. Double fund is good. Discounts are good. Stars, not so much. Star pass for $5? Well, double zero is still zero, ain't it? Fix your "active" definition.

There you go again. Two battles, zero stars. I managed to get two missions done, so I sure seem to have been active. Your definition of active participation stinks. It is really sickening. Of course, both battles were absolute slaughters of the team I was unfortunate enough for MM to have stuck me in, but I was active from the moment I was stuck on the hopeless team until the end. Active, yet no stars. If kills are the criteria, and I have a bad match, at least I get the kills I know I achieved. Stars depend too much on luck. MM is broke. The stars system is broke.

There you go again. Two battles, zero stars. I managed to get two missions done, so I sure seem to have been active. Your definition of active participation stinks. It is really sickening. Of course, both battles were absolute slaughters of the team I was unfortunate enough for MM to have stuck me in, but I was active from the moment I was stuck on the hopeless team until the end. Active, yet no stars. If kills are the criteria, and I have a bad match, at least I get the kills I know I achieved. Stars depend too much on luck. MM is broke. The stars system is broke.

Hmm...could be. Hard to tell how players will react, but I think more control and more options will be a majority win. Assuming a heavy buyer or a Legend of several levels, such players likely have all the protections they care to have MUd to 50%. They can only use three of those at a time, and they likely cannot change more then once per battle. They likely have a lot of protections they never use at all.

MM battles typically have six to eight turrets on a team. Three modules leves over half the opposing team with significant advantage over a given player. In MM DM, usually at least ten of the turrets are represented.

Thanks for considering. I would like to see one full module, but I'm not hard over on any of it. Regardless of any other consideration, being able to protect from only three turrets with 13 (and more pending) turrets isn't enough. Seven (more under some circumstances) can destroy a tank without a module in one short or in less than three seconds before a player can respond. Having no ability to respond isn't fun, isn't play. It is just frustrating. Having it happen once in a while is something to just get over. Having it happen repeatedly in the same match shouldn't be something players must be subjected to. Having only three modules and not being able to change any for five minutes after changing only one is frustrating. It is NOT playing. It is not valid competition. I'd also like to see slots with garage timers instead of the whole of protections. As is, if I change my first slot, then maybe it should be unchangeable for five minutes, but why are the second and third slot also locked? I didn't change them. I suppose nothing like this should be attempted before we see how bad the overdrives affect things. I don't suppose it is something that could possibly be implemented by the New Year. If I knew something like what I suggest we being implemented, I'd have no problem being patient. (Well, at least for a few months. Overdrives have taken much too long.) Again, I reiterate, I do not think the 150% combined total protection is enough. Maybe 35% for any module should be the limit, but that would alter the overall game significantly. But I don't see any drawback to having a higher combined total.

MM CTF match. Took too long to get in. Then this: MESSL was Thunder-Viking and focused on flags. X-E-X-E-X and Riconot were Freeze (Viking, Hornet). Less than seven minutes. We kicked butt a little too easily. MM is broke! MM seems to have built a uniform blue-team. Red-team, not so much. It seems few players left either team during the battle. Obviously, some factor is overlooked. The match was an obvious lopsided slaughter from the very beginning. Good day for us on blue, but red players probably didn't like it at all. BTW, I notice X-E-X-E-X has a triple reward multiplier. WUWT?

I would like to see seven module slots as follows: 1.0x ; 1.0x 0.8x 0.7x 0.6x 0.5x 0.3x Each slot would include the multiplier. The multiplier would apply to whichever module was equipped in it. With seven 50% modules, that would give the top two slots 50% protection; the 3rd slot - 40%; 4th - 35%; 5th - 30%, 6th - 25%; 7th - 15%. Of course, since most of us don't have that many 50% modules, we'd have to choose which to put where to maximize protection effectively against the turrets of a given battle. In 8v8, that would usually allow a protection against all the turrets, but some wouldn't be very much, but maybe enough to keep from being spawn-killed for the whole 10 minutes. Modules open at Sergeant. I suggest only two slots at that rank, then each new slot opens at progressively higher ranks, with the seventh opening at Marshal. Of course, there are various other possibilities along this line, but we need more than three slots for modules. We need more than four. It might be good to take an entirely different approach. Perhaps we could have 14 slots, with only the first having the 1.0x multiplier fixed. Each subsequent module equipped would gradually affect the multiplier for each. Something like: Two modules: 1.0x ; 1.0x Three modules: 1.0x ; 0.95x ; 0.9x Four modules: 1.0x ; 0.9x ; 0.8x ; 0.7x Five modules: 1.0x ; 0.85x ; 0.75x ; 0.65x ; 0.6x and so on in some scheme that lets players tailor their equipment to the style and capabilities that suits them best but balances extra protections with less overall effectiveness of each one. This scheme could also open two slots at Sergeant rank, and open the additional 12, one at a time at appropriate rank attainment. I know the old paradigm was 150% maximum total cumulative protection (with a couple exceptions). But, that is not enough with seven turrets that can destroy you from spawn before you can respond. We need protection against at least five turrets that grants us more than a single-shot kill protection and more than 2.5 seconds to respond.

GS is weird. Wiki says, "Each type of weapon gives zero to the maximum number of allocated GS:," and I assume that means Mod+MU is the only determiner, not which turret. And, "For turrets, GS depends linearly on the level of improvements (modification + upgrades)," but I checked, and it isn't linear by the standard definition. There are 50 levels. 2000 ÷ 50 = 40. But, with M3.20 equipped, GS is 8830. With M3.18 equipped GS is 8780. 8830 - 8780 = 50, not 80. Two MUs worth 40 each should be 80. Equipping M3.17 turret, GS is now 8755. So, apparently the linear is 25 rather than 40. Maybe. Equipping M3.12 turret, GS is 8630. That is still working out at 25 GS points per MU. M0 has ten steps, M1 has ten steps, M2 has ten steps, M3 has twenty steps. 10+10+10+20=50 Fifty total steps. Linear is usually defined as the total divided by the steps, so 2000 ÷ 50 = 40. 2000 ÷ 25 = 80, thirty steps too many. 25 x 50 = 1250. Does that mean an M0.0 turret is rated with 750 GS? I don't have a convenient way to check. (I'm not setting up a new alt-account just to check.) I have no way to check supplies, but the wiki page says linear. It seems one supply is 1 GS point up to 300 maximum per supply, for each of the six supplies (including batteries). Paint is specified in the table, and the other factors are only indicated for their maximum. I have two M3.20 hulls, both give the same GS. Okay, max, as it says. Equipping my M3.5 hull gives GS 8455. Equipping one of my M3.4 hulls gives GS 8430. It is getting to late for me two worry about it. OKDad70 doesn't have drones yet. 50,50,50 protections, GS 8830 49,50,50, GS 8818 (12) - 46,50,50, GS 8767 ((51)) (51/3=17) 45,50,50, GS 8750 (17) 44,50,50, GS 8733 (17) 43,50,50, GS 8716 (17) 42,50,50, GS 8699 (17) 41,50,50, GS 8682 (17) Those are my current modules, so all I can check. 41,41,42, GS 8403 (If 12 for the 1st percent of all three, and 17 for the 23 remaining, 197 reduction in GS from the 50,50,50 set. Obviously 8403 is a lot lower than 197. 8830 - 8403 = 427 Okay, let them keep their secrets. I don't understand what they are doing with it. The conclusion remains, GS is a prestige level, nothing more.

So, maybe my assumption of linearity is incorrect. For OKDad70, M3.20 for hull and turret, and 50% on three modules, no drone, excess supplies, and epic paint, I expect 2000+2000+3000+0+1800+30=8830. That is what my display shows me. Given a linear assumption, changing to my M3.18 turret should drop me 80 points. So, 8750, which is not what my display shows. It says 8780 now. Hmm... I have an M3.5 hull. Linear would say 15*40=600 less. So, 8150 taking 600 from the assumed 8750 score I assumed, or 8180 taking 600 from the 8780. But, my display shows me a gear score of 8405 now. Hmm... Wow. No way to calculate at all. Okay, I don't know. Still, I argue it is only a prestige level. It isn't a measure of how tough opponents are, nor a comparison of you and another player. Being redundant, but I want to be clear. My assumption of linear calculation is incorrect. I don't see a workable pattern in the Gear Scores Tanki gives me when I change equipment in my garage. Edit: Hardstyle, is your GS still showing that low? You should be 2080+2080 for the M3.20 hull & turret with XP. 50,50,50 modules are defined as 3000 per the wiki. And, 1630 should be your supply GS value, per the wiki. 2080+2080+3000+1630 = 8790 not counting paint or drone. 7271 doesn't seem possible even though I admit I don't understand the GS as well as I thought.

No mystery on how GS is calculated. It is straight line for each. (See edit. It is not linear. My assumption is wrong.) I posted the following on an Update topic: https://en.tankiwiki.com/Gear_Score Score is calculated by what you have equipped. No reference to which piece of equipment. No reference to what else is in your garage. M3.20 Turret 2000 (40 per MU, fifty total steps from M0.0 to M3.20) M3.20 Hull 2000 (40 per MU, fifty total steps from M0.0 to M3.20) Drone 20MU 1000 (50 per MU) 50% protect 3000 (1000 per module) (20 per %, per module equipped) 300+ supplies 1800 (300 per all six supply item) (1 per supply unit, per supply type) Total = 9800 Add 80 for XT 160 (assumes both hull and turret are XT) New Total = 9960 Add for paint up to 39, so 9999 max. I haven't tried to double check all that with actual changes and upgrades; it isn't hard, and they fairly well explained it in the vlogs. Note the last 199 doesn't matter in any way to effectiveness potential. (I agree it adds to "cool" factor. There is some prestige to it, and the GS is hardly more than a prestige ranking.) Note that supplies cannot be used at a rate of 20 each per <10-minute battle; so, 300 each is entirely meaningless. Assuming linear proportion, 15 each supply would be 90 GS points, but just as excessive as the 1800 for over 300 each. Given these last two considerations, nearly 2000 of the gear score are entirely meaningless, especially at high and low ranks. Consider a sergeant, with M0.3 turret+hull who bought a 1500 supplies kit. GS will be 1500 points just for the supplies. The turret and hull count for 240 GS points. Assuming he has no modules yet, the GS is 1740. If a true newby, he doesn't know how to effectively use the supplies, and an opponent with a GS of 250 is approximately equal, but 250 v 1740 sure looks scary! At all ranks, even the highest, some players refuse to use supplies, or use them very frugally. They have thousands of all supplies, but those 1800 GS points in their total are meaningless compared to the skilled, effective, efficient supplies user. A 9800+ GS player may be highly skilled with one or two turrets, but she frugally MUd a new turret through all 20 steps while playing with the favored turret(s). Now she is new to this new turret, and despite the exact same score, is much less effective. (This objection applies equally to the old system.) Equipment scores and MU evaluations don't consider skill, but they do let you know what you are up against. Note that an M3.20 light hull is worth the same 2000 GS points as the M3.20 heavy hull. Sure, you know what you are up against when you see the difference, but the GS tells you nothing. An M3.15 item is only marginally less effective than an M3.20 item, but hull and turret combine for 400 GS points difference. Accordingly, 400 GS points difference is marginal, especially if the difference between two GS scores include different paints and XT skins. Of course, an M3.2 turret is significantly less effective than an M3.20, and the 720 GS points difference is significant, but it can be masked by differences in supplies, an M3.20 hull, XT skins, drone differences, protection differences. There are just too many variables. Yes, GS is quite nearly meaningless. I think part of it was to get players to quit worrying about the "mechanical" differences. (The player counts most.) The rank is an easier approximation of an opponents effectiveness against you, and it is at least as meaningful. We need a measure, probably a set of measures, that quantify a player's common (typical) effectiveness in team battles, but that is a complex evaluation that requires at least some subjective expertise. It isn't something that can be captured in K/D, nor crystals, nor wins, nor score placement at battle-end. Those things matter, but it is all that and more. Sacrifice, determination, tactical awareness, strategic competence and flexibility, garage options, effectiveness at changing in garage optimally. That and more. Consider the propensity of zero-star awards in battles during star events; a per-battle effectiveness is extremely difficult to determine with an automatic algorithm. Quite active players are too often shorted a star because they just didn't do well enough in that particular battle. Overall, oh well. Edit: Checking in the garage, and some comments documented in my next post below, my assumption of linearity is incorrect. The GS is not based linearly on the scores shown in the wiki page. Wow, I can change from three 50% modules to one 49% and two 50% and lose 12 GS points. How meaningless is that?

I figure you know this, but you asked. Players that never manage to turn their turrets (for whatever reason) suffer from it. The spray of Firebird and the bounce of Ricochet make the penalty less severe. Aiming by steering is crude. Having the broad damage cone or the second (or more) chance for a bounce to find a target improves the odds versus the poor aim by steering only. So, turning the turret has nothing to do with bounce. It does make the turret more effective for those unwilling or unable to develop more turret skill. I have always considered it the main reason Rico is considered OP. It is a little, but the effectiveness is mostly a matter of bounces giving better odds due to more chances to hit. Head to head medium to close range, Ricochet has significant advantage over Smoky for equally skilled players. Most of the other turrets are probably 50/50 all other factors being equal (which they never are), except the short range turrets. All three short range turrets have significant advantages over Ricochet (and all the other turrets under most circumstances). (BTW, Smoky has significant advantage over Rico at range, especially if the Rico has the range alteration active.)

Go to the wiki. https://en.tankiwiki.com/Firebird Range of max damage (m) 5 6.03 7.79 8.82 10 https://en.tankiwiki.com/Freeze Range of max damage (m) 5 6.47 7.06 8.82 10 https://en.tankiwiki.com/Isida Range (m) 15 16.32 17.21 18.82 20 So, sure. Whatever.

Another observation from Ricosck: Kunger Rugby battle, Marshall Ricosck as the only non-Legend in the battle. The other team had a Shaft and a Rail and a Thunder and an Isida, and the other four seemed to be Freeze. Freeze is too powerful. Freeze is overpowered. Freeze is practically unbeatable in most situations. The battle ended 1-1 tie, but only because they seemed intent on kills, not moving ball. Nearly the entire battle was melee over the ball on the lower elevations. BTW, Ricosck managed third place in the final standing. Also, that is a poor map (or at least a poor setup) for Rugby.

Huh? Talk about not reading.

I disagree. I assert you are in error. The only explanation I can think of for your stated opinion is that you cannot effectively fight. Isida is the easiest turret to use. It is too easy. It doesn't deserve to be in the game. If Tanki made Isida a true medic (that could heal well and fight poorly) that no sensible player would consider in DM, that might be cool, but as is, it just stinks. From current Wiki pages (M3+): Firebird 700 HP/sec (25°) 10 meters Freeze 900 HP/sec (25°) 10 meters Isida 1000 HP/sec (20°) 20 meters Say what you will, the Isida is easier. It is much harder to fight, much harder to get away from. (Well, a good Freeze user makes getting away a moot point, but head to head assaulting one another in melee, advantage is always to the Isida.

Not quite sure how to reply. Some folks never learn to effectively turn their turret. They tend to use Ricochet or Firebird, but I've seen plenty from true newby to those with experience levels higher than you and me still die just because I could get beside them and prevent them from turning by contact. I blast them, while they fire aimlessly, literally. It isn't just Rico and Fire, but those two provide the turretless player the least penalty. (Of course, turretlessness is an intentional feature of the otherwise overpowered Magnum.)

Dude, you must be really bad at this game to complain that the easiest turret is too hard.

Striker is hard. That was its beauty. It is stronger than Shaft. Those few who figure out how to master it were doing quite well. Now it is so easy any noob can be effective with it.

Perhaps you could explain how. I can't get images to work either.

Marshal Ricosck had another DM with high level Legends. Firebird and Ricochet made up the top ten except for a pair of Magnums working together. They managed 2nd and 3rd. Impressive, but working together provides a significant advantage. Guess who got first? Short range. Not even Freeze or Firebird, but a stinking Isida! It is insulting to have Isida in DM. Besides, the stench is hazardous.

Here's what happens: The plasma ball bounces because it is a fully conscious AI. It is programmed to seek and destroy. If it misses, it grows angry and intensifies and bounces. If it misses the second time, the rage is beyond human comprehension, and it intensifies even more. However, by the third bounce, the anger is overwhelming the AI, and it begins to break down. It is also expending excessive amounts of energy just trying to chase down the target. The breakdown intensifies with each subsequent bounce, and it sadly dies having never fulfilled its destiny. What? No, really. That is exactly what happens. Ask any Russian scientist. They all know how it works.

You saw this, https://tankionline.com/pages/starhunt/?lang=enRight? There are over 100 players with over 1000 stars. The leader has over 5000. I doubt Tanki goes back to kills for rewards. I don't like stars. Star result depends on too many factors out of the player's control.

I assume you are actually rather new (rather than secondary account). Yes, I somewhat agree with you. Firebird and Freeze are stronger, but they require certain tactics and some skill has to be developed. Ricochet is much more point and shoot. (Some say "pray and spray.") Bounces hit more by accident than intention with newer players. The bounce does improve effectiveness. The small differences are more important at low ranks.

Y'all didn't read my comment, did you? I agree Rico is powerful, but it is not over powered compared to the other turrets. It is under powered compared to the short range turrets. Rico needs no base changes, but it should have reducing damage from bounces, after the first two or three. It should increase for the first bounce, and increase more for the second bounce, then decrease. As Wolverine points out, some maps have no bounce-walls. So, nerfing its base would be an overall nerf in most situations. The balance would come from reductions with many bounces. The change to the bounce should encourage skillful play and discourage lazy tactics (like sitting at the end of a tunnel and just blasting). Increasing for two bounces and decreasing for each bounce after would incentivize thinking ahead.