Declined Module rebalancing

[wolverine848 13,097]

Nope. Unless me having 50% of Firebird protection and that Firebird also have 50% of Shaft protection... that would be real fair battle. 

 

Ya think I do format battle? Nope! Usually only matchmaking.

 

You want to go back to my previous solution that you can only use modules based on what turret you are using? 

How is you being able to purchase which modules you like and equip them how you like not fair?

 

LOL of course not.   That proposal makes no sense at all.   The likelihood of an isida getting attacked by another Isida is way lower than the likelihood of an Isida being attacked by a Shaft or Rail.  Why would Isida player want the 50% protection dedicated only to Isida?

 

I get it - you just want the ability to kill short-range tankers from afar.  And that is a perfect example of what is unfair.

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

I get it - you just want the ability to kill short-range tankers from afar.  And that is a perfect example of what is unfair.

Nope. Not at all.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Nope. Not at all.

Even if that's not your motive, that is what the end result would be. 

 

Short-rangers getting picked off from afar and suffering because they are not protected properly.

 

Meanwhile long-rangers can rely on distance as their first defense.

[Aigaion 636]

I like the protection system as-is

[loginci 877]

Even if that's not your motive, that is what the end result would be. 

 

Short-rangers getting picked off from afar and suffering because they are not protected properly.

 

Meanwhile long-rangers can rely on distance as their first defense.

I personally use railgun in big maps and sometimes even in small maps, and I can kill someone with DD in one shot if I have railgun m3 with large caliber rounds alt if this guy doesnt have any prot. to railgun. So, prots play an imp role here.

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

How is you being able to purchase which modules you like and equip them how you like not fair?

 

Ok. Assume both Shaft and Firebird are using Viking. All M4.

 

But how much protection per those turret to against each other.

[wolverine848 13,097]

Ok. Assume both Shaft and Firebird are using Viking. All M4.

 

But how much protection per those turret to against each other.

I don't understand what you are asking.

 

Modules are upgraded independently.  Depends on what you are willing to spend your crystals on.

This account I try to upgrade each module every time there is a sale.

[RBPenguin 12]

When a turret becomes OP, modules play an important role. But, the fact is that %50 modules are quite unbalanced, this should be reduced. %40 is ideal to get protected by an OP turret without ruining the balance IMO.

I don't agree, with so many turrets having alts that supercede the protection, 50% is not enough.  Example, Vulcan now has melting capabilities, my protection module use to give me a fair chance, now it appears useless.  Wolf protection seems useless against the double shot of hammer.  The protection modules are not doing much help with the turret alts that are now available.

[Truthteller 4,204]

I don't agree, with so many turrets having alts that supercede the protection, 50% is not enough.  Example, Vulcan now has melting capabilities, my protection module use to give me a fair chance, now it appears useless.  Wolf protection seems useless against the double shot of hammer.  The protection modules are not doing much help with the turret alts that are now available.

50% not enough? that's like having double armor on...

 

You need  both fire and vulcan protection on to counter the fire alteration

[wolverine848 13,097]

50% not enough? that's like having double armor on...

 

You need  both fire and vulcan protection on to counter the fire alteration

Even then...         the fire afterburn is OP.    That's why you see so many Incendiary alterations in battle as well as firebird.

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

I like the protection system as-is

Nope. Not me at all. Sick of it.

 

Even if that's not your motive, that is what the end result would be. 

 

Short-rangers getting picked off from afar and suffering because they are not protected properly.

 

Meanwhile long-rangers can rely on distance as their first defense.

One time I was playing Highway PRO Battle and it had supply and its drops on. A Wasp-Firebird was in the battle. I was sniping with my Shaft and destroyed his/her tank.....

 

Oh guess what? That dude/tte later pops Eagle, Falcon and Grizzly modules. Literally Griffin T-A module. His/her Eagle module, has 17% of Shaft protection. Sniped him... survived and pops a Repair Kit to undid that 1507 damage I dealt. That rendering quick-sniping ineffective. Wait... what's even more unfair is I do NOT have Fox module to counter-punish that Firebird.

 

Even in other maps than similar to Highway, same stuff happens.

 

If I need to counter-punish an Eagle module spammer, I need to have a module that gives higher or equal protection value than his/hers. Example: A Thunder has 25% of Shaft protection. For counter-punishing, I need greater or equal to 25% of Thunder protection to make it a fair fight (or not). It's better to more than 25% to counter-punish though.

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

Nope. Not me at all. Sick of it.

 

One time I was playing Highway PRO Battle and it had supply and its drops on. A Wasp-Firebird was in the battle. I was sniping with my Shaft and destroyed his/her tank.....

 

Oh guess what? That dude/tte later pops Eagle, Falcon and Grizzly modules. Literally Griffin T-A module. His/her Eagle module, has 17% of Shaft protection. Sniped him... survived and pops a Repair Kit to undid that 1507 damage I dealt. That rendering quick-sniping ineffective. Wait... what's even more unfair is I do NOT have Fox module to counter-punish that Firebird.

 

Even in other maps than similar to Highway, same stuff happens.

 

If I need to counter-punish an Eagle module spammer, I need to have a module that gives higher or equal protection value than his/hers. Example: A Thunder has 25% of Shaft protection. For counter-punishing, I need greater or equal to 25% of Thunder protection to make it a fair fight (or not). It's better to more than 25% to counter-punish though.

 

 

 

You keep using the word fair/unfair.   Has nothing to do with that. 

 

It's your choice what modules to buy.  If you can't protect against fire then you will lose a close encounter.  Part of life.

 

You want to reduce the game to it's lowest denominator. Does not work like that. Game is many layered.

[GorgoBlesk 831]

Nope. Not me at all. Sick of it.

 

One time I was playing Highway PRO Battle and it had supply and its drops on. A Wasp-Firebird was in the battle. I was sniping with my Shaft and destroyed his/her tank.....

 

Oh guess what? That dude/tte later pops Eagle, Falcon and Grizzly modules. Literally Griffin T-A module. His/her Eagle module, has 17% of Shaft protection. Sniped him... survived and pops a Repair Kit to undid that 1507 damage I dealt. That rendering quick-sniping ineffective. Wait... what's even more unfair is I do NOT have Fox module to counter-punish that Firebird.

 

Even in other maps than similar to Highway, same stuff happens.

 

If I need to counter-punish an Eagle module spammer, I need to have a module that gives higher or equal protection value than his/hers. Example: A Thunder has 25% of Shaft protection. For counter-punishing, I need greater or equal to 25% of Thunder protection to make it a fair fight (or not). It's better to more than 25% to counter-punish though.

You should have chosen another target or switched to another turret capable of sniping (Smoky, Thunder, Rail, Vulcan, Striker).

 

1507/0,83 = 1816. That is the full damage of your Shaft? Is your Shaft THAT weak or you just did not fully charge your shot? Either way, it is your fault.

[Maf 32,326]

Declined

 

While the current modules system could use some improvement, this is just a step backwards and only makes things more complicated.

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

You should have chosen another target or switched to another turret capable of sniping (Smoky, Thunder, Rail, Vulcan, Striker).

1507/0,83 = 1816. That is the full damage of your Shaft? Is your Shaft THAT weak or you just did not fully charge your shot? Either way, it is your fault.

No. My Shaft's M1 10/10. Literally M2. But I charged my shot for less than 4 second. Dude, I literally said that Firebird equipped Eagle, Falcon and Grizzly. While I do have Striker M2, but I need to take time to lock and maybe he/she has Orka.

 

Declined

 

While the current modules system could use some improvement, this is just a step backwards and only makes things more complicated.

Welp, I did expect that word "Declined", but when I read the reason... *cricket noise*.

 

2 sad 4 me when you declined it.... But keep this page open please?

 

So you 1st liked my idea but then disagreed? No......

[Maf 32,326]

So you 1st liked my idea but then disagreed? No......

I put the idea under review, so that we can evaluate the status later. It's a new system.

[loginci 877]

I don't agree, with so many turrets having alts that supercede the protection, 50% is not enough.  Example, Vulcan now has melting capabilities, my protection module use to give me a fair chance, now it appears useless.  Wolf protection seems useless against the double shot of hammer.  The protection modules are not doing much help with the turret alts that are now available.

Wow. Come on mate, you too know %50 is pretty enough. Don't want it to be %60, otherwise, buyers would never get killed. Although I do not use protection to Vulcan and Striker, if I play well, I can stay alive with a DA. Can't even imagine how would it be if I use a %50 module, which would mean increasing the heal against Vulcan and Striker in x2 rate. And imagine using DA, it would be x4 heal. You would be like a juggernaut. 

 

I mean, even %40 is enough in my opinion, if we increase the number of slots.

[Maf 32,326]

I mean, even %40 is enough in my opinion, if we increase the number of slots.

I'm all for increasing the number of slots while keeping the total protection at 150%. So 4 lots = 37% each, 5 slots = 30% each, 6 = 25%, and so on (though 6 would probably be maximum).

[loginci 877]

I'm all for increasing the number of slots while keeping the total protection at 150%. So 4 lots = 37% each, 5 slots = 30% each, 6 = 25%, and so on (though 6 would probably be maximum).

Yep, %150 is pretty enough, but if there were 5 slots, it should be like %40 %40 %30 %20 %20

 

Some may say that %20 isn't effective, so it would be better if we make it 4 slots with %40 %40 %35 %35

[Maf 32,326]

Yep, %150 is pretty enough, but if there were 5 slots, it should be like %40 %40 %30 %20 %20

 

Some may say that %20 isn't effective, so it would be better if we make it 4 slots with %40 %40 %35 %35

That makes more sense, tbh. Not only would it look better than using numbers like 37.5, but it would also be more effective, since you get two high protections from the deadliest turrets, one from the not-so-deadly but dangerous, and two from mildly annoying turrets.

 

For example for me in JGR that would probably be Striker and Freeze, then Shaft/Hammer, and then whatever else is in the current battle, like fire, twins, rico or thunder.

 

The only problem is still the fact that people will be losing 10% of their protective power, so I don't know how devs could ever go through such a change without hurting their economy or causing a flood of complaints, which is why the optional ability to have more modules with less than 50% protection seems better.

[loginci 877]

That makes more sense, tbh. Not only would it look better than using numbers like 37.5, but it would also be more effective, since you get two high protections from the deadliest turrets, one from the not-so-deadly but dangerous, and two from mildly annoying turrets.

 

For example for me in JGR that would probably be Striker and Freeze, then Shaft/Hammer, and then whatever else is in the current battle, like fire, twins, rico or thunder.

 

The only problem is still the fact that people will be losing 10% of their protective power, so I don't know how devs could ever go through such a change without hurting their economy or causing a flood of complaints, which is why the optional ability to have more modules with less than 50% protection seems better.

Oh, actually we had better do this, which you said:

 

We have a right of putting %150 protection. There are 6 slots. People can design their protections how they like. A player can design his/her protection like %50 %50 %50 if he/she wants. Or some players who haven't got all %50 modules (like me) can design the module like %40 %40 %30 %20 %10 %10.

 

Let's say that I want to put Railgun, Striker, Vulcan, Hammer, Firebird and Freeze protection. I enter a percent for Railgun, I would enter %35. Then the counter says that ''150-35 = you have %115 protection left'' so I can do the same on other protections. Even if I don't have all the %50 modules, I can use %150, which would decrease the difference between buyers and non-buyers. Some people bought some paints that give you %50 protection for some guns back in 2015, for example, Zeus, which was equal to 250.000 crystals. Let's say you bought it on a sale, you would have bought M4 protection for 125.000 crystals. I never bought Zeus before, so I have to spend 625k for M4 protection. 

[Maf 32,326]

 

Well, it would most likely be a much simpler interface. Imagine the current one, but there's a button saying "add slot". You click it, and you get red labels under each of the 4 slots, which show you how much the protection is limited, and text telling you to remove the extra slot to get the 50% protection back. I'll try to make a graphic for it.

[Maf 32,326]

Something likes this:

 

   

 

Although definitely with a more user-friendly design, so that players won't think they did something wrong when they add more slots.

[loginci 877]

Something likes this:

 

   

 

Although definitely with a more user-friendly design, so that players won't think they did something wrong when they add more slots.

Yes, I was thinking something like this too. This should be suggested at once. It would be very nice if this becomes released.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Something likes this:

 

   

 

Although definitely with a more user-friendly design, so that players won't think they did something wrong when they add more slots.

this would be unfair for those of us who have modules above 40%.. just keep 50% as 50%, you can add more slots just don't waste our crystals spent on MUing our modules above 40%