Partly true, we'll see now with the Matchmaking forcing players to play on medium-large maps. Of course, back when all you could find was Polygon, Silence, etc., yes, hornet-rails were simply not as effective.

36, 458

36, 456

36, 454

Perhaps we need a system that takes into account the equipment level as well, if your true goal is to create balanced teams. Really, players are already spending too much time in the lobby looking for suitable battles. We can't fix the battles with eugenics.

Do you have an M3 protection module that you like?

I don't know if this is what you were trying to say, but on certain maps there are passages and spaces between obstacles that only wasp/hornet can fit through. An example is the space between the rock walls by the blue base on Serpuchov. This is valuable when you have the flag and are trying to shake a pursuer, but don't get stuck!- that's such an irritating feeling. ;)

Speaking as a freeze-hornet user, this couldn't be further from the truth. The impact of even standard smokies make it near-impossible to approach them, especially if they are backing up. Each hit turns your tank so you end up swerving and wasting time correcting your drive, meaning that the overall path you take to get to them is much, much longer. There's a reason Smoky was voted the "most annoying turret" in another thread. Part of it is psychology. As a smoky you feel that the freeze shouldn't (doesn't have a right to) approach you at all. But as a freeze you feel that you should be able to kill the smoky. This psychology leads people thinking their own gun is "underpowered."

I'm not sure this works. Isidas have a very low energy reserve and cannot heal continuously. WOLVERINE SAID: "Not sure we are talking about same thing... Isida has higher DPS than Freeze or Fire because it has no special attack - it is just pure damage. If you lower Isida DPS it then is at disadvantage vs other short-range turrets." Yes, but Isida enjoys the special advantage of being able to charge its overdrive without venturing out of safety, while the other turrets have to actively damage opponents and such.

Well, going on pause just worsens the plight of those noble fools still flagging on. Maybe more will go on pause, but that just results in an even more lopsided score and less chance of saviors joining the battle. In the unlikely scenario where everyone goes on pause, the only result is wasted minutes for everybody. The economy shouldn't force this choice between "leave and save my own skin" or "stick around to be clobbered in the interest of group-psychology." The thing is, it's not just your choice to leave- it's how that influences the actions of others, and so forth. What I'm trying to say is that this is an example of bad game design. You have all these players who could be enjoying themselves running around finding battles or wasting their time in hopeless cases. When a large portion of your time is spent looking for good battles (which will be ruined), you could be compared to a virus- destroy one battle and move on to the next- and the server becomes a failure. But you have to consider why this is the case. These battles certainly don't start out lopsided, at least never as much as the battles that end up this way. I could go into the statistics but generally speaking, a random variation will eventually "spiral down" that is, players leaving. There's a large chance of that happening, even to a battle seemingly without issues. Then it would take a disproportionate amount of "trials" to get back to the original state (players joining) but most will increase the problem. For any near-balanced battle, it only takes 1 or 2 players to leave to start that whirlpool effect, and the battle sinks into decay. This is a fundamental aspect of the way the battle-system and crystal economy is set up. If everyone thought like I did, there wouldn't be an issue. If everyone thought like you did (go on pause) it would be sort of okay. But that's impossible. So, it seems, are this game's chances at redemption under the current management.

Do you have Isida protection, though?

With Shaft or with Rail? Because if it's just/mainly with Shaft, then your experience is biased. You might simply be a good Shaft player, and easily able to kill most railguns, but if you play railgun, you might find yourself easily able to kill most Shafts, which are probably below you in skill.

1. You need a certain distance to be able to "see" their flag. Usually it's protected by buildings from line-of-sight. 2. This is simply not true. A skilled railgun player can use their camera to look at where the Shaft is pointing, peek out when he's pointing in another direction (having warmed up behind cover) and land a shot before the Shaft can react. Even if the Shaft is already turning and has seen him, the impact force of the railgun will knock him off aim. Shaft is a good sniper against unsuspecting targets- it's a true sniper. You have to land shots on those who are traveling, not specifically targeting you. Railgun is much better for actual sniper wars, although there's a certain level of skill required.

Ridiculous. Where the Shaft is close enough to line up shots on their flag railguns and thunders are close enough to line up shots on him. They have the not-so-small advantage of being able to move while shoot and can easily take out the shaft if they're worth their salt. 2. Yes, but close-range defenders should be hidden, not exposed. You're telling me their defense has NO long-range snipers?

As a player who uses both Freeze and Shaft, it's great to see somebody else that understands. It's not only the actual way the damage is administered like you said, but also the range at which they play. A Shaft never has to come into contact with an Isida- it's just not a threat. Personally even while using freeze Isida doesn't seem that OP- In the scenarios I do die against a drugging Isida I die confident in the damage I just dealt. While vampirism isn't coming back to the main game, it would still be just so nice to see it as an alteration. Back when they had 10% self-heal nobody complained that the Isida was OP - it was the Isida players that complained about the lack of damage to use in DMs. So as an alteration, giving the players the option to choose this kind of playstyle (after all, no other turret has this ability), it would also make them money as a sink . Part of me suspects Tanki doesn't like people using self-heal instead of RPKs.

True. It's Tanki's problem, and a bad one at that. I'm willing to bet that they could fix this by simply giving out more credits. Besides, it is entirely possible to actually leave losing games and gain less total credits than if you had just stuck it through. If you leave every game where you are losing, you forfeit the chance of a comeback (which does happen when a group of good players joins) and quite possibly could spend a lot more time looking for suitable battles. Not to mention you could earn a whole lot of xp "jumping around" from losing battle to losing battle, but as you don't finish any, you end up making almost no credits.

At the moment I'm neither qualified nor willing to calculate it for myself but here's the thing- if you are just looking for a heavy hull, there are only two options. It's not a huge set of calculations, just one or the other. And in general, Titan has more speed and pushing power, while Mammoth has more stability. I don't think the specifics are that important- just know which one does X more than the other.

1. Decreasing the reload would work just as well. It should take more than one Magnum to cripple a team's defenses. 2. Yes, Shaft is annoying, but that's not the same as overpowered. 3. I feel that the problem is the double damage, not the Isida. ;) Use Shaft and one-shot the little pests. You can't heal what isn't alive.

Exactly. Amen to that last sentence. Why can't they fix the crystal economy instead of all the problems it creates?

No, there's no advantage. None whatsoever. But if you leave, more people have an even harder team, and they get more disadvantaged. Overdrive is a whirlpool for spawns, I agree. There's this sort of slippery slope where if one person leaves, most of them leave at a rapid pace after that. The battle falls apart- that's how most of them get ruined. As for uneven skill levels, theoretically if you stay in the same battle, you should have a 50/50 chance of getting better/worse teammates, with the small exception of your own skill. Yeah- mults. I agree. But what drives people to create mults in the first place? Again, this starvation for credits. You MUST earn credits or you'll be ruined, is the message Tanki's sending. No wonder they've got a bigger mult problem than any other game, even if it is easier to use mults there.

Well- aren't those battles the ones where they need arriving players the most?

Perhaps the ability to "distribute" the damage into an infinite amount of streams at any enemies in close proximity. Heal 2 players and fight 2 more at the same time. But I don't know. I'm not really proposing anything- just grumbling. It's okay as it is.

Well, when I used to look for battles I would always look for a losing team in need of help. The main point for me would actually be the number of players in a map, and the ranks. Obviously too-high or too-low ranks would send me in search of another. I don't know if it's just me but I find it immensely frustrating when players leave as soon as they are leaving. Stick around! When you leave you are abandoning your team and making it worse for the rest of us. With a blowout you at least have the advantage of your enemies all around when you spawn- you don't have to actively seek out anyone to get score. Part of the issue is what gun you are using- I know you like Smoky. With such guns like Smoky, thunder, railgun, magnum, and Shaft, you can't really output enough damage to counter the enemies coming up every second. To effectively restore a match, you need a bit of drugs and a gun that can damage/kill the enemies faster than more respawn and drive to your base. You have the distance advantage at least. Freeze, Twins, and firebird are the best since they can fire through enemies and have very high DPM. See, a game can't really become a blow-out unless the drugging levels aren't balanced. At least to me it seems that the winning team can get Overdrive faster (kills and caps are easier) enabling them to cement their advantage, leading to a cycle of killing. The players that leave blowout losing games- aren't they really concerned about their credits? At least, if you are acting in the interest of your k/d, you don't deserve to be considered. ;) In such a greedy game where the slightest lack of credit management results in a ruined account, the players are completely starving for credits. It kills the fun of the game where you have to be constantly worrying about your credit/xp ratio. On the contrary, I leave when my team is spawnkilling. I refuse to partake in making somebody's battle miserable and I won't even get much score and crystals. It simply isn't fun.

The maps are designed so that camping at the very edge of the map will not get you much kills- there is too much in the way. As for camping close to the very edge of the map, people can still come in after you've shot and have to reload. The point is, Shaft is a direct-fire weapon. That means whenever it fires at you, you can see it and consequently it is exposed to fire as well. That's why Shafts can't truly camp and kill, because they expose themselves whenever they try to get a kill. And people tend to learn where the Shaft is and what he's guarding. Only Magnum can truly camp in the very back, behind everything, and lob shots over.

I don't know, every time I see Shafts I can usually kill them much more than they kill me. Getting 44-0 requires an opposing team that has no idea how to counter a Shaft. Of course, I'm speaking from a non-drugging perspective here, when I use Shaft M2.5 And well, Highways is Highways.