Saw this in a battle yesterday. He was the highest rank and the only Marshal in that battle. Everyone else in the battle averaged a GS of 5,000-6,800.

On the Real Servers and in the Test Server, I've played in all except the ones in yellow. For Forest...I'm not really sure. I can vaguely remember playing there in the Test Server but I'm really uncertain. Cologne, Future and Tribute seem a bit too small or compact for Juggernaut to be honest. The maps I always get for these on the real servers are Brest, Wolfenstein, Soliamsk, Yorkshire, Bridges, Osa and Massacre. The others I barely get. I don't like having to play Juggernaut on the same few maps over and over and over again.

The change to Plasma Torch was that the projectile speed was increased. It used to be slowed by 75% but now, it is slowed by 66%

I tried it in the test server. It's good only if most of the enemies don't have ricochet protection. With the buff, I'd say it's more viable now; still overpriced but viable.

Shorter, not longer. I don't think that's what the doubled temperature minute really means. Yes, Did some testing and it seems like it does just what it says. M1,2 and 3 Firebird effectively turns into M4 Firebird in terms of afterburn time. M2 Firebird's burning time is 6 seconds. With that, it would be 10 seconds (it would actually be 12 seconds being 1.2 for the hull's temperature but the highest is 1 so it effectively turns into 10 seconds of afterburn). This is already powerful. I'm still glad that they can no longer touch me for 0.5 seconds and I'll receive 10 ticks of afterburn damage.

I use it at short-mid range with high-powered shots. Back when I first started using it, I would keep the angle at 4 degrees with 100% velocity and I would be able to effectively hit anyone who was at short-mid range depending on how hard I rock my hull.

You had said that you didn't have the alteration. And from that same post, it implies that you've never used it before. Just because something appears to be like something on paper doesn't mean it's like that in practice. Why do you think players keep recommending this alteration instead of High-Calibre Rounds? Why do you think players recommend this alteration instead of Shell Stabilisation huh? It's because it works and it works too well. For all we know, the damage distribution could be positively skewed. It could be negatively skewed. All we know is what parameters change. You seem to only focus on what's written on paper. Even if it's written on paper. M4 Railgun does 800-1,600 damage. With Round Destabilisation before the nerf, you could have dealt 1-3040 damage. Look at it from a number line perspective: 800-1 = 799 which means that the minimum damage was reduced by 799 points. 3,040-1,600 = 1440 which means that the maximum damage was increased by 1440 points. It's clear that from a numbers perspective, the benefit of the alteration outweighs the drawback of the alteration by almost 2x (1.8x to be exact). What else do I even need to tell you?

They said that after a few days, it should show data.

Yup, I got the Get top 3 on the winning team x15 Weekly mission my lower account now. This account has it at 7/15 and my lower at 2/15. I would have loved to get it when I wasn't using Shaft so often. Played 3 DMs. Two of them resulted in the top 3 being all Ricochets with Minus-Field Stabilisation. I had 17% protection against them but I didn't even notice a damage decrease.

The devs have to "give an estimation" to us? Does this imply even they don't know the drop rate for gold boxes in MM battles?

Tell that to the multiple players who got 15+ kills every battle whether on the losing team or not with that alteration equipped. I think they'll beg to differ. Too many times my M2 Hunter was one-shotted from full health by an M2 (Possibly M3) Railgun with that alteration.

I had mixed feelings about Shell Destabilisation before the nerf. I didn't know if it was overpowered or balance because the drawback was really heavy but so was the benefit. It's only recently I'd been noticing how unbalanced it was. Someone pointed out that with the new damage range, there is a new average damage. For M4 Railgun, the average damage with the alteration was 1,520 which is almost equal to getting a lucky shot with Unaltered M4 Railgun. M4 Railgun would deal around 1,600 damage very infrequently because they'd have to be lucky. M4 Round Destabilisation would deal 1520 damage on average. I felt like this was an upgrade to Railgun seeing as almost all of the Railguns I encountered had this alteration equipped. The ones that didn't have it equipped didn't flourish in battles compared to their teammates who had it. Before the nerf, I would see 2-3 M2 Shell Destabilisation users on the enemy team and maybe 1-2 on mine almost every battle. They're really annoying to face with their BS impact force that I've seen knock a Titan that was going up a ramp on its side. The devs aren't really transparent with their in-game mechanics. Heck, the in-game mechanics page on the Wiki is very outdated. The lack of transparency usually results in nasty slippery slope fallacies from players. Why? Because we don't know what to expect. They're the ones with the information. We have to make assumptions (which usually seem to be true) about new mechanics and existing ones, especially with Alterations. In this Iran battle, there was a pesky Shell Destabilisation user on the enemy team. He shot me a total of 5 times in that battle. What's interesting is that for all 5 times, they did almost the same amount of damage. This was the amount of damage the guy was doing. My health when from full to this 5 times: My Hunter's health in that picture is 2294. Based on estimation, I estimated that the guy did around 1675 damage 5 times to me. Higher than Unaltered M4 Railgun could even reach. These Railguns often take more than 75% of my Hunters health. I remember there was a battle where almost every rail shot that hit me when I was at full took away >90% of my HP if not one-shotting me. I'd say that 1 in every 10 Destabilisation shots is a "low damage" one. After experiencing them in every MM battle I went to in the lower ranks, I was starting to suspect that the damage distribution from that alteration was negatively skewed. If you don't know what that means, this is a bell curve that is not skewed in any way. This is how the damage distribution for Railgun and Smoky is according to the Wiki: The average damage is the highest point seen in that picture. This is a negatively skewed distribution. This is how I suspected Shell Destabilisation's damage distribution to be: As you can see, the average damage is higher than what is symmetrical. In other words, what I'm saying is that Unaltered Railgun would be dealing 1,200 out of 1600 damage on average; Shell Destabilisation would be expected to deal 1520 out of 3040 damage on average but it may really be doing 2,200 out of 3040 damage on average. See what I mean? We have no proof that it's like that because the devs keep us in the dark about the modern in-game mechanics. We only go on what we see rather than what we understand. Another thing about that alteration is the damage range is so wide, you can't really tell if the player who shot you had double damage activated or not. You can't really fight back against this because you don't even know what you're trying to defend against. I think it was great that they nerfed it. I'm pissed, however, that certain players feel as if the alteration is "dead" just because of that nerf. We still don't know if the damage distribution is/was negatively skewed or if it doesn't have a skew at all and this really bothers me. I've noticed in the past that myself writing long posts attracts almost 0 attention for discussion. I hope that isn't the case this time because I'm naturally pessimistic but I try to be positive. I just can't really see what's positive when so many negative things could cloud those positive thoughts. The opacity, and sometimes ambiguity, of the devs is really getting to me to the point where I can't trust a lot of alterations for being properly understandable. They did say that they were catering to the players with short attention spans. Does this mean that they're also catering for the players who don't take the time to learn why things work and not the players who wonder why? Games have allowed me to increase my vocabulary and idiom usage for my language as well as other languages. Is the playerbase just not ready to find out the mechanics of the game"?

I guess you clearly didn't use Round Destabilisation when it still had the 90% maximum damage increase.

3-1 Sunset Camouflage Paint 3,500 Crystals I finally got an epic again. I was expecting a shot effect but I got the paint that I deemed the ugliest since it came out two years ago. I had to fight the urge to tell my in-game friend (who probably doesn't play anymore) how ugly the paint is every time we played together back when it had just came out because he always played with that paint. Hopefully I'll warm up to it. My only legendary prize, the one animated paint I didn't want. My epic prize after a drought, the one epic paint I didn't want.

Oops. I'm sorry if it might have offended you (in particular) in any way. It was solely meant for the buyers (and to a lesser extent, players who only invest in what is currently "temporarily" overpowered) who complain about something that gave them more kills/EXP than it should have unfairly being nerfed. And that Lieutenant Colonel really pissed me off because I kept asking him, "What do you know about the alteration?" and "Tell me what you know about the alteration". He threatened to ignore me in the chat but after a while, he just said he doesn't know. All he knows is that it lets you one shot many tankers. See why I don't like those tankers? They seem to have a hive mind and not think for themselves. It's one thing to use an overpowered turret combination knowing full well it's overpowered and expecting it to be nerfed in the future but it's another thing to use it solely because "it gets me kills and EXP like no other turret combination and because of that, it should never be changed". I make sure to check the players' profile to look for a common trend before I rant. Also, it kinda looks bad the way you quoted my post. Without the context immediately after each message, it looks bad on my part. :lol:

And here we have another "disappointed" player who doesn't realise how imbalanced some turrets are with certain alterations equipped. Looking at your profile, it's clear that you have a love for Firebird as you have the highest EXP to hours played ratio with your Firebird. It also appears that you have the alteration for it. I presume that you always have that alteration equipped and almost if not never use Stock Firebird. You have 4 other alternative M2 turrets to choose from. I wonder why you're so "disappointed" with this update. It's apparent that you use quite a bit more double damages than you use double armours. Typical for a player who uses something just because it's powerful in others' hands. You were just having too much fun with it and now that it's nerfed, you feel as if it's useless. Why? I think maybe it's because you had such a high standard of it when it was overpowered. Now that it's below that, you think it's "underpowered". You're a buyer; you have Disco 2.0 and you've been playing with Cyberpunk for 57 hours. You probably finished this month's challenge given that you buying the battle pass was an incentive to finish it. Heck, the amount of EXP you earned only by using Cyberpunk is enough to get you from WO4 to the EXP in your current rank. You have lots of M2 equipment; judging by your protection modules it seems like you bought kits throughout your accounts lifespan. You saw that Firebird got you the most EXP, especially with the Compact tanks alteration so you kept it equipped. You saw the damage it was doing to players and you loved that you benefitted from it. You didn't see exactly how it hurt some others since you have at least 25% protection against it. I don't like it that players like you who buy a lot of stuff and don't bother to focus on the balance of the game complain about their "battle topping" equipment being nerfed. Compact tanks needed a nerf for the longest while now. Your entire account screams at me, "I buy stuff because people get the most kills with that so I'll buy it and salt 'till the days' end after it gets nerfed!". I'm sorry if this came out as a rant but I was pretty pissed that I had to argue to a Lieutenant Colonel this morning about why Round Destabilisation was overpowered. He kept saying how it was balanced and nothing was wrong with it. Here are just 3 messages that were sent: Arguing with that guy was futile. The guy claimed how Railgun was his life. If it really was his life, he would have realised how broken the alteration was.

Really? What you're saying there is a 13 rank difference. I went against a Major General when my alt account was WO5, as seen in the picture in my earlier post, which is a 9 rank difference. Others have said that the most they've seen are 11 rank difference. Are you sure you saw that? Because thinking about it, it's disgusting that M1 ranks are playing with M3 ranks. I feel like, for some ranks, there is a capped limit to the rank bracket. I doubt that a WO2 played with a Lieutenant General. But hey, MM is an unstable thing. I'll look out for 13 rank differences in my battles.

Ah yes, I just love it when I see 3 red numbers clumped together (but not too close) after I fire a shot from halfway across the map with Magnum. There was this one instance where I remember in a Noise CTF, a guy on red ran up the tunnels with our flag, I just let go of spacebar after charging up a bit and "rotating it" upwards and I had managed to kill 4 people with the shot. I honestly thought it was either going to hit the larger building in the base or the smaller one but it hit him dead centre (most likely). My teammate then recovered the flag for us, took the enemy flag and captured it as well. :D

Honestly, I think that's even worse. That's a flat out buff. May I ask why you didn't increase the reload time by 20% because an alteration that allows you to replenish ammo after killing someone should warrant an increase in reload time. With this, a Death Herald Railgun would charge up for 1.21 seconds which is not even a noticeable increase. I think it should either go back to the way it was or put the 10% reload speed and the 10% charging time increase together. "Death Herald" Compulsator basically has no drawback now.

The earliest you can get an M2 at now is Sergeant-Major. You can get M2 Freeze at that rank in the shop and MU it to M3.

Both of those things needed a nerf anyway.

Stopping you from having the fun was kinda the point. You felt rewarded because you dominated.

Use this topic to post tellings of occurrences that you've seen happen to other players or experienced yourself that would make you say "I can't believe that worked". I've been getting back into using Shaft recently. You know how when a Shaft fires its charged shot, the laser looks as if it rises, falls then disappears? Well, there was this really pesky Hornet + Railgun player in a MM Barda RBG. I knew where he was hiding so I trained my laser on the spot where he would have to peek to shoot. I then whispered to myself, "Hey, what if?-...", I mimicked the action of Shaft firing its charged shot by quickly raising my laser upwards slightly then lowering it into the building that was really close by in my view. I honestly didn't expect the guy to get tricked by this as he drove out of his spot to try to get to the right-hand side of the blue base. I then shot him right before he got out of view and his reply was "w tf hacker". I knew it would not have looked as fluid as the real thing but I couldn't believe that actually worked, on an XP player no less.

They did both...basically.

I guess it was done so that others could have a chance at the top spot with their turret.