The meteors make it easier in some ways and harder in other ways. Have fun practicing this week. 10x drops will give you plenty of chances. IMO though don't worry to much about Gold Boxes. Unless they drop near you you are better off using it as a diversion to further your goal of World Conquest. You'll still end up getting some GBs now and ten anyway. Welcome to TO though and to the forum. Don't believe anything you read here. Not even this post. Well ... believe the "Welcome" bit. :) That is how TO works. The MM section is the core game section. The Pro battle are an -->> optional <<<--- section for free-form gaming. Why are ppl still surprised when the same thing that always happens happens again? The core game system is for finding a game. Optional activities such as socialization have an entire free-form gaming section available. The priority of core function >> optional function seems logical to me.

Wow that must have ben non stop hin and run. I just finished a game with 5 of the 8 nemies running Smoky modules.What was up with that? LOL It actually was a nailbiter of a 2-2 CTF tie. Hella game

Oh I say sir! Well observed! This is the TO Comment of the Year. /salute I have to say I LOLed when I saw the Paint reveal. This one is cool even to a paint-meh-er like me.

This thread really seemed to go down the rabbit hole so I skipped past most of it. But WTH I will take a shot at restoring order. The purpose of gaming boils down to a contest of wits. But any game that mixes free player with paid layers will not be a pure contest of wits. Success will depend on a mix of wit and money paid. On the other hand this compromise is unavoidable. Games so large to require a paid staff but must be funded somehow. The question then becomes, is TO's compromise mix of wit and wallet an acceptable one to you? IMO I find the compromise level more than merely acceptable. This is one area in which I think TO has always done rather well.. There is no ethical angle to this. One is not a Bad Person because one pays money into TO. Different people have different levels of disposable income, time, and attention span.

I really just wanted to throw him off his assembly-line Contrived Outrage for a little while. Instead he's mad at me now. It's like really really retro doctoring. You take that patient's mind off his toothache by nailing his foot to the floor. Psst! Also, Yin and Yang is really a grey circle. Think about it.. The more players are in the "waiting room" the smotther any MM will work - not just TO's version of MM. If one "waiting room" is divided into over 20 tiny "waiting rooms" then the complains about MM would go up by a hundred-fold. That system would fail and fail hard. The only relevant point to MM in these screenshots is that MM set up two teams both of extremely high rank against one another. The fact a bunch of Freezes ran amok or some other aspect of TO game play caused blowout battles ... these issues have nothing to do with MM. MM set up even teams from the available players. (I assume some players left before the SSs.) The rest of it is up to the rest of the game system. I think X-O is making these same points but some readers are citing the wrong Take Home message from them. This is what I mean when I say people accuse MM of flaws MM is not responsible to fix. You'd run into that ting in the old system too. The problem is the long-term issue of TO's (adjectives fail me) m-levels system. Different weapons and hulls unlock spaced apart by over 10 ranks at that part of the experience ladder. That is a hard-wired weirdness no way of assembling battles in TO can avoid. The nly answer is to build your gear as best you can and rank out of the "sour spot". At a different rank it will be your "sweet spot".

You have not heard these terms used in the game? Again, oy vey.

Not if you want to kill the Wasp/Rails who want to circle-strafe you. Titan is much more nimble than Mammoth.

You clearly do not see where I am coming form in this thread. I have ll aosrts of old com,m,ent about changing the Supplies/ But after 10 years of them not changing some players figure what the hell ... I am going to throw caution to the wind. I shall discuss the game as though Supplies exist. So I will make it simple for you. I do not go around the game worrying about if so-and-so is a [Ominous Music] Drugger. The reason is as you observer: I am of the opinion the game Tanki Online included things called Supplies. I am of the opinion most players will decide they will make use of that part of the game. I am of the opinion players will make use of the things called Protection Modules. I see no reason to call players [Ominous Music] Druggers or to call them [Ominous Music] Modulers. I am suggesting what I thought was a pretty simple topic for conversation - hey what do you say we just drop the Druggers thing? But if you want to run around that game making lists of who you think is a [Ominous Music] Drugger then by all means have at it. PS: I guess the logic here is if enough players go around calling enough other players Druggers then at some point TO devs will be convinced to create an entire new system. Oy vey.

Well you (or someone else) asked what tactic can an Isida use to fight a Freeze these days. I explained the tactic. Being able to drive and aim and doge attacks all while keeping as fa away as possible takes experience but that's how you fight a Freeze. I'm talking abou t light hull Isidas like me, Heavy hulls might fight differently. As for an Freeze braking off the attack to do the false retreat... he is unlikely to out-run me but even id he does I am getting DPS on him while he does not shoot at me for at least some insansts. That'll probably be more than enough for me to win the DPS race on him. But it all comes down to the dance after all that is why it is fun to pay. We're talking about a basic 1L1 fight where they know of each otehr. The question was how ccan an Isida expect to win against Freeze since DPS are the same but Freeze has freeze too. The answer is the Isida must try to hoild the fight at his maximum range. If he does his DPS will be higher and he won't freeze enough that he can't dance.

Yes I was thinking a bit on what you said. This sort of thing is generally called an "exploit" as in exploiting a loophole. I would have to agree these folks are "Griefers" at heart too. Since it takes so long to set up I doubt it will ever be a widespread problem. But it goes to show why thousands of players always find way around the rules dozens of game developers put in place to stop that sort of thing. One player notices they can stay at Corporeal forever so long as they never shoot at anything and starts collecting boxes. No dev anticipated that I would wager. Yes I agree with this. The Drugger thing may have made sense in former times. But now the game has changed some of the vocabulary should reflect that. Probably will eventually. Yes, "mult" really means definition 1 but as you say it gets applied differently too. When TO talked about mults in MM they meant definition 1. TO can't make a bad player suddenly play well. When I first started playing I just played. I didn't read the rules or the Wiki of the Forum anything hardly at all. I knew somthing called Clans existed so for the 1st month or so I assumed the only game I could play was DM. Only clans could play team modes. Then one day I thought, well click it and try. OMG! Another two weeks just a blur trying new maps and modes. Only then did I become aware of the rating thing. I had a k/d of 0.7 or maybe a bit below. With over 200 deaths to make up I thought at the time it'd be great if somehow one day I would rise to a k/d of 1.0. :) Actually the average k/d is not 1.0 as some might guess. Every time a tank scores a kill another tak gets a death and the universal k/d is 1.0. But hen a tank self-destructs it takes a death and no one else gets a kill credit. So the universal k/d is pushed below 1.0.

Mission rewards are randomized so occasionally you get high effort / low reward missions. That also means you get some low effort / high reward missions. But no one ever posts complaints about those. They even out. Tip: Click the Change button if you do not like a mission. You get one free Change each day. Funny I am the same rank as you and every day I get useful useful useful missions.

Matchmaking never was intended to do what you say, to ensue the outcome of every battle is even., All MM exists to do is to start agame from the available player pool that is split as fairly as can be reasonmaly determined. It does this. Today I log on, request a game, and get one in 2 seconds to two minutes. Most times tis it a new game that I play to the end. That means more game balanced more failry than was done before. This notion that MM failed because it does not fix other issues in the game such as Magnum in OP is silly.

Yes I agree with you. That is why I am suggesting we adopt the jargon many other games use. Griefers are jerks. Buyers are not... sorta thing.

It is always possible to cite an extreme or outlier case. You friend spent weeks or months to set this up? Somehow I do not think TO has seen this repeated hundreds or thousands of times. Buyers otoh are common. That is why you do not see chat filled with ppl hating on "those not-playing-savin-up-for-months-Corporal- accounts but you do see ppl hating on "buyers".

I am not justifying the Supplies rules. I am making the outlandish claim that the Supplies system exists as part of TO. When I play a game, I expect the other player to play the game by that game's rules. You, I guess, feel other players ar beholden to your opinions on what the rules should be durnit. Making posts like your or calling people "duggers" iin chat is an effort to deride the players who outlandishly play the actual game by the actual rules. This trikes me as absurd. But we all follow our own muse. Second part first. I agree that low ranking accounts are vulnerable to buyers. That is the entire point of the Griefers term discussion here. But.. after a new account ranks up with every week the margin of advantage over free players grows smaller and smaller. The practical distinction all but goes away. Fist part last. I have played thousands of hours of free play and not spent a dime in 18 months. Back them I bought some GBs. I have tnen of thousands of supplies in stock. I two years of play I have used less than half the RK's I have gained. So ... no. But if someone plays so much they STILL burn through their supplies then I say it is more than fair that this player cough up some cash.

No, "Griefer" does not men "mult" Griefers would be like World Cup players seeing a mopes playing football then challenging them for the pitch. In most online games games the term "bot" was used for what is called a "mult" in TO. That is more than one account run by the same people. I think you hav a good idea for needing a term for the patient long-term f2p player but "grinder" again is used n othr online game to means someone who plays like 20 hours ouf 24 day in day out to level up. So maybe we can come up with an aoriginal trm. At your level you gt much better ROI spending your Cry in hulls and turrets not modules. Module strategy did gt a lot more complicated. But the WO and NCO levels are what I mean mostly whn I talk about how Griefers can still buy a big advantage over the everyday player. You are asking what;'s the difference between two 14-year old kids who earned their way into a grandmasters tournament. One got there by playing winning chess. The other got there by paying $100 bore each game in order to start the game with three Queens. But let's deelve anyway. Well in the first place your scenario never happens. A free player might earn enough for a kit at wo2 but not enough to instantly MU it to m3. he earliest ranked m2 kits instead represent the beginning of the end for the Griefer career. A the Griefer starts to go up the WO ranks free players can close the gap enough so the kill sprees are not as easy or spree-ie. This is why Griefes ae buyers. Early ranks past fast. Free players who gain a lot of Cry gt promoted fast too. But a Buyer can spend some cash and get that stuff buring up 0 exp points.. But if it did somehow happen that afree player got m3 gear at wo2 that would be what is called in the world of gaming as "Playing the game expertly at the very highest level.". Striving to play the game expertly at the highest level is, what some people suggest, the raison d'etre for the concept gaming itself. Hole gets deeper. You have no idea what the figures are. And when you talk about players who have spent thousands the % is even less. See above

I play daily. What color is your bathroom painted?

I do not think Vulcan needs much. If a Vulcan is on you you usually have to stop what you were doing and find cover or die. If you find cover your hurt significantly. Vulcan might not kill always but one Vulcan can support team mates all over that map. But if it is to be tweaked I'd be happy with one of these or similar. +2 degrees more of downward vertical firing cone. (Yessssss....) +10% DPS. Weak damage goes from 50% to 45% (Close damage up / long range the same.) Some sort of more useful m1 alteration (Surprise me with utiliy.)

Yes perhaps even flag caps score different points on different maps. Some outside the box thinking though on some maps... maybe a middle cap point on Massacre? Well whatevr. ASL can be tightened up a good bit but it will probably not be my favorite. Well neither is TDM but good games can be had on it too.

The Ratings Page shows the top 100 player accounts by the efficiency score. This list always shows 100 Legends because a considerable part of that efficiency score depends on the account rank. These players deserve recognition. But these 100 accounts are about the only ones to get any use from the system. Ever since the efficiency rating was introduced the player community has reacted with a massive tidal wave of ... wait.. what? Did something happen? N/M Gold! Gold! Gold! That might change if the other ranks got a chance to measure their progress against the pace-setters. If everyone saw some purpose to the thing, it might actually vindicate the time spent creating it. Suggestion. Keep the Top 100 Players as is.Add Top 40-50 lists for all the other ranks. You could get two lists on the Top 100 panel size.OK, maybe the lowest ranks can be grouped into an NCO list. Yes this would add many new lists and panels to arrow through. BUT ... Players could look at the best performers for their rank to gauge their own performance.Players would have a common point for comparison better than the maligned k/d metric.Players might actually find the feature - then once found they might find it useful.

AS is often the case what seems simple sometimes is not. Just throwing the idea out there. I am a big fan of pimping the interface. ;)

Do you mean this in the sense f how you think when you claim I have a low k/d? LOL

TO explained the 20 minute waits are due to the bug. TO explained that exiting the queue and re-entering is a workaround to use for now ... but you insist this explanation is wrong. The people who manage the game software don't know how the software operates. YOU know. What a hoot. Just quit the damn game if you hate it so much and spare us. I agree ASL mode has some terrible maps. Sometimes the games are just recreations of the Somme and you're the Brits. Massacre lives up to its name in ASL mode. OTOH I cannot count the number of games that have ended 100-95. At times it produces some of the closest game of every mode.So while it is not my favorite mode I will play it. If the game is a loser I can always leave.

I just wrote a new topic about just that fact. Then the formu said I posted too often and refused my post. That of course erased a half hour's typing. So much for that. What I was going t say was much like this. Upper level buyers do not get to have much of an edge on upper level missioners. But at lower levels a buyer can just plop down the cash and obtain a massive advantge. The problem is TO does not use the term "Griefers" to describe these players. "Griefers is a term in common use in other game communities. "Buyers" are not the problem, "Griefers" are the problem.

I joined TO two years ago right after the Paint / Protection split. Back then there was much more anger towards so-called Druggers and Buyers. And there was reason for this. Then Buyers really could afford to buy a substantial advantage in Supplies over free players. This was especially true in terms of RKs. Buyers could use them all the time - and - back then they were 2 seconds of invulnerability too. In two years TO has changed a lot. Daily mission player now can earn enough Supplies that the term "Drugger" just seem comical. Supplies are a core aspect of game play. Supplies exist to be used. Everyone has access to an adequate source of Supplies. If you are not a "Drugger" today you are just hamstringing yourself. Do not blame other players for playing the actual game. So let's just flat-out retire "Drugger" shall we? OK, that was the easy one. The use of "Buyer" as a slur should also end. TO has many design shortcomings but in one area it deserves praise. TO allows free players to compete on a virtually even playing field with the dreaded Buyers. Yes, buyers can have a more varied garage, or a few more MU steps sooner, or buy a Kit a little before you. But these all add up to relatively small advantage over the free player. If the free player masters the primary hull and turret it can afford to own gear as good or just slightly inferior to the "Buyer". This is true at higher levels when all accounts have built up over time. However the Buyer can still obtain a massive advantage at the low ranks. Buyers can run rampant t over free players at low levels. These players will never, ever, ever earn enough from the Battle Fund to re-pay the cash spent. So the purpose here is not strategy. The purpose here is to make other players miserable. There is a term in online gaming for that. Tis sort of player is called a "Griefer". So n conclusion I am suggesting three things for TO jargon. "Druggers" should just be retired. Any one who uses this is saying "I can't play this game"."Buyers" should no longer carry a negative implication. These players support TO and they can be beat."Griefers" should be added to the mix. It is a term i n use elsewhere. These are the real people players dislike. So they need their own term. Pl;ayers who spend $500 to get a 5% armor advantage over me aren't the problem. Up with Buyers, Down with Griefers