Maybe the stats in the wiki are correct, but there is another "range model" for the critical shot (less decrease in damage over range). At the moment we have no clue.. except we test stuff by ourselfes. The English wiki guys can only incorporate data that they receive from the dev's

If you love the Rail M0 gameplay -> yes. else -> No (as it will depress you if you are bad at it). Many pro's that have alternative accounts at low ranks use railgun, Hammer or Thunder on their accounts. Those guys can aim well at large distances (Rail, Thunder) or know how to drive in close ranger batttles (Hammer) and make use of it

So.... did the last Question of The Week answer tell us, that the wiki stats on Smoky's Critical Hit are wrong, or am I bad at maths?

it feels worse

..thats why it does not rate you skill - it rates the battle efficiency (I truely distance myself from rating skill with this). For the rating the system considers only the points scored inside one team. This is, because both team face a different kind of challenge. They winning and the loosing team play the same map and gamemode, ok. But: if one team ends up winning 5:2 flags (due to skill, teamwork, drugs, M4 gear, ..), then you can _bet_ that a player in the winning team has an easier life then one of his opponents in the loosing team. Simply because his team around him does more work. You can only compare tankers that face more or less the same challenge, and then see how they get along with it. Also it does rate the score relative to each other and not the absolute figures (for the comparism). It does not matter if you play only Kolchoz CP (relative low scoring map) or Poly CP (relative high scoring map). So you can play Poly CP, reach a score of 1300 points and be 2nd. Or you are on Kolchoz and reach a score of 450 points and be 2nd. And both could improove your rating, if you used to be 4th all the time before ;) If the mele tankers in poly CP have a higher score then a wasp/rail camper in Poly CP, then the melees will have a higher rating. But why do they get the score? Becuase of a lot of kills, because of a lot of caps.. obviously things that help your team in winning the battle (battle efficiency = high). If I love to play the borderline railgunner on poly CP I help too.. but if I would use a Titan-Twins I could help my team more (again battle efficiency, not skill). Also if I used to play battles with my M2s and then I purchase an M3 combo, I would score more (relative to the others in the same rank range) and therefore my rating would rise ( = higher efficiency in battle). So from this example you see, that the rating combines both: relative usefullness by players abilities and decisions + usefullness based on equipment owned. And it is on purpose that it values equipment too > the rating was born from the question, of how to decide which players to put in which battles in order to have balanced teams. And this rating has a true chance to do that If you put teams together for polyCP in a Gismo/Legend rank range, you fill each team with 8 players: 2 players with 1800, 2 players with 1700, 2 players with 1600 and 2 players with 1500 - in each team as said. Then the guys would have pretty good chances to have a balanced battle. And yes, I talk about chances, because seriously that's all you can do. You can not expect some expert guy sitting behind the "Battle" button looking at all the profiles and balancing the teams manually. It is about making things better, not about an absolutely perfect world ;)

That's the perfect example on how useless this stat is. Especially to clans.. I mean: if you play in a team that has agreed positions and tactics your gameplay will be completely different anyways, If they are on their way to a DD drop, it makes more sense to rush over and grab it; even if you get killed; before they get it and make use of it and kill half your team using it

We had the visual updated in the vLog.. maybe the implementation was buggy and therefore skipped. It is a pure visual, so it is done by the client, and does not add server-lag. the server calculates it anyways (but does not do the graphics around it of course)

The marketing department "balances" it's various income methods.. interresting. When the game designer balances the turrets and hulls, he boosts the least used ones AND nerves the most used ones. The marketing department just boosts. I like the way of the marketing department more :)

If he fights in the time he is here, then he most likely improoving his K/D rate. If he sits around and shoots; or drives crap and shoots; then it's a mult that plays "hard to detect"

^think so too

regarding -2-, we could make a contest for AP, and if they win we pay them a price of 50.000 crystals and a special paint :)

Scenario2 There is a battle and the team is loosing hard. Players leave.. and the battle button brings in new players If they are experienced, they check the situation fast.. and leave too. After beeing directed into such battles for the 3rd time, no experienced player will use this button any more. In the end, the "automatic battle termination" timer is not triggered, and the lossing team looses even more of their share?

You can only dislike a new update if you know what was here before. New players usually accept every change, as it is "normal" to them.. and they never know how much better it might was. For this reasons all changes do more or less work - sadly.

pre-balance I was pretty happy with my M2 wasp/Rail combo. I could compete quite well in XP/BP vs M3s.. and I could fight along with Gismos in drug free battles. Was truely cool.. and I planned to get the M3s at Christmas Sale. then the rebalance came.. and my M2 felt like an M0. After a few days I was so anoyed that I spend nearly all my crystals on the Touche Kit to try my luck with the Wasp M3. It helps.. but often I simply miss the agility in order to do something usefull with the hull. I played now 50.000 XP with my M3 Wasp.. but still > sometimes like after some hours of XP/BP > I think of gifting my account away as it makes no fun any more .. (but of course its forbidden, I know..) Maybe I just have to wait for 9 months.. for the next rebalance. Maybe I can use my Isida then as well.

^ ehm... why does this guy get no warning points?? ah nah... just kidding.. or not?

The realist in my expects that it will take the same way as most "cool new fetures" that tanki introduces without asking the community for feedback in advance :rolleyes:

As I wrote somewhere else, I think the game is good because we can choose where we fight. And I _fear_, that the only way the [battle] button helps against mults, is that _later_ it will take away the possibility to choose battles. Regarding your abuse scenario: Thats a valid concern. Still you would have to play about 8 battles (2 hours) bad, in order to turn down your rating.. by 40 points.. and 40 points below you you will find still find no noobs that you can wreck. And if you want to wreck someone.. just enter the battles directly. Is easier. Matchmaking is more for players that like competition. Or - if you wanna have it more clever - you introduce [easy][normal][hard] battle buttons. Then you can match - low rated players that seek a challenge and select [hard] for the next battle - with higer rated players that seek leasiure and select [easy] for the next battle

It helps new players. The pro's have either the need to keep a high crystal-to-xp ratio and will select battles that they can win; All that are beyond the crystal-to-xp ratio (Legends) might focus on crystals-per-hour ratio and play those maps that excell on that. I doubt that those Pro's would use the battle button as it is specified now. But: it's the first stage of more to come. Lets see if they fix something.. or break something. ps: I played some hours Wasp today.. it is still anoying. I can not even dodge twins bullets, as the wasp turning acceleration is so slow. Is this balance???

I don't know when the stinger kit is released, but usually "brand new kit" means that you overpower the players around you - thats the purpose of a kit. Feel welcome to purchase an M3 Isida when you are in the ranks.. and try to compete with those M3s around you. If they dont change the game, you will for sure regret is as well (except you are a hardcore drugger.. but then you can fight M4s with an M2 Smoky as well..)

Riddler, could you at least place your ideas in spoilers? This would be really kind :)

Good that you are starting to get along with it - and your comment on the steering is great :D I actually dno't know, why the fast+medium hulls have been made so slow.. before the update I saw already quite a lot of heavies around.. so obviously their speed was ok for the users. My varietly of hulls and turrets.. well.. my final setups that I plan for are: M3 Wasp/Rail M3 Viking+Isida/Twins M3 Titan+Isida/Twins Maybe a Smoky later on.. lets see Firebird M1 came with the Firefly kit, which was planned. It granted me early access to Wasp M1 - and Fire M1 aided my well in order to win some CTF vs. beginners, in order to earn well and rank fast. Thunder M0 was just an experiment in the beginning, to see if it handels the M0 Deathmatches better then Rail M0 - but Railgun suited me better. The Hornet M0.. well.. a friend asked me to 1-1 him. As I beat him, he blamed my Wasp M1 to be the reason and I shoud equip Hornet. I told him I have none (which was true by the time).. and so he asked me to purchase one :P It was just a few crystals and made someone happy ;) I'm a little p**ed that after the update the Hunter suits me better then the Viking that I have.. and that Isida is only worth half of the investment.. but well, that's >THIS< special game.

I do not know if I get your point.. (I am not a native English speaker as you might have guessed already :P) I tried to call it not [skill rating] but [battle efficiency rating] for exactly that reason, that a drugged intermediate can beat a skilled non-drugger, and this would interfere with the rating completely. Besides the word "Skill" raises the emotions in tankers when you start to talk about it :P :P :P Therefore I propose to measure the battle efficiency and put in in relation to other tankers. Of course playing drug free has to has to feed into another rating couter then playing drug battles (you can be a pro in drugfree, but a noob in tactical druggin). At least.. we would have some other thing to brag about at the rating pages :P Would look like that:

I think we need it for normal battles as well, as if this would be used by the [battle] button, the batltes could be filled with evenly efficient players.. so that they will be more interresting and will not result in runners due to overpower of one team over the other. From my original proposal (with corrections on grammar :P):

I reworked the proposal; simulated it in excel.. and it truely worked :) The [battle Effciency Rating] aligned to the score that the players scored in relation to each other; not overshooting and not growing endlessly; nor dropping down to the bottom of the scale. It works :)

Maybe it's better to not talk about "skill" (a lot of emotions will arise..), but about a [battle Effciency Rating]. [battle Effciency Rating] - values your relative score in battles, compared to your teammates (only to active teammares, so dont value mults in..))