Just reading the title won't tell you everything about this topic (i didn't know what to name it). My idea is to basically give Firebird and Freeze infinite charge. However, the drawback they both will be receiving is that Firebird will start burning itself when the bar runs out and Freeze will start freezing itself when the bar runs out. Both Firebird and Freeze suffer more than any other turret in the game when they run out of charge since that it requires almost all of the energy charge to take down a lone heavy hull. And especially with all the protections protecting against firebird and freeze, they very often run out of energy before the enemy is killed. This will buff both of them in this respect. However, they will be slammed with the nerf that if they aren't too careful, they will have to hurt their own tank in order to finish off enemies. This would definitely provide an extremely interesting aspect to the game. There should be an animation of the self-freezing/burning. For instance, for freeze, there should be those tiny blue freeze circle puffs things being emitted from the freeze. For firebird, the firebird should start having some smaller flames shooting upwards from the turret. This feature could also be used to remove burns if you are a freeze and to remove your frozenness if you are a firebird. If a freeze is 1 v 1 a firebird and the freeze runs out of charge, then the freeze should absolutely keep firing because the firebird's burning will cancel out with your self-freezing. The same can be applied for firebird. I think this will be really cool.

For my entire time playing TO, Freeze was only powerful for a month and a half. Meanwhile, Firebird has been very far on the more powerful side of the turret spectrum for pretty much the entire time (except for maybe from December to August 2018). Now that they are done with rebalancing Firebird and Freeze this year, anyone can notice that they nerfed Freeze so that it's just average (which is perfectly "balanced" if all other turrets in the game were also balanced) and Firebird is still tremendously OP. If you think about it Freeze has been OP for less than 2 months. Firebird will not be rebalanced anytime this year (they already nerfed it a little), so it will be OP for the rest of the year and probably well into next year. One second of a firebird shooting at me causes my m3 heavy to end up below half health. One second of freezing does not freeze at all. Firebird afterburn lasts for about 10 seconds (it's probably more, but you're probably dead by then) and you also have to take into account that the burn is still taking effect while the Firebird is still shooting. Freeze's freezing doesn't even kick in until around 2 seconds in and isn't viable until 4 seconds. Firebird's burn is still fairly strong against 35%+ protection modules. Freeze's freezing is literally nonexistant against 35%+ protection modules. Firebird has always killed freeze for all of TO History except for those 2 months this summer. The only time a Freeze actually wins is if it sneaks behind the firebird. But what are the odds of sneaking behind an enemy firebird when all of the enemies are on the other side of the map? Remember when Freeze's freezing was usable? What did the devs do it? The nerfed the hell out of it and buffed it's direct enemy, the firebird so that it was completely OP. Now, when Firebird's firebird is completely absurd? What did the devs do to it? Only slightly nerf the M0 and M1 firebird's burning effect and nerf it's direct enemy Freeze so that it was average to slightly below average. Now, as a Freeze player (which i know depreciates much of the value of my argument), I have to face 50% protection modules on every single enemy I face. I want a longer Freeze Meta. Practically every single turret in the game has had a longer meta than Freeze (except Striker). Firebird has definitely been Meta for an extremely long time.

So, lately there is buzz going around that TO devs need help thinking of a system to critique how good a player is, based on skill/performance/equipment. They just switched from Efficiency to GS, which makes more sense, but is still not a good system of keeping track how well a player does in battle and how good the player is, not to mention how you don't know how MU'ed up the opponents are exactly. I think with my method, there will finally be an accurate way of finding how good a player is statistically. A statistic used in professional baseball is WAR, which stands for Wins Above Replacement. The calculations in this are extremely complex; however, in baseball, it effectively measures the impact/valuableness a player has on his team compared to the average player. The higher your WAR, the better player you are. If you WAR is negative, you are hurting your team by playing for it. The unit of the WAR is a win. It kind of directly shows how many wins in all of the games you've ever played your team got because of you. For my TO version of WAR, I will simplify the calculations to make it more understandable and accurate. My equation is not final, and there will be edits, so here I go. Right now it's simple. After I perfect it, I will turn it into an I&S: Please note that the calculations only are based off of how much you are helping your team. Camping and not doing anything will not help your WAR rating. 11 basic components of WAR: 1. Gear Score 2. Shot Efficiency (Hits vs. Shots Taken) Note that hitting 2 tanks with 1 shot counts as 2 hits vs 1 shot taken so it's possible to go above 100%. Shot efficiency is split into multiple pieces for Railgun, Shaft, Thunder, Smoky, Magnum, Striker, and Ricochet. 3. Flags Captured (CTF) 4. Points Captured (CP) 5. Nearly-Capped Flags Returned (CTF) 6. Goals Scored Per Game (RGB) 7. Important Kills per Game (An important kill is basically any kill that kills an enemy connected to a point, or holding your flag, or any enemy with a current 4+ tank killstreak, or a player with at least 2 supplies activated) 8. Average Points Per 10-Minutes (MMS only) 9. Average Placing Per Full Match on your winning team (MMS only) 10. Average Placing per Full Match on your losing team (MMS only) 11. Isida Teammate HP restored (Only counted when you are using Isida) Our Variables: GS = (Your Gear Score - Average Gear Score for Your Rank) / 100 SE = 100 * (Your Shot Efficiency % - Average Shot Efficiency %) CF = (# of Flags You Captured / 10) - (Average # of Flags Captured per 10 minutes) CP = (# of Points You Capped / 10) - (Average # of Points Capped per 10 minutes) RF = (# of Flags You Returned that was within the radius of sqrt(Map Area)/8 meters)/10 - (The average of same stat per 10 minutes) GOAL = (# of Goals You Scored / 10) - (Average # of Goals Scored per 10 minutes) IK = (# of Important Kills You Made / 10) - (Average # of Important Kills per 10 minutes) PP10 = sqrt(2 *( Your Average Points per 10 Minutes in MMS - Average Player's Points per 10 Minutes in MMS)) WIN = (Your Average Placing on a Winning Team - 2.5) ^ 2 LOSE = (Your Average Placing on a Losing Team - 4) ^ 1.2 HEAL = (Your Average # of Teammates Health Restored per 10 minutes - 1st Quartile of average players of that stat per 10 minutes) if HEAL > 0. Otherwise HEAL = 0. WAR = GS + SE + CF + CP + RF + GOAL + IK + PP10 + WIN + LOSE + HEAL In theory, the average WAR should be 0. I might have to make all the WARs positive in order to encourage less-skilled players because they might get sad if they see that they are hurting their own team by playing. Also, with this system, we can remove the GS score from appearing when we press v and go back to the old system where we could see the modification levels of turrets/hulls. Please critique all you want, your suggestions are highly needed, I feel like if this goes right, this system could basically fix all of our matchmaking woes. The possibilities are endless. When I'm done, this will be turned into an I&S.

Night Mode had a lot of potential, except that the developers became lazy and just only made the map dark as heck. This is bad for gameplay because it puts way too much stress on the eyes in order to play. Or, Rio Night Mode, which has enough lighting without being a pain for the eyes, just doesn't have a night mode feel to it because there are no lights shining in the city. I feel like the devs need to add more light sources to make the map brighter. Not only would this make this game mode more popular, it would make the night feel more realistic. Right now, the moon doesn't really cast any light onto the map, which would look extremely cool if it did and make it seem more realistic. My idea's added light sources would include: 1. The moon casts a lot of light. There are still shadows where the moonlight is blocked, such as a house in the way. An Example of This: It should be very similar to the current lighting. Maybe the moonlight beams and shadows will be more noticeable. 2. Supply Boxes give off more light. They don't look brighter, however, the area around them lights up a lot. 3. Burning Buildings and Crates. I mean, this is warfare, and these would give tons of light off. 4. Light posts / Torches. New props designed to put light sources in strategic spots on the map. 5. Firebirds burn brighter. The fire should cause the area around them to glow. 6. The LED looking lights in front of the M3 Hulls should act as lights just like the lights in front of a car. Enemies may see you coming, however, this will help you see. You could also sacrifice your vision for being stealthy by driving backwards. 7. Tunnel Lights

Freeze's Freezing is the same for all modifications. However, I feel like a problem for that is that Freezing is way too OP at lower ranks especially where things turn slower and people haven't developed enough skill aiming. If people can't turn their turret or swing their hull around well enough, Freeze is basically going to wreck them. However, at high ranks, where lots of modules make Freezing non-existent, the hulls and turrets swing faster, and people have developed enough skill to attack freezes while frozen, the Freezing ability is absolutely garbage. In short, current freezing is OP at m0/m1 and UP at m2/m3/m4. I would suggest something like this: M0 Freeze: Freezing effect is 75% of current freezing strength. M1 Freeze: Freezing effect is 95% of current freezing strength. M2 Freeze: Freezing effect is 105% of current freezing strength. M3 Freeze: Freezing effect is 120% of current freezing strength. M4 Freeze: Freezing effect is 125% of current freezing strength

Basically, I think average wait time is just calculated by an RNG (random number generator), nothing more. A while ago, average wait times were all around a minute twenty, which was pretty accurate. Now, after the update (which didn't change anything about MMS), they are all in the range of 20-25 seconds, which is very off considering many battles would require you to wait around 2 minutes to find. I think the devs lowered the wait time RNG simply because it would make the game look better and seem as if there were many people playing it and battling. I don't sense any difference in wait time to be honest. Sometimes matches let you in instantly, while others take over 2 minutes. It's been like that the whole time. Plus, the average wait time for all of the game modes are almost always approximately the same (20-25 seconds). I know for a fact that there are waaaayyyy less players playing Assault, Rugby, TDM, and Juggernaut than CTF, DM, and CP. Throughout the day, no matter whether how many players are online, the wait-times are still almost always in the same range.

For the in-game chat, you know there is a drop-box and when you click on it, you are able to choose different chats? I think that we should add a private messaging system that will store messages between specific players. This will be a lot more convenient to chat with friends than hoping that both of you guys will be on the General 1 Chat at the same time. If you are banned from chat, you should still be able to retain your ability to send private messages to friends because the things you are chatting in the PMS will be private, so people won't have to see your spam/inappropriate stuff/third-party links. That said, friends can delete chats if they want to if their chat is getting spammed on or people are saying things that others are not comfortable with. More Specific Features: - Messages will be cleared after a week of the post - 1 friend can delete the chat if they want to - You can only have 1 chat per friend. - In order to create chat, you have to select their name and then press "Create a Chat" - There will be no chatrooms full of multiple players. Chats will only host 2 players.

Absolute Garbage Idea -1

Even if says it, it doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't take more than 2 weeks to fix a bug that you fix in 30 seconds.

Why hasn't Magnum been nerfed?

I think there should be more health for lighter hulls' drone than medium and heavies. Although this doesn't make sense logically, light hulls need to be actually good at something for a change. Yes, I like how you can shoot down drones for damage on the enemy.

It's not a Railgun problem, it's not bad at all. It's a Module priblem.

NO GOD PLEASE NO

Burning IS affected by Double Power. Anyways, with DP, you can get a bonus 600 damage per second from the burn, which is a monstrosity.

Why isn't Gold Pls and Gold Admin in common spoiler?

What he said. Also, a lot of turrets in this game has crazy auto-aim features that have a large angle for aiming (Twins/Rico) for example. A lot of players now will start shooting and they don't care about how accurate their aim is, their tank could sway back and forth but their shots don't miss. This will add an aspect of that you have to aim better to actually hit ur target and not the drone. Not to mention, I expect most of the time, the drone will die due to splash damage.

What is the name of this game? It's so nice.

Basically I could purposely miss the enemy tank and hit their drone in order to disable their drones (including paused battery usage) until they respawn (for the trooper drone, it would skip 1 respawn). Or, if I'm using a splash gun such as Thunder, Striker, or Magnum, I could splash the drone, and if it takes enough damage it will be shot down. I don't think anyone would intentionally try shooting one down when they can hit the target anyways but I think it would be great for gameplay. If you just reckless start swaying your tank back and forth, your auto-aim could potentially lock onto their drone instead of their tank, causing you to miss their tank and have their drone soak up some damage. If you miss the center of their tank, you might auto-aim onto the drone instead. This feature would help skilled players have an advantage over the noobs who just try spraying twins with little aim.

Why not nerf Vulcan to extinction so that it's 1 less turret that I don't need to worry about?

Any Russian player.

He has a large influential effect on the mods. Freeze got nerfed quickly because Nives agreed that Freeze was OP and he actually told the devs. Firebird for some reason got buffed (as if the nerf of its 2 competitors wasn't enough of a buff) because Nives can just tell the devs that a few players think firebird should be meta. Nives clearly doesn't believe Magnum is OP, so he is not forwarding our message to nerf magnum to the devs.

Nives just buffed his favorite turret and nerfed his least favorite turret. :angry:

It will drop 1 crystal... or better... 1 X-Crystal

I got assault drone, it's not as effective as trooper, although i cant say im sure cuz i don't use trooper. Assault Drone kicks in when you are almost dead pretty much everytime, so there's no point in having supplies replenished. Trooper drone makes you immune to spawn killing, and the time that it is activated for so long so that you can be in the enemy base with 3 supplies already enabled and get a few shots off. Plus, Trooper works everytime you spawn, assault doesn't happen all the time due to the recharge.

You can't be saying anything right now. You tried using m0 Railgun in your battles and actually expected it to be really good.