Had a TX account from the beginning. Did not like - the movement of the tanks - the weird camera angles - not enough maps - Random battle mode and random maps - the league system - not viable for casual players - absolutely hate the "deserter" tag Played it on-off for about a year. Have not played for close to a year now.

Devs have no clue on how to actually FIX turrets. They perform a knee-jerk tweak and ruin things for players. Then they repeat this 2 or 3 times.

Yeah - my point was you could counter the DA with DD and remove it from the equation. And yes, slightly different if you use the "OR" instead of "AND". Meeting all 3 conditions happens << 1 or 2 of the conditions. Usually a minimum of 2 shafts, depending on the battle mode. So with 2+/8 enemies using Shaft it is definitely worth it.

Striker single with DD? No. Striker salvo - even without DD - Yes. Thunder? No.

Why are you MU-ing an item to 10/10 if you are targeting that item in a kit? Mu it part way and then buy the kit. Or Mu it fully and buy a different kit.

DD?

How many hours/battles per day?

You see modules in direct proportion to the number of turrets on enemy team. Rail - there are always Rail on opposite team so that is likely a default protection. Vulcan and Shaft? Not as popular so players don't equip them by default. Of course there are exceptions - going onto highways without Shaft protection is a big mistake. But since maps are random, we have to visit garage to make the switch once you land on Highways. And I agree with Fog - that magnum needs some kind of mechanism that prevents it from driving around and shooting heavy damage shots. Think "Siege Tank" from StarCraft. Has a mild damage gun until it stops, extends stabilizing spades, and now can launch heavy indirect fire shots that do massive damage. This is how Indirect-Fire weapons should work. They have a huge advantage on many maps that 1) provide LOS cover (walls) and 2) very little overhead cover.

No. I'd prefer the game if ODs were never invented. But I'd be stupid (and a mult) if I did not use them during a battle when available. Just like supplies. A player can dislike them and still make use of them. Because the alternative is to become a handicap to your team. OD - when active - affects the battles too much. And as you say, they've double-downed on that by making them active too often.

Heck no! We already have enough OverDrives in battles. You want OD for all players to be there the whole 7 minutes? :wacko: Why does every battle have have to be just about OverDrive? There would be no skill at all.

Positive Feedback Loop A stronger player (General) will be able to more damage / kills than a Major due to equipment imbalance. So the general will score more quickly and recharge it's OD more quickly. Then it will be able to do even more damage / kills and generate the OD more quickly again and again. OverDrives turn a slight imbalance into a large imbalance - both player-wise and team-wise.

easy enough to change the name... (but like I said before - not likely to happen)

That's all you see at Legend. IMO Viking OD & Thunder is worse. 2-3 tanks close together? ALL are destroyed fairly easily. (Shaft or Rail) + Hornet = guaranteed 1-shot kills.

Why does using Hornet make it "impossible to get through that double armor"? Hornet does not do the damage. Your turret does. Unless... you have OverDrive activated and then... it ignores both their "double" armor AND their protection module. Try using a different turret.

So... most of the time then?

50% is too high. 25% sounds more reasonable.

It's short range. Most times they can see you coming. It fails waaaay too often. Unlike most other ODs, it can't activate it and then find a target.

Remove that stupid 1-second delay and you've got a deal.

It lasts a long time, refreshes fairly quickly and you get to ignore all defenses. That's quite a few benefits - it's powerful enough. ODs should still require some skill to use at max potential.

Whats the difference? They get double the stars. Experience is not doubled with Premium - it's 1.5. At least players won't drop out of battles as often just because you are on the losing team. You may not always get stars but you ALWAYS get score/exp if you actually do something. Gunning for stars ruins team battles as described further above.

This is a good idea.

Most team battles just become TDM. Sure you get more for capping a flag but... you can fail often. No score for dying and respawning on other side of map. meanwhile those 5 campers on your team are making kills, dying a lot less, and getting higher scores. Then there's the fact that players drop out of battles mid-way when they realize they are on losing team and are likely to get less stars. First loser likely stay but, those in 4th, 5th, etc leave and now it's a rout. So no - I don't agree that stars are good for the game. "kills" were not either. But stars really are not better.

One of my 2 accounts going Pro-Battles only - even if it means playing a lot less. Account staying in MM will just play for missions. Once it hits Gismo or so, likely switch to Pro-Battles only as well. The game has lost its fun-factor. It's all show, no substance... all icing, no cake... all crown, no filling... all hat and no cattle

Not different enough. And "destroying" them is OP. Hunter affects tanks in certain radius but - only stuns them for 3 seconds. Huge difference in power there. Why would anyone ever want to use Hunter if they could destroy the tanks instead?

How is this different from Wasp OverDrive which drops a bomb that "destroys all players" ?