You quoted my response "Would not be conducive to good team play." but did not address it. Your idea widens the gap between 1st and 2/3 and 4th. Players then have more incentive to play for themselves, not the team. "Dumb missions - the only purpose of which is to make you play more games." I'm not a fan of JUG and cetainly would not do those missions but...TO wants more players in battles. Nothing wrong with having some missions that rewards players for participating = filling up the teams. More players = less waiting time. Also, you are starting to be rude in your response. If you want people to ignore you, then you're on the right track.

It offers excellent game-play. - perfect size = a large medium map or small large map. You don't waste too much time travelling - Offers all types of terrain. Long open spots for long-range turrets but lots of avenues for sneaking and ambushing Is pretty balanced as well. I tend to favor red a bit more than blue - but - I'm never really disappointed playing on Blue either.

When you see them in the battle-list they are often full. It's a tease when I go to enter one and see the little wrench all lit up. They might as well play MM and get more Tiers in Challenge done.

I absolutely hate this about MM. First off... the winning team might have worked hard to get ahead. Then players on losing team leave only to be replaced by much better players. So hard work is rewarded by... giving the other team a huge leg up. A giant mistake IMO. The game should not strive to "even things up" mid-battle like referees do in a hockey game with the "make-up-calls". Secondly... when I start a battle, I check the rank-spread. if reasonable - I stay. But after investing time in battle, half-way through I'm suddenly battling players 8-9 ranks above me - feels like I've been cheated.

That's not true. If players on your team refuse to contribute, but other team has all 8 players playing, they could easily stomp you. You won't score much while you are being stomped - they don't just go after the mults. A mult or 2 can bring down the entire team.

replace Sandbox & Sandal with DeathTrack & Skylark. Those smaller maps have no business hosting 16 tanks in MM.

They could bring back a modified "early battle termination". Would have to look at team score when accounting for mults as the original just accounted for fewer tanks on one team. Might not be easy, but a threshold difference would trigger it. Of course this would be dependent on longer battles - not the current 7-min ones.

Not sure why you would not have a stash of supplies already in your account from before you left. Unless you played a LOT and used them up weekly. F2P tankers need to have a different strategy than buyers do. F2P need to concentrate on just a couple combos until they get to Brigadier, where they might be able to expand to 3 combos. If F2P tankers expect to have same options as buyers they are in for a huge disappointment. F2P also must temper the amount of time spent in the game in MM - doing missions is the priority. Anything after that is a luxury that will deplete your supplies. Both my accounts have Pro-battle Pass for the times I want to play more but missions are complete. I started my alternate account after the containers were introduced. It is now at Brigadier with 3 hulls at m2.9 and 3 turrets at m2.9 and about 10 protection modules in the range of 31%. All my accounts are F2P. Do supplies offer a disproportionate amount of boost? Yes. Do I wish they offer half the boost at +50%? Yes. But that isn't gonna change. So stock up, and don't gobble RKs every time time "you" (not you specifically) you are wounded. Sometimes you just gotta take the death - especially if it is not a battle-changing skirmish. What I find that unbalances the game more than supplies is Overdrives. They are way too powerful and recharge way too fast. You thought Viking Thunder on DD was potent? How about Viking Thunder with OD? Super-rapid fire AND a damage boost (plus you can add DD on top of that). OverDrives just help the winning team increase their lead in a battle.

It's serviceable now. Time will tell once players can afford the module.

Don't bother. He/She is a baiter. Likes to represent Opinions as Fact. Then wants to "debate" his/her opinion. It's a fools errand. Didn't like the ruling in a Court Case - ergo - Canada has no Free Speech. :blink: It's Homer-Simpson-esque.

That won't fly. Gives Thunder better avg damage than stock Rail with a better reload. Smoky has similar alt but the max-dmg buff was only 20% while min-dmg was +50%.

I answered your query and you responded that you already know - which seemed odd without the explanation about googling...

I'm OK with math. It's Matchmaking I have issues with. B) Matchmaker... - 7 minutes battles give no chance for a flow. Some ppl like short-and-sweet but many like 10 or even 15 minute battles. - In short battles going to garage wastes valuable time - yet it's often necessary due to random maps - Players that get loaded before others can practically cap a flag before there's any opposition. In short battles this has huge effect. - Maps - to be specific - lack of choice. There's many maps I don't see for 2 or 3 or 4 weeks. - Some of the maps like Sandal and Sandbox are too small for 16 tanks. In Team-battles it's crowded. In DM - it's horrible. - Rank spreads - too wide. Does not matter if Teams are balanced - the lower-ranked tanks on each side are just punching bags - waiting for battle ... often 2-3 minutes with multiple attempts. The "esitmated waiting time" is not accurate at all. That's a good start with how poorly matchMaker was implemented.

Is that Esplanade? Haven't played that map in YEARS. Good-ol' Titan-Ricco in the tunnels - with lots of mines...

"i only think coz i havent tested it in higher ranks so i dont know if its OP" :huh:

1. agree 2. Seems reasonable (at first I was picturing 6 turrets :o ) 3. I agree - 99% of my Trooper use is DMs.

Would not be conducive to good team play. Players would not be willing to take an extra death while blocking to let flag-carrier get away. Things of that nature...

Yeah - 3 seconds is not a lot of time for 1 tank to make multiple kills. Most cases it gets 1 kill. Then the survivors can activate any ODs that are primed and kill the Hunter. Or the Hunter can grab the flag during those 3 seconds and hopefully SB out there and not get killed when stun wears off. That's a lot of assumptions... that you make it there and then manage to get all/most of the enemies. Sure can happen in maps like Industrial zone. But that map is the exception, not the norm. And remember, just like you can't kill the Hunter through a barrier - the Hunter can't EMP anyone through a barrier either.

Protection modules in higher ranks are more significant - maxing out at 50%. The ability to bypass these modules at higher ranks makes the Hornet OD very potent. The fact it lasts a long time means that multiple kills can be made, especially with long-range turrets or turrets with lots of splash damage.

If you play in Clans/groups you tend to do a lot better than players joining a randomly composed team. 6 m3s... total? 3 turrets and 3 hulls? If I equip Trooper drone in DMs it makes a significant difference in where I finish in the battle. Those 15 seconds of all-supply boost enable a much greater survivability upon spawning.

Smaller maps maybe. Not on Kunger, Alexandrovich, Highways, Serpuhov, etc. Plenty of maps where the CP is in mostly open area. Not saying it's a "given". Just saying it is entirely possible for Hunter to be killed by ranged turrets before it get into position to EMP the enemies.

It can apply to any situation. Any turrets with a range > than 22m have a chance to prevent it's use. Obviously the turret would need ability to deal a lot of damage quickly.

Why improbable? It's 22m. I get killed in a Hunter by Hammer during the 1-second delay in trying to activate it. It is definitely probable - especially as the Hunter OD offers no extra defense.

You claim Canada does not have free speech. You made the claim - prove it.

Your knowledge is lacking.