Funny, I was thinking you deserve the same award.

It is. Even the devs have admitted it. The plan is to make the clan license cheaper, decrease the number of places in a clan, and add a "clan expander" of sorts should you want to accommodate more players. Those who bought it for the full price now will get the maximum number of spaces without having to pay extra.

No, a person unfamiliar with your shenanigans can't.

$35.99 You can check in the game if you use a different currency.

It certainly felt implied. Battles are created randomly - and while it might seems like there is more variety at certain times of the day, that is the product of chance, which can make less believable things happen. And there are generally more battles at times that Russians play, simply because they make up the majority of players, which can make it seem like there is more variety. Regarding your Rico test, I have no idea what to say, but I would far more readily believe there was a problem with the test than regional bias. Regarding maps, at some point in the future matchmaking will come out. I presume that the battle list for MM will be limited just like it is now, however, there will also be a battle list where anyone will be able to make and join PRO battles for free. The only drawback of these PRO battles will be the inability to complete missions in them. American payment systems take a larger percentage of the payment for themselves than RU ones. The result is that in order to earn the same revenue on shop items the game charges more than RU. If you spent some time on RU forum I think you'd form the opposite opinion about mods. They are generally jerks compared to EN ones and tend to aggressively argue with players a lot. There are some EN mods/admins like that too but there are fewer.

Would like your post if not for that Russian bias conspiracy theory.

You need to have a link if you want to post an image. Anyway I use https://ctrlq.org/images/ and it works perfectly.

I played some more and it is completely horrible. Let's say I hear the sound a flag being taken. With the old notifications, it was instantly obvious whether it was the enemy flag or our flag that was being taken. I could quickly make a decision to drive to our base and defend the flag, keep doing what I was doing, or go help out the attackers which have taken the enemy flag. Now, if I hear the sound I have turn my turret first in the direction of our flag and then towards the enemy flag and see whether those little circles are on my screen, which is horribly inconvenient. It's even worse if you play without sound: you will have no idea what is going on. So these indicators which supposedly make things easier make things far worse. Then what happens once your flag has been taken, or you take the enemy flag? Everyone knows the position of the flag carrier and directs their fire towards them. There is no strategy in taking different routes or being sneaky. Magnum, which is already OP, gets the ability to see through walls. The turret indicators look ugly and barely represent their source material, unlike the original ones. In UI design form follows function and not the other way around. Supposedly this update was to make the battle interface look better. Yet it not only makes it look worse but also makes it far less informative. I do not know how this update managed to pass internal tests and got released on the live servers.

We need to be careful, I think tank40 is becoming RIDDLER.

"Some people" is still more than one person.

It seems the war is drawing player to the game. Usually when I play there are less than 10k players on. Now I see 40k. Also DM battles are full of druggers trying to make the kill quota.

I don't have a problem with the flag indicators, but I see no reason to change the turret indicators, they resemble the turrets less. In my opinion, utility is far more important than appearance, which is not to say that the new indicators look good.

Railgun only comes in blue, light blue, purple and yellow. If you like Railguna and plan to use it for a while then you might as well upgrade it to M3 gradually.

Some screenshots of new graphics from WoT test server, medium-high settings (I have shadows and lighting set to low, grass is off). Note that it looks a lot better in-game than in these screenshots.

In my opinion they should have given us an option for this. I personally far prefer text notifications and judging by some of the reactions to this update a lot of other do too. However I don't see why they had to change the battle notification icons, they were fine how they were, now they look ugly. And I little reason to replace "[player] has left the battle" and similar notifications with icons, they make it more confusing for new players besides being ugly.

It's in the first post of the topic but in case you didn't get it: https://war.tankionline.com/en/info

How is a paint P2W?

I think Freeze should be buffed overall, that would make the alteration relevant as well.

bak in 2015 railgaun did 2000 with DD, but now I shewt at tanks with 50% protekshon modules and double armour and my railaun does only 360 dmg!!!!!! 380 is 20% of 2000 OMG railgaun dmg was nerfed by 80%!!!!11! plz buff railgun!!!

The more you try to make others happy the happier you will be.

/r/iamverysmart

http://ratings.tankionline.com/en/user/nives/

And this is why all our arguments end in nothing. Everything results in "you are a noob you can't get x amount of kills in 15 minutes therefore your point is invalid." So I will draw an analogy to World of Tanks because I think it's quite applicable in this scenario. Arty is probably the most infamous and hated class in WoT. The mechanics are similar to Magnum, though I would argue it is nowhere near as OP and takes waaaay less skill (which is not to say that Magnum takes much skill to use to begin wtih). The majority of highly skilled players in WoT hate it, and by highly skilled I mean somewhere in the top 5%. Even though such players are the best in the game and get excellent scores per battle, that doesn't make arty, which generally does far less damage and earns less experience, any more balanced just because players who play it are worse than unicums. The reason good players hate arty is because it: a) has an inherently unbalanced ability to shoot over terrain / doesn't require line of sight B) punishes you even if you don't make any mistakes c) can allow players to sit at the edge of the map and just click without ever having to suffer any danger from enemies d) it has extremely frustrating mechanics (splash, stun, ability to one-shot) and e) takes no skill to play whatsoever. Some random noob playing arty will undoubtedly do far worse than a unicum in a normal tank, but that doesn't mean arty is balanced because of how cancerous its mechanics are.

Studies mean things alright. Yes, they are easily manipulated by media. Yes, the results are heavily dependent on context - although this is something I'd imagine is a given. But there are two things that bother me with that rant: Anecdotal evidence. According to OP the study is "for a fact false" because his male friends get ready in X amount of time. And he is sure that if you "asked a non-biased man or woman, they'd probably say the same." No matter how much of an agenda the BBC allegedly pushes, at least some sort of study is still going to be more reliable than anecdotal evidence. For the record, I agree with OP on this point, but I simply cannot accept first relying on your own, limited personal experience to form an opinion about a point and then claim a source which states the opposite based on perhaps not 100% reliable, but still more plausible evidence is biased. To use a rather extreme example: suppose there is some far-rightist who regards studies on global warming as some government conspiracy and the like, and relies on his personal experience of living in a cold area to justify his opinion. Like I said this is an extreme example and OP is far from this (studies on global warming are far more reliable than some random study on personal care), but the principle is the same. How you can make a case of feminism bias from a study so trivial. This is probably my main point. I cannot see how one can come to the conclusion that this study is pushing an agenda just because it states men take longer to get ready than women. While I agree that feminism is cancer and the news loves to go out of their way to make it mainstream, this is probably one of the last studies I'd use to support my viewpoint. Like OP says having this kind of a reaction to this study is over-reacting. Anyway I have failed to heed my own criticism and ended up over-analyzing something and making a fuss over nothing.

Way to over-analyze something and make a problem out of nothing.