Where can they be found though?

Nobody (except you) introduced "a year ago" as a reference point - and (as that was the starting point) there were no XP on opening containers/ gifts either a year ago. But have it your way.

@POWER-OF-ONE is absolutely right in their analysis. The purpose of all updates, adding XPs, devaluing game currencies, etc. is basically to prepone the point at which players are forced to pay money. It's good to see that Hazel is absolutely open about this, too. It basically means you've run out of ideas that would make players want to invest money, so you just keep inventing mechanisms that force an early decision between stopping to play and paying money. Other companies try to persuade players by improving game attractiveness, but that doesn't seem to be your business model - after all, the decision is up to the players.

Great excuse for a stroll in spring sunshine! ?

Are there any stats as to damage per second that the different turrets have? Or would that make it too transparent how OP certain turrets are that players are pushed to buy and upgrade? It is no use knowing how frequently the railgun can fire unless that is damage-corrected. For example, rapid-fire smoky used to be great and is practically useless now unless you equip the right drone and use oodles of supplies. This has become a complete "fiddle with the augments" game where the parameters are getting changed constantly. And the idea seems to be that that will make people (who, I'm asking myself) invest money.

F2Ps should really never be in touch with people who have a buyer mindset. Too toxic.

So if I buy an offer I am guaranteed all the "additional bonusses" that are in the fund timeline? But I do not necessarily get back tankoins from the fund, correct?

I don't quite understand: Does that mean people are actually spending RL money? And they're spending it on offers that hardly anything useful comes from? For the 1 in a million chance of getting something from the fund? Where am I going wrong here?

The new interface nicely highlights the most important button when you press "P" during gameplay!

If you "care for the game", but to you, "low or mid-rank players" may well leave because the game is so bad, that means exactly that you don't care for the game, but for the needs of the likes of you who, have already climbed to the end of the rank scale.

Yeah. I was reading wolverine as a legend. Complete legend perspective on the game, too, in the postings. And "bold" is my middle name.

You're a legend rank. How would you have any of the concerns a low- or mid-range player has?

You know what? How are the decisions the game managers make good for the game? If the developer were worth their rubles (or, for that respect, the guys making the bi-weekly balancing decisions) they would see that they have created a system where the player who "contributes to the game" (or moves at all and fires a shot at the enemy by accident) will be punished by speeding through the ranks, suddenly competing against players with much stronger tanks before long. I can't imagine anyone could fail to see that after a few days in the game. What we see here is that, yes, players behave in a way that is totally sensible in light of the ratio between XP gain and crystal rewards. But instead of fixing the ratio, the rules now punish the very behaviour that has been induced by the ridiculous XP gain. As an F2Per below legend level, the only sensible item I would ever buy for real money would be an "XP muffler pass" that would slow down my progress through the ranks by suppressing XP gain. I can totally understand that there are a lot of players who would rather not see their accounts speed towards a wall beyond which they will end up with a vastly inferior garage compared to the tanks the MM system will throw them in battles with. And that they would also refrain from spending real world money on a laggy, imbalanced game with totally infuriating "buff'n'nerf" decisions every other week, I can completely understand. As a paying customer, I would have lost any trust in the decisions made here. So if the game agenda seems to be completely divorced from reason, I can understand if players prefer to follow their own agenda.

It says, "selection of weak equipment" - there is nothing to be misunderstood here. It doesn't say "low gs". And what even is "intentional low gs" in a mid-range player's garage? My favourite smokey which used to work ok even in long range is not what it used to be. If I am thrown into "bridges" after waiting several minutes for MM, it makes more sense to use my "unMUPped" long-range weapon. Intentionally. Is that now punishable by law? My foot! I've already had players shout "leGurp! Video! Mult!" immediately after I entered a battle, and if that's the state of things, I've had it.

I like how every single move in this game has been punished with ludicrous gains in XP compared to the rewards you gain from them. Even picking up a coin box gains you XP now (lol). How does that not force F2P player behaviour in the direction of extremely cautious play - which is now offcially punishable by account suspension? Guys, you've made it like in the movie "WarGames": the only non-self-destructive move to the F2Per is not playing. And look at what that whole "mult / sabotage" thing even entails: "Hey, we just nerfed the augment you're using! Now we'll call it sabotage on your part if you use it - and you'll get a ban!" "You're using lame equipment, here's your ban!" Who's even to decide that the other items in my garage I am *not* using (because heck, you have just imposed a 9 minute (!!!) cool down on equipment change) would be stronger than the stuff I have currently equipped "You're doing X and Y intentionally, here's your ban!" I like the whole "intentionally" issue. Let the thought police in.