Yes, clearly P2W and OP augments are the only things keeping TO from dying.

Here's a post from another player in Bugs and Glitches that supports my theory: The link doesn't work anymore, but the video basically shows how FPS over 100 suddenly drops to below 30 after the network connection gives out momentarily. Again, high likelihood of networking code being the culprit.

Thank you for creating this topic; I now know that I am not the only one frustrated by HTML5's performance on decent hardware. From testing, I've noticed that the number of players in a battle is the main (maybe only) factor that affects FPS. Map size and various graphics settings hardly make any difference. As the number of players in a battle increases, counter-intuitively, hardware utilization decreases, as you can see in the below screenshots: Empty battle. FPS is ~400, CPU usage at ~70%, GPU 0 usage at ~75%, GPU 1 usage at ~35%. Battle with 29 players, same map, same spot on the map. FPS is ~100, CPU usage at ~55%, GPU 0 usage at ~20%, GPU 1 usage at ~15%. I will point out that though the counter shows 100 FPS, the game stutters like crazy, so in the end it feels more like 40. Not sure why. This leads me to believe that the bottleneck has to do with the netcode. Performance is limited by something related to communication with the server. There's a high likelihood that rendering/physics/game logic and networking code run on the same thread, and that the latter is a bottleneck. Playing in a match with eight players or less usually yields a satisfactory image. With 16 players, things are OK but start to get unstable. More than that, the result is ridiculous. Yet the developers have upped the player count on a number of maps. I've posted about this before in Bugs and Glitches reports, but nothing's come of it. When someone complains about glaring performance issues, or any issue for that matter, they usually get one of two canned responses: "clear you cache" or "uncap FPS" (or both). Great lot of good that will do.

Taste is subjective. We can have all sorts of arguments about the design of the new models, but from a purely technical standpoint the new models are of much higher quality.

That's not a bug; Smoky's rounds were given the ability to ricochet upon hitting surfaces at sharp angles, even without Rubberized Rounds equipped, in patch #635.

Autopilot would still probably be better than some of the teammates I get.

What the heck is a "night pitch?"

Being one-shot is extremely frustrating. Imagine you are driving along and then a Railgun pops out of cover for 0.1 seconds and one-shots you with absolutely zero skill required. No turret, especially not Railgun, should be able to one-shot tanks. Except Shaft. It at least has to drive out of cover, stop, and wait a second or so to one-shot a hull. With other turrets all the player has to do is press the fire button. It's still possible to one-shot light hulls without DA with DD. I think that's enough.

Oh look, LCR got nerfed after a few days instead of a few months. Dictator has arguably the best OD when used by good players; 50% extra OD charge to teammates can turn battles around. The nerf won't have any effect on selfish Dictator users. You will not receive items you already have. If you have all of the items from a container your will receive either supplies or crystals.

For a while I was skeptical of the image you showed; I thought it was most likely just concept art. But then I noticed the Unity gizmo in the upper right hand corner . . . so there's an actual possibility of a graphical overhaul.

Here are the critical hit rate values for Smoky after patch #641. SR stands for Supercumulative Rounds, PR for Paralyzing Rounds. Average number of shots to score a critical hit Stock SR PR Mk1 8.5 13.0 11.5 Mk2 7.4 11.3 10.0 Mk3 6.7 10.5 9.2 Mk4 6.0 9.5 8.4 Mk5 5.6 8.9 7.8 Mk6 5.2 8.4 7.4 Mk7 4.9 7.8 6.9 Mk7+ 4.4 7.1 6.2 Average critical hit rate Stock SR PR Mk1 11.8% 7.7% 8.7% Mk2 13.6% 8.8% 10.0% Mk3 15.0% 9.5% 10.8% Mk4 16.6% 10.5% 12.0% Mk5 17.9% 11.2% 12.8% Mk6 19.2% 11.9% 13.5% Mk7 20.6% 12.7% 14.5% Mk7+ 22.7% 14.1% 16.2% Change in average critical hit rate after patch #641 Stock SR PR Mk1 -28% -12% -15% Mk2 -22% -9% -12% Mk3 -18% -7% -9% Mk4 -14% -6% -8% Mk5 -11% -4% -6% Mk6 -8% -3% -4% Mk7 -5% -2% -2% Mk7+ 0% 0% 0% Smoky Mk7+ has remained unchanged, but lower modifications have had their critical hit rates lowered. I will post DPM statistic later.

I like Berlin overall but I think it needs some modifications to be suitable for MM. At the very least flag positions need to be changed.

You can still play the Flash version through Steam without needing any "bypasses."

Difference between TO and WoT is that TO has a larger of variety of mechanics with less depth, while WoT has less variety but its mechanics have more depth. You can see in the video that the player takes damage and dies quickly and says something like "oh wow I guess we don't have any armour;" that's because he was expecting the front of the hull to be better armoured than the sides like in WoT.

???

You were getting 80 FPS beforehand, which means you must have already uncapped your FPS. So what has actually happened?

means hakuna matata

Why should long range turrets be able to one-shot medium hulls, even without modules? In my opinion the only turret that should be able one-shot mediums is Shaft. Magnum, Gauss, and Railgun have extra perks (splash, penetration, lock-on) besides high damage. None of these three turrets should do more than 1000 damage per shot at Mk7+. Homogenous team composition would be a strategic choice if players had full control over team composition. But there's zero choice in MM. Not all players can simply "visit the garage" and adapt fluidly to enemy equipment setups. That's really only a luxury that buyers or long-time players with a full garage have. And given the fact that every other player in the match can also change equipment . . . there's only so much one can do. Sure many turrets are popular because they are potent. But even here protection modules create a balance challenge; if those turrets rightfully receive nerfs, they become too weak because of the prevalence of modules against them. So they remain potent. Without modules these turrets could be readily nerfed without significant complications. I'd argue that part of the reason the game so many ways to kill tanks quickly nowadays is precisely because of protection modules. Why do status effect augments exist? Why do Booster and Crisis exist? Why do Hornet, Viking, and Crusader's ODs exist? To counter protection modules. Reinforcing the role of protective items simply leads to more ways to deal more damage or counter those protective items. New sources of damage in turn lead to more protective items (first a flexible protection module system to counter more turrets being added, then drones to counter higher damage, then hull augments, now critical resistance). The result is never-ending power creep. If protection modules were removed early on the problem would be cut off at the root. Now more and more mechanics are being slapped on with no end in sight. I wouldn't be surprised if a fourth module slot is added by the end of the year . . . followed by a few more turrets. In the low ranks there are hardly any protection modules, yet the average time to kill is lower. Part of this is because of slower reloads, but part of this is also because there are fewer sources of damage. Why are there fewer sources of damage? Because there are fewer protective items to counter them. The insta-kill problem wouldn't have been an issue in the first place were it not for modules. Nothing you can do about Railgun because it's subject to constant favoritism and fan-service but that's a separate issue. The current implementation of critical damage is far from an ideal solution. I would prefer that critical shots bypass modules, but do less damage than standard shots.

As I said before, modules are a very crude solution to a problem that can be easily solved otherwise. They address a single problem, one-shots, but introduce three more: They significantly decrease the effectiveness of popular turrets, regardless of whether they are actually overpowered or not - the current state of Thunder (and to be honest, the state of Thunder for the past four years) is a good example. It's not particularly powerful, yet Grizzly modules are very common. They punish homogenous team composition. Suppose a team is composed of players using three turrets, while the enemy team uses eight. The enemy team has a significant advantage because it can be fully protected against all turrets used by the other team, but not vice versa. This problem also occurs on a smaller scale, when a single player has to face 4-5 tanks with protection modules but can only protect themselves against three enemy players because that's just how the teams were composed. Just because you can equip protection modules doesn't mean you are on equal footing with an opponent wearing them. They cause wild swings in the effectiveness of turrets. Some turrets are very effective in the absence of modules, but become very weak when modules enter into the mix. This leads to a push to make these turrets more effective in spite of modules, resulting in the introduction of status effect augments. It would be far easier to reduce damage rather than have to deal with all these unnecessary issues. So what if players complain; they'll get over it. There have been so many updates which provoked widespread complaints. A few years ago there were only two turrets with one-shot potential - Railgun and Shaft. Now there are four, plus a number of ways to boost damage. The number should really be dropped back down again.

Protection modules are a very clumsy and naive way of addressing one-shots - because they don't only affect turrets with high alpha damage! There are a number of ways the problem of one-shots can be addressed, the simplest of which would be reducing single-shot damage. And modules need not offer as high as 50% to prevent one-shots. Modules may make games slightly more fun for the module wearer, but significantly more frustrating for those who have to fight against them.

I meant removing protection modules entirely - not going back to the old system. While Freeze now slows down hull movement a lot, the turret rotation speed is barely affected, which makes the strategy of circling a tank while freezing it no longer viable. I would prefer that the hull movement penalty be reduced but the turret rotation penalty be increased.

What is so great about protection modules? What exactly do they contribute (besides being a crystal sink)? In what way do they either promote strategy or make the game more fun? Do they act as some sort of balancing mechanic?

Critical chance was lowered for all except Mk7+, but in exchange critical damage bypasses protection modules. Anyway, Autocannon should have been nerfed a while ago, as its DPM was far too high.

That refers to standard shots, which still have splash. The description for charged shots does not say anything about explosives or splash damage - just that the charged shot uses an "electromagnetic accelerator," which I assume is similar to what Railgun uses. There is no reason, neither from a game balance perspective nor from a "game lore" perspective for Gauss's charged shot to have splash damage.

I opened 2000 ultra containers on the test server. You can find the results here: