Thanks, but I still don't know what the maximum damage of fire should be. I tested Hammer and I could see damage numbers, which wouldn't have showed up, if the full damage of each pellet that hit the tank was applied. So in other words, Hammer's damage over distance gets not only reduced by a smaller number of hitting pellets, but also by the range to the enemy -> So with classic model A. It would be good, if someone has a hammer alteration and can check if the values for the weak damage are true.

My assumptions/understanding was, that Fire and Freeze have only one Damage (=constant damage, so no gauss curve). With fire's afterburn there comes also the two afterburn parameters into it: The afterburn is between "Min. burning damage" and "Max burning damage". That's why it's a bit irritating for me when you talk of their max. dmg. I will try some test on hammer's range model. Also one weird rebalance thing is that Hammer now has 10 % weak damage :huh: Oh and thanks for mentioning my nick :D

Yes, I tested it and I can confirm that both Shaft modes are independent from range. Maybe the intention of the arcade mode numbers was to show the range independence too:

Sorry for the stupid question, but what is the purpose of the Firebird and Freeze max. ranges? In general Rail and Shaft's snipe mode are attributed to be the turrets without range limitations. So they should be independent from ranges. Not sure about Shaft's arcade, but I can test it with my M2. And one thing, that came to my mind: the Hammer alteration makes the pellets cone tighter, so you can hit distant tanks better, but it doesn't extend the ranges, so it doesn't make too much harm in the distance...

Thank you! These descriptions are a lot better. Maybe the players will need a graphic like this one from Blackwasp, to better understand the range of max. damage (on a separate game mechanics page). By this I see the main things in the wiki clarified. Yet there are some things, which do not fit to the game experience: 1) False values for weak damages for short-rangers i.e. Rico & Twins. They should be 0 like the prebalance values, since they don't make damage beyond the range of min. damage. 2) Wrong naming of Thunder's "Splash Damage" entry, because it is an impact force parameter.

Thank you for your explanation! That really helps. I still think the description is at least extremely misleading. We don't know how long this model has already been active, right? One side question, maybe didn't get it before: shouldn't the +9% of Smoky's critical also be applied on the minimum damage line in the graphic, in order to show the possible shots by the "critical full damage area"? :huh: :huh it get's complicated: To make things easier, in future I will probably just go with the average of max. and min. damage and tell to me that there are variations to the max. and minimum values to a 30% probability possible.

So you are saying that it is rather unlikely to do the max. damage? Then this wiki description is wrong: "Range of max damage (m) — distance at which the turret deals its full damage." This description says, that if you are in the range of the maximum damage, you will inflict the maximum damage. So there is [a] a clear link between range and damage and if you are in the range, it is 100% sure that you will inflict maximum damage. I appreciate your explanation very much. It's about time to get the wiki updated tho. The devs said that the damage parameters will be multiplied by factor 10 in the rebalance. The global balance sheet says there is no change to the afterburn parameters. The current parameters in the wiki are apparently the same as the prebalance parameters. Even if it is 60 per second it is really low, because it is the maximum afterburn. As Blackwasp did some calculations on the afterburn, which said (iirc) that reaching the maximum afterburn is not possible anymore. Or is the model B here applied as well, so that there is always a range between the damage values?

Hmm... then we either have to break the standard, that all m3 modules have a 35 % protection or we break the standard maximum protection sum of 150%. If the module would only have 150% at most, it wouldn't make sense to have a 400k price. 300k price suits to me more (assuming a standard protection sum of ~105), because it is the same protection amount like triple modules, but just more dispersed. The MUs price will then be at 900k, because the output is the same like the other modules. The equal protection for every turret would result in a standard protection of 26% and go up to 38%. But I think it is very probably that TO won't introduce them, since it would make it less standardized and eventually less balanced.

Probably not :unsure:

The points I like the most: Freeze bug fixed Quicker autofinish Reduced time frame of inactivity Separation of default rank range (and its reduced range) from possible rank range

I thought one of the major changes of the paint/module separation update was to remove all quadruple protection, as it "had a negative effect on the game balance" like they said. But if they would introduce with a 35% protection vs all 4 turrets, I would place the quadruple module at a price tag of around 400k together with 1,400k crystals for all the MUs, if you want to align it to the figures of all the other M3 modules. The thing is that this module would then have a protection in sum of 200% when fully equipped.

I got one question: Do all the GB positions have the same chances that a GB will fall on them or does some positions have a higher probability than others. To me it appears that i.e. the drop rate on Rio's roof is higher than on other positions in Rio, but it shouldn't be this way with same chances since there are only 3 drop positions. Is it everywhere the same chance, so is it then the best way to move to the map areas with a lot of drop zones?

Is it allowed for Sumo battles? :D

:o I wonder what the underlying rationale of this experiment is?

Then I even more don't get why Isida's healing values are lower than the damage values. It's completely illogical to me...

TBH I cannot see any model in here :D These are some values I collected after the rebalance in live battles with M1 Smoky once and paired normal shots with critical shots. There might be some values that are distorting coz of modules or maybe shifts in range phases (if there any anymore atm) but these are the values that were the closest to each other. The values are sorted by the absolute damage values: the highest damage values are on left of the x-axis and far away shots are on the right. You could delete some of the outliers, to get a better trend, but idk if that helps much. The data of both charts are the same, but I deleted two outliers here: It might be better to go in battles together and do some testings, to get better results. P.S. Wow uploading a pic into the forum is quite an act, especially if I follow the forum manual... Always saying "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community." Edit: ah finally it works with BBCode (Forums) instead of that image button.

The wiki says it is low, so just +9% or +10% more than the normal shot.

It told us that you are good at math :P The Smoky's critical shot varied from around +25 % to +35 % compared to the normal shot. You have a good estimation if you go by overall +30%.

Ah ok, of course. I can fully understand you there. I thought you were talking about a system with player-based decisions (like kick2) and not the current system, in which the battle mods do the kick decisions.

I hope so :P

Why? What makes you think so? If the far majority of the kicks are legitimate and some kicks were illegitimate, I would still go for the kick system. It should also be checked then, if the system can be improved in this matter.

Wow I didn't think of this possibility and we should never underestimate them. If they introduce an mandatory battle button, then this would kill the fun in a similar scale as they done it with the rebalance. In the current state (as it was in the test server) I probably won't use the battle button very often. Considering the current join rules, I assume you will end up in around 3 of 4 cases joining a hopeless battle.

The damage (both min. & max.) of Railgun's alteration is ~101 for M3 and 120 for M4. I believe the purpose of this alteration is to eliminate the risk that you have to fire 3 shots on some enemy tanks, i.e. Hornet on the same M level, so this would make sure that you will always need two shots instead.

So I'll assume now, that Thunder's damage is just around 10% lower compared to the wiki, probably over all the ranges.

"Paladin" 346 260 From Lieutenant General to Marshal Hulls: Viking M3 Turrets: Smoky M3 Paint: Inferno Module: Badger T-F M3 You have to click on "Current Product Kits" to let it pop up the list. It might be, that some of the product kits in the wiki need to be updated tho.