knutliott

• CV90 Mk.IV: Fixed the misaligned aiming bug

STRV-2000 has a sad.

The improvements to Chally 2 armor sound great, though.  Gets them back closer to what they used to be - mobile bunkers that have to be flanked to be taken out.

Everyone has seen this by now, I'm sure, but did you realize that this isn't a queue you can play at all even if you do select a Tier 6 or lower vehicle?

As it says, you must select a Tier 6 or lower vehicle in order to play that game mode.  But if you do select a Tier 6 or lower vehicle, the map changes.  That's because what's showing when you see this greyed-out queue is, in fact, the Tier 7-10 Standard Queue which you're no longer allowed to play.

Which means they're actually going to the trouble to set up a Tier 7-10 Standard Queue every day even though no one can use it.

These have always been "do X in 1 battle" in the past, so I didn't even notice that the wording had changed slightly.  It's a UI or translation error and is almost certainly working as intended.  You need 5 kills in 1 battle in PvE.  It really isn't that hard except right around the start of the "day" for purposes of the event.  That's when a lot of people are out trying to get their 5 kills for the day, so it can be a bit more competitive.  Just wait and do it a few hours after the start of the event day and it'll be easy.

Another problem for low-tier new players is that there are fewer bots in those missions in general.  All it takes is 1 good player getting 10+ kills and it's entirely possible that no one else in the mission will be able to get 5.

On the first day of this event, I used my CV90 Mk IV to make sure I could get 5 kills.  Got them very quickly, then tried to back off and let other people get kills too.  But the rest of the players were so bad that I ended up with 15 kills, someone else got to 7, and that was it.  No one else got 5.  I felt bad, but I was honestly trying to let other people get kills and they just weren't doing it.  I'm not going to leave an enemy alive if that enemy is shooting at me.

I picked purple for the 2017 and medium dark red for the rest of the platoon.

I submitted "Apex Predator" for the name of the 2017.

22 hours ago, Quantum_Ranger said:

On the other hand, now that I need to grind my T72B to get to a qualifying Storyline MBT, it might be worth it for a few tries. 

IIRC, Spec Ops is a terrible way to grind.  The rewards (both XP and credits) are not commensurate with the effort and/or time involved.

Last I knew, it was PvP for XP and PvE for credits.  Provided, of course, that you're able to play while PvP is active.  That's roughly 7:00 am to 1:00 pm for me, so not really viable even if I wanted to play PvP (which I don't).  That said, if you stack a couple of boosters and an insignia on top of Premium time you can grind just using PvE pretty effectively.  You should be able to completely grind a T-72B in like... 20-25 missions?

Back to the Premium ratings...

(Middle ground vehicles)
5. Termi 2000

The only rationale that I can see for calling any Terminator a "middle ground" vehicle is that you can get the Ramka-99 for free, so don't really need a Premium Terminator.  Otherwise, all of them (including the Tier 9 Termi 2) are OPAF in PvE.  The Termi 2000 is probably the least OP of the Tier 8 trio, but it's still insanely OP in PvE and I highly recommend it unless you just don't care because the Ramka-99 exists.

Also this.

On 7/20/2021 at 8:59 AM, TeyKey1 said:

IIRC it doesn't have any upgrades

Can confirm that it does not.

It is missing an upgrade that the Ramka has so its guns lack a 7% ROF upgrade, but its missiles are better and it has soft ERA bags on the sides to help with heat and ATGMs.  All-in-all very interchangeable with the Ramka, and both of them are better than then 2000.

Of course the major advantage to the 2017 for many people is that it is a Premium vehicle and farms credits very well.  But if you don't need credits, you don't need the 2017 other than for purposes of this campaign.  They're essentially identical vehicles.

4 hours ago, Qbicle said:

• Removed the obsolete briefing window in PvE missions

This is not entirely obsolete... it is very useful on Frostbite to know whether or not cap 2 is going to be all the way across the map at the Eastern Derricks.

But as far as I know that's the only mission for which that window is useful.

The York still benefits from reload speed (Improved Gun Breech, IIRC), so that should be the first retro you put on it.  10% moar dakka.

The Shilka, by comparison, does not.  The Shilka is heat limited, so firing faster just makes it overheat faster.  GAU has the same problem.  So no gun breech for them.

After that I actually went with VR on my York because ALL THE SPOTS.  But yeah, maneuverability is also a reasonable choice.

On 7/12/2021 at 5:40 AM, Quantum_Ranger said:

Wish I could afford a Terminator.... maybe one will show up in the BP shop (fingers crossed.)

FYI, the T-72B3 is available in the web shop for 9000 Gold.  So is the T-80U Shark for 5500 Gold.

I think the T-72B3 is really good in PvE.  I mean... it's Tier 8 and nothing at Tier 8 is all that sturdy, but the B3 can take a lot of punishment.  Its gun is also satisfying, unlike the guns on the Euro MBTs.  Just keep your front to the enemy... its side armor is pretty shit.

I've heard that a lot of people like the T-80U, but it's not my style.  I find it too soft and have to play it like a light tank, but it doesn't actually have a light tank's maneuverability.  However if that's your style then you'll probably love it, and it's not too expensive at 5500 Gold.

On 7/12/2021 at 6:42 AM, TeyKey1 said:

I'll just use bmpt 2017 for ultimate balans and fun gameplay 

Yeah, me too.  Very happy that Modern Russian won, but also very surprised.  From I metagame point of view, though, I do think this was our best path to ultimate victory.  Along with reasonable campaign stats, Modern Russian also gave us the 2 most OP vehicles available (Termi 2 and Termi 2017), and some good all-around tanks.  The T-90A isn't going to be anyone's favorite at Tier 8, but it's perfectly functional in PvE and the T-72B3 is actually really good.  And the T-90MS is also really good at Tier 9.  So we have reasonably good tanks at our disposal, backed up by Termi 2s and 2017s.  It should be really easy to plow through most episodes with these vehicles.

21 hours ago, Quantum_Ranger said:

OK, finally got offered a QN-506.... and thankfully passed on it because of the advice on this forum. Plus I already have Kurganets-25, thanks to last year's advice.  :-)

I got the QN-506 last year after receiving a 50k purchase in the Shop after I'd already completed the Battle Path.  I went ahead and bought it because I hadn't been seeing many things in the Shop that I didn't already own, and had been wanting to try it.

I get what people mean when they say it isn't as good as other vehicles, but it's still very good in PvE and there are some maps where that spotting drone is super useful.  Cavalry, for example, when no one wants to advance for fear that the LT will show up suddenly and get them insta-gibbed by the collected bots in the final cap.

Those look nice to me, I can't wait to get some new variety!

I completed 160 missions for the Prologue, 130 of them in Modern Russian vehicles.  (120 Termi 2017, 10 T-72B3 for my BP missions.)

The other 30 were pretty much evenly divided between the K21 and XM1A3, also for BP missions.

On 6/27/2021 at 8:22 PM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

God I hate these low alpha euro mbts, I really want gouge my eyes out sometimes at the low damage rolls, and sometimes i hate the mm spread when your tier 8 mbt has to face auto penning tier 10s looking at you AI T-15s and fucking Hunter IFVs 

One of several reasons that I went with Modern Russian.  I just don't enjoy playing the Modern Euro vehicles.  Plus Modern Russian has both the Termi 2017 and the Termi 2, which are in my opinion the 2 most OP vehicles in PvE available as Prologue vehicles.  And since 75+% of SLC missions will ultimately be played in PvE, having access to OPAF vehicles will make the entire SLC easier.

On 6/29/2021 at 4:51 AM, TeyKey1 said:

Also a word of advice for the people who see this and are thinking about doing that:

Not a good idea at all if you don't want to get your AW Account banned. Doing such stuff will very likely result in that even though you did nothing wrong. So if people consider taking this step just think about it first before doing it. In any case it's probably better to try contacting AW support first.

Based on my own experience:

Before you dispute a transaction through your credit card/bank/whatever, make sure you've exhausted all possible avenues with AW Support.  Then, after they've told you repeatedly that they can't help you, ask them if you should dispute the payment with your credit card.  In my experience, if they've exhausted every possible avenue that they have available to them, they'll tell you that yes, you should dispute the payment.  Screenshot that and send it to your bank when you dispute the payment, as it will speed up the process considerably.

13 hours ago, dfnce said:

They undid some nerf, but not that much. I even think it is playable again with HEAT and Cortez in pve without feeling of sadness and uselessness.  Not a mainstream newbee thing though.

It was nerfed something like 5 times - twice during its BP - and was never really buffed.  It is certainly playable in PvE, but it's not good.  Not at all.

I'll reserve final judgement until they actually do tweak it again, but honestly the gun isn't the real problem with the tank. Sure, the gun is worse than the XM1A3's in many ways, but it's still serviceable.  For me, the problem is that the armor is pathetic for a Tier 10 MBT.  It gets penned regularly in PvE both HEAT and AP.  The story we were told is that it is supposed to be strong against AP and weak against HEAT, but in reality it is weak to both.

Congrats!  I don't see this as awkward, either.  It's your forum, you may do with it as you please.  But no need to worry in this case anyway; I think you've made great choices!

13 minutes ago, dfnce said:

Let say Experimental wins, so what ? Everyone who makes their personal vehicle group Experimental, will be doomed with x2,5 multiplier on their own further game requirements. Everyone else will be just doomed. 

I highly doubt that they're individually recording each player's vehicle choice.  "You" in that sentence is the collective you, not the specific you.  (Yay, English!)  Meaning: "the vehicles you, the players, collectively choose will be required to complete future Storyline Campaign objectives."

If "we" choose Experimentals, everyone will be screwed.

That's why I went Modern Soviet... because the BMPT 2017 is easily the most OP vehicle available in the Prologue (with the Terminator 2 from the same group not that far behind), so even if not everyone has the 2017 those of us who do will be able to "carry" much harder in future objectives.

On 6/8/2021 at 8:37 AM, Quantum_Ranger said:

This is perhaps the best part of the update !!

I didn't know there was a flag that went along with the decal... does it require banners to be unlocked (ew)?

Yes.  The only ones that don't are the ones that are part of a skin.

I don't know how they compute DPM for a ready rack, but 7158 doesn't really seem to make any sense.  Unless they assume a full rack to start, burst out 6 shots, then assume single shot reloads for the rest of the minute?  That would give you roughly 14.2 shots in the first minute, which works out to roughly 500 damage for the "upgraded" gun, but that's only an accurate DPM measurement for the first minute - it isn't sustainable beyond 1 minute.  I'd have to see it in action to see if 500 damage is worth it at Tier 9.  That's only 3k burst damage over the first 14 seconds, too... not exactly devastating especially considering that you'd then need 33.6 seconds to fully reload.  Assuming the Ghost gets HEAT, the average of the Thunderbolt and Anders at Tier 9 is around 680 damage with 885 pen which sounds decent.

I wouldn't call 27% camo "excellent".  It's fine, but it's not great.  The Anders is 33% after all and doesn't need ADAPTIV to get there.

We'll have to see how the armor works out.  The PL-01's numbers indicated that it shouldn't be immune to AC fire from the front (165 mm vs AP), yet it generally is in PvE against my BMPT 2017 which has 185mm pen.  (Tier 9 "Fragile" PL-01's are generally pennable.)  So I take anything they say about armor with a couple cups of salt until I see how it actually works.

On 6/5/2021 at 7:58 PM, MK_Regular said:

Counting number of battles is the better option here, since it directly measures the amount of effort that the players as a whole put into selecting the vehicles rather than the amount of effort proportional to the normal traffic (which would heavily favour the less popular vehicles).

If anything, I would say that the number of battles metric actually weights the choice in favour of the less popular vehicles (but not as much as % increase), since many of the players that are taking part in the event are already represented in the baseline numbers. I'll use the numbers you gave as a starting point:

• Experimentals are normally played 1000 times per week, and CW NATO are normally played 100 times
• 10 people taking part in the event normally play nothing but experimentals, 1 normally plays nothing but CW NATO (assuming the 10:1 ratio holds)
• of the 11 players taking part in the event, 3 choose CW NATO and 8 choose Experimental
• all 11 players decide to increase the number of battles they play per week from 20 to 30, and play all of their battles in their chosen vehicle category
• CW NATO increases from 100 to 170 battles per week (increase of 70 per week, or a 70% increase)
• Experimental increases from 1000 to 1040 battles per week (increase of 40 per week, or a 4% increase)
• despite nearly thrice as many people choosing Experimental, CW NATO sees nearly twice the increase in battles per week over the Experimentals

Sure, but your example assumes that 2 players who normally play Experimentals switch over to play CW NATO for this event.  That's a perfect example of a situation where, by design, the event should choose CW NATO.  People switched to that group for purposes of the Prologue, which indicates that they want to play that group.  And - using either of our methods - it results in the correct choice: CW NATO.

Ugh.  They are not effectively the same thing.

Counting actual battles instead of the percent increase means that a minor percentage increase in play of the group that's normally played the most could easily surpass a very large percentage increase in the group that's normally played the least.

Example (numbers made up for the sake of the example):

Experimentals are normally played 1000 times per week.  Cold War NATO are normally played 100 times per week.

A meager 15% increase in Experimental play would result in an extra 150 battles.  But a 100% increase in Cold War NATO play would only result in an extra 100 battles.

The latter is far more significant because the event actually got people to go out and play a relatively unpopular group of vehicles.

Plague, War, Famine... and Death?  I assume they're trying and failing to do the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Unfortunately the 4 Horsemen are Conqueror, War, Famine, and Death.  Famine is sometimes inaccurately called Plague and/or Pestilence which I suspect is what causes the confusion.

Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, "Come." I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

— Revelation 6:1–2 New American Standard Bible ^[7]

Another fun fact about the 4 Horsemen: Death rides a pale horse, right?  The greek word that is typically translated as "pale" in that description is also the root of the words "chlorophyll" and "chlorine".  I.e. the color should not be the commonly used light grey or off white, but rather a light green or yellowish green.  It is literally the color of death - the skin of a dead body as it starts to putrefy.  Death is also the only Horseman explicitly named.

8 hours ago, dfnce said:

Agreed

23 of my 24 currently completed missions have been in the BMPT Mod.2017.  The 24th was in the M1A1 AIM.

23 minutes ago, Quantum_Ranger said:

I tried asking my wife this question and had to jump to protect my kneecaps.

In our house, I'm the one who is "expensive maintenance" because I collect (and drink) Port wine.  She likes to knit.  Even the fanciest normal yarn is only a fraction of the cost of a normal bottle of Port, so she pretty much gets to buy anything that strikes her fancy.  (Neither of us has any idea what the most exquisite yarn might cost... though I'm sure someone has spun gold thread into silk at some point in time.)