You don't get it. I am an onion, the most superior race on the planet.

Guess what, it will. However, battle list will still remain and you will be able to make your own battles for free, without PRO pass. The only catch is that you won't be able to complete missions in those battles. You will still get crystals and EXP.

I'm sorry, but you can't bring up karma here and expect people to treat it as a legitimate argument. That's a mix of superstition and personal belief. Anyway by your logic, cows are also harmful because their emissions contribute to global warming, in the same way flies are harmful because they carry diseases. Like personia said, every single animal causes harm in some way, willingly or unwillingly, humans being the most harmful. Any animal can carry diseases. "Those that don't cause harm" is subject to interpretation. You don't like it that a lion kills a zebra. But how else is that lion going to survive? I guess you expect me to somehow control the NATURAL INSTINCT of my cat to hunt. The BBC article mostly concerns the problem of whether cows will to live. Of course they do. Every animal on earth does. Humans do. It is hard-coded in their DNA. But whether they like it or not, every person/animal will eventually die, from natural of unnatural causes. And the BBC article contradicts your very own standpoint, that animals that cause harm deserve to die. Guess what? The "harmful animal" has a will too. Where do you draw the line between an "evil" animal and a "good" animal? By nature, animals are not malicious. Their behavior is determined by their own instinct to survive. When does an animal's "harmful" behavior outweigh the right it has to live based on it's own will? On one hand, you say that animals that pose a threat must die. But in order to survive, every animal must pose a threat to another. The law of nature says: in order to live, you must pose a threat to something else, because your survival depends on another organism's lack of survival. You say: in order to live, you must not pose a threat to something else. How does this make sense? Everything deserves to die?

Who cuts off a live chicken's leg lol. I guess every fibre of your body hurts when a lion kills a zebra? Or when my cat catches and brutally kills rabbits without eating them afterwards? What kind of deep thought is here? Also, here's some food for thought (pun intended): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm

Because Siberian kit is pretty bad.

How dare you swat that fly!

Newbies don't even know what Ratings are.

Since the discussion has turned towards veganism, here's a good link:

Why is it disturbing?

I guess having to play for months upon end to earn 400-500k crystals and rank up to Lieutenant General is cheap. Or you know, you can just make use of frequent micro-upgrade sales to MU your equipment to M3 without having to spend a metric ton of crystals and get M3s at an early rank.

Double reload means a 3.92 second reload between shots at the M3 level. In comparison, Railgun M3 has a 4.35 second reload. So it takes you 8 seconds to empty your clip, and 6 seconds to reload the entire clip (which makes plenty of sense). You could die ten times over before you manage to kills anything. Keep in mind that half of your pellets will miss at such range, even with Slugger, (you'd have to aim very well on top of that) so the amount of damage and impact will be below average. With the current Hammer your pellets sometimes go nowhere even at point blank range, imagine how bad it would be at long ranges. Poor damage output, and extremely long reload time, very difficult to hit shots accurately. I don't think being unable to attack is a good feature to have.

Past M2, they become stupidly expensive. So probably no more for me.

Why is this necessary? Unless you are just beginning to use Magnum, aiming is not a problem.

Hammer wasn't weak until it's range and pellet spread were nerfed for reasons unknown. Oh wait, the incentive was to make the Slugger alteration relevant.

Looks like a huge nerf.

Free view already exists if you use mouse controls. Unfortunately, mouse controls are pretty bad and I can't imagine a way it could be implemented with arrow keys.

Flawless logic.

Vulcan needs to be nerfed?! Why? If only it were so easy . . .

Not necessarily. There are multiple battles formed at a given time to which players are assigned randomly.

Said no one ever.

So basically an existing alteration. Oh, and splash damage, like there wasn't enough splash damage in the game.

I think the number of Magnums decides the fate of a battle.

Currently no. Check test server periodically.

Striker badly needed the lock-on buff. I remember when it first came out it was so difficult and frustrating to lock-on.

So hard to read. Anyway, this is planned as an overdrive for a certain hull.