Umm... Actually, yes, that too. Hadn't wanted to mention that before, because it seemed a bit self-centered... But that is exactly the experience I have had on several occasions since the change. So again..: Keep the narrowed changes; just allow them to be overridden when creating a map. Rank range is visible to all before they join a map.

So we are really talking about a measure to protect the junior, exploitable player from the senior, cynical, exploitative behaviour? Because I thought one of the justifications for this change was that senior ranks felt held back or obstructed by junior ranks... There are a couple of points I would make in response then: The kind of behaviour, language and attitude on display in the majority of English-speaking games I play on, is something I try to insulate my son from. But critically: it is my responsibility to do that as his father; not the Dev's job. The general and inescapable gaming culture is a fact of life for kids these days. But it has its good points as well as its bad ones; and it is my role to try and guide my sons to see the difference. My other point..: I have absolutely no idea how many hours of game-time I have played to reach the rank I am at. I only know that it is a *LOT*!! Same goes for my son. So in the landscape of all that time spent playing the Game, how big a problem is it if a 15, 30 or even 60 minute game gets spoiled in the way you have described? It is fractional, in the scheme of things. So you end up investing 45 minutes into a game, only to have it stolen from you in the last 15 minutes. So what? It happened to me. Once. Was actually quite impressive to be on the receiving end of it: was a Russian clan, clearly using TeamSpeak. Quite a spectacle to see them turn around a 30 point disadvantage for a win. But that only happened to me once. Subsequently, I learned to look at the Rank Range graphic and make my choices based on how much of a challenge I felt like giving myself. Even as a Three-Star General now, I still avoid G'ismo permitted/dominated games. That's easy enough. Do just feel that this is a heavy-handed over-reaction to a very minor, exaggerated, and easily avoided problem. But quite happy to accept the facility to widen the Rank Range beyond the default as a compromise. Otherwise, it doesn't look like my son and I can enjoy playing with each other, without setting up new accounts/identities.

That is very true. Just one of the reasons why I don't encourage my son to play when I'm not around. Not sure that I particularly want to get into multiple accounts... Apart from anything else, I think you can only have a single account tied to a single Email address, and I already have one account each for mine and my son's Email addresses. As far as the "It's a Trap!" situation goes: If a team of seniors go to all the trouble of setting up a Game to lure in junior players, so that they can exploit them for easy kills: surely the sensible thing to do when it is apparent that is the case, is for the juniors to leave that map? If it is the seniors that set-up the map, and the juniors joined, the juniors can hardly cry "Foul!" at having to leave. Anyhoo... A compromise did occur to me: Have the default rank ranges remain as they have recently been adjusted to: just allow Map creators to over-ride that by widening the range. We can already narrow the range down from the default; so why can't we widen that range? And again: The Developers went to all the trouble of making the Rank Range visible on the Map Preview graphic... So I don't really accept the "Trap" justification. I always try and encourage my sons to look before they leap..! :huh:

He mostly only ever plays when I'm playing (otherwise, it's Minecraft, Skylanders, Terreria &c...). And when we want to play together, we create a new map, based on whatever we feel like playing at the time, adjusting the number of players depending on what mood we are in. Can't do that anymore. He and I started playing at more or less the same time... Actually, he started just before me and got me into the Game... I progressed up through the ranks faster, because I would play when he wasn't playing. But that was okay, because I never ranked up so fast that we couldn't still play together when we wanted to. Now... We can't play together. But like I said... That's all personal and subjective; and I know how difficult it is to please all of the people all of the time... What I don't understand is why the ability to create maps with a narrow rank range seems to have been ignored or discounted..? If people don't want to play with too low or too high a rank: narrow the rank range accordingly; or only join maps with an acceptable rank range. Not really sure why a narrower rank range has been enforced by the Dev's, when it was (and still is) possible for players to narrow rank ranges on maps, according to their own desires.

I'm struggling to accept this update as a "Good Thing." My six-year old (and W.O. 5) son and I can now no longer play together until he has ground his way up a couple more ranks. OK, that's the personal and the subjective... But what I'm struggling with is the fact that it has always been (?) possible to narrow the rank requirements yourself when setting up a map. Seems to me that was a perfectly good system and well implemented: just narrow the slider down if you want to keep out under- or over-powered players. Can't see why the rank restrictions need to be mandated centrally, when the functionality/facility is there to do it on a custom basis. You can even see on the map graphic what the rank-range is before you join a map. This change makes... no... sense.

I don't use drugs in order to earn crystals. I can buy crystals. I cannot buy XP. I use drugs in order to increase the amount of XP I earn. B)

Umm... That might be a good point... Does this update reducing the impact force of Smokey only reduce the impact force to turrets? Which was only introduced a few weeks (or so) ago? But impact force to hulls is the same as it always was..? Maybe not such a bad deal then.

Is this just a sneaky thread to get all the Buyers to reveal themselves..? :unsure:

Have never, ever played with a Smokey turret fitted. Doesn't interest me at all. Been shot at by Smokies quite often though, and often wondered what the point was, as they don't seem to do a lot of damage (and I *NEVER* put paint on to specifically protect against Smokey). But had always noted the knock-back effect of Smokey (and I only drive Titan or Mammoth...); and I figured, well, it's nice that Smokey users have something, because there doesn't seem to be much point to those turrets otherwise. Can fully understand the impact reduction for the Railgun (it's got so much else going for it, doubt that will be noticed). But Smokey..? Seems a bit unfair. Should have reduced the impact of Ricochet, if a second reduction was needed. At least Ricochet would still have the, uh, ricochet effect going for it. Still, I'm sure the Dev's know what they're doing...

Umm... It is kind of Magic-Land... I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on in the Game that you wouldn't normally see 50-ton tanks doing in Real Life. And that Freeze turret of course... But IRTT: Trolling/exploiting/making life difficult or annoying for others is just an aspect of Public On-Line Gaming we all have to live with. I'm generally to be found in a Titan or Mammoth, and I do know how irritating it is when you get "pigeons on the roof". The only practical response is to just ignore them and hope they lose interest. Trolls feed on reactions. Don't provide a reaction and they invariably seek nourishment elsewhere. Best actual tactic I've come up with is to drive (with the troll atop) directly towards the opposing team. The troll then actually helps you, because they become a magnet for the Auto-Aim of the enemy tanks. That clears the troll of your roof, and gives you a bit of added protection during your run in. But critically: don't feed the trolls with any kind of response, it only encourages them.

I think any solution will necessarily contain the seed of a further problem, won't it? If there were some automatic or process driven method to temporarily or permanently ban people who like to cause trouble from the Game; then people who like to cause trouble will exploit it to get perfectly innocent players temporarily or permanently banned from the Game. Equally: there are a limited number of (Human) Moderators who are able to respond to and investigate every reported violation. If the number of Moderators was significantly increased, that would increase the chances of their being Rogue Moderators; who would then need policing themselves. Sucks to be on the receiving end of aggravating behaviour... But it would suck even more to be penalised or banned because a troublemaker exploited a sanction system to get you into trouble. Obvious troublemakers are obvious. If they really start to disrupt one's enjoyment of a particular game-round, one just has to switch to a different game and/or server.

You say “…no one wants a person who isn’t skilled.” I disagree. People who aren’t skilled want other people who aren’t skilled. If this Game were dominated by those players with innate or developed skills, it wouldn’t be much fun for those who lacked those skills, or didn’t have the time to develop them. Would it? It would dramatically narrow the audience that the Developers have worked so hard to gather; and it would create yet another unpleasant In-Game culture, full of young men who think their aptitude for the game is a valid substitute for social skills. As it is, the supply mechanism and the ability to buy crystals for RL cash keeps the game accessible and balanced amongst players of all ages and abilities, at least at the lower-to-mid rank levels. Come your Generalissimo rank STG, and I’m sure you’ll have all the opportunity you’ll need to demonstrate your skills, unhindered by unskilled players. :D

Think this is a great idea. Particularly like the remote detonation aspect... Could have remote detonation on ordinary mines as well. Can think of plenty of places where that would be fun to use. :ph34r:

Testing of the new Hover-Tank at the Kungur Research Facility continues to provide encouraging results. At a recent press conference, the Lead Engineer on the Hover-Tank Project explained: “Generating enough downdraft to elevate a 40-tonne tank was always going to be a huge challenge. The key turning point in the Project came when we realised we could harness the vast quantity of hot-air expelled by TO players during Gameplay. In certain circumstances, there is so much hot-air generated by the driver of the Hover-Tank, that we have to implement a damping system to prevent the tank achieving actual flight. As you can see in the footage from our recent test, we have to keep an emergency Freeze crew on stand-by, in case any “druggers” come into the Research Facility during testing. As this tends to upset the Test Drivers to a point that overwhelms our hover-damping system, the Freeze crew is necessary to stop the Hover Tanks interfering with local civilian flight paths.”

Well, really can't recall any buyer ever joining a server and announcing their greater degree of importance. I suppose we buyers let our purchases speak for themselves... The ****ing *ALWAYS* starts from the non-buyers. Pointing out that buyers subsidise others' free game play isn't a boast or a claim; it's simply an attempt to silence the whiners by illustrating how absurd their animosity is. That is all.