Haswell

Still the best thing that came out of 0.33.

I finally got the Stalker, as I expected it's essentially a BMD-2M at tier 8 but without the infantry. I'll be comparing it mostly to tier 8s. Camo paint is applied, I just disabled it in the settings. Mobility is excellent, very agile and zippy compared to the other tier 8 squishies. The closest comparison I could find would be the Dragun, which already has amazing balls mobility. The global mobility changes in 0.33 however can lead to control issues at high speeds, you will start drifting whenever you try to turn corner. Vision control is above average, but still meh. A base camo of 30% is on the higher end of tier 8 squishies, but hardly at the top. The VBR in comparison has 33%, Sprut at 31%, RCR at 32%, Pinbad at 35% before the camo module. Base view range is also at a middling 465m, above average but not the best. This might get better with the Radar ability, but you have to grind for it. The DPM for the dakka is actually quite low, not even beating the Rosomak M1 (with PELE). Even the BMD-2M can trump the Stalker here because of its reload module upgrade and a human loader. Firing the dakka also kills your camo, but that is to be expected. Combine that with the low alpha, don't use it as your primary damage dealer unless you are cleaning up a near dead target, otherwise you will draw aggro very quickly and start attracting fire. The missiles currently retain the thin armor bonus damage from HEAT, but even that isn't enough to save the missiles from being meh. The BMD-2M missiles can hit just as hard (without the damage bonus) and reloads faster; the tall stalk for firing over cover don't outweigh the very mediocre raw stats. BMD-2M comparison. Sad Stalker noises. One hidden benefit of the Stalker however is the 360 smoke. It's not much, but it's more useful than it appears if you play aggressively. Being able to break spotting from all directions makes escaping from hairy situations a lot easier, although I would argue you shouldn't get yourself into said situations in the first place. Anyways, something nice I can say about the Stalker at least. The Stalker right now is just meh, I can't call it balanced when it doesn't do anything particularly well (other than sneaky hill play maybe). Great mobility alone isn't enough to outweigh mediocre vision control and firepower in PvE, particularly with the lack of infantry which limits its damage output even further compared to other squishies. Get it while it's free from the contract, it's not worth spending real money to get it. Heck, it's not even worth playing to me, it can join the growing list of vehicles that pad my ownership XP bonus but never get played.

No. Everything SS says is entirely of his own opinion, and do not reflect that of the company unless he says so. This has been the policy of the forum (and companion Discord server) since day 1, and will remain that way as long as ArmoredLabs stands. I don't mind if SS wants to have a bit of fun here as just another community member, in fact I welcome it.

Can confirm. This has been the case for a long time even before 0.33 (removing HEAT bonus damage), but the excuse has always been that Designate don't work because of the bonus damage. Bonus damage is now gone and HEAT still do not max roll with Designate. AP working properly, hitting for 560 * 1.05 = 588 damage every time. HEAT not working properly. I should be inflicting 672 * 1.1 = 739.2 damage per hit, and yet I'm getting way below that with variations.

Most bots in PvE tend to follow scripted paths to their destinations (with limited maneuvering) and then transition into free-roam in the general area. The logic behind avoiding obstacles while moving works fairly well actually, if they weren't constrained by movement mechanics (ie. can't move sideways). Infantry however don't really have to follow the movement constraints used in vehicles, wouldn't that make it simpler for the pathfinding? Or is the problem about players dynamically assigning waypoints for them to follow?

Can you post the names of the vehicles? It's hard to tell what you are showing sometimes.

I think some perspective would be nice right now. The clan code gave everybody 1k gold and 30d prem time, that's essentially 14 euros worth of free stuff. Even though old and experienced players will scoff at them for being mostly worthless in practice (and rightly so) and likely won't be purchasing them anyway, newer players may see them worthy enough to shell out real money for. I'd love to debate the actual value of in-game content, but that's a topic for another thread. There are nearly 1000 codes that gave out content worth at least 14 euros, let's be generous and say 50% of players who claimed the codes might have bought them with real money had they not received them for free. That is at least 7000 euros lost in potential sales. Make no mistake, the game and company wants your money more than wanting to be your friend. While I don't agree with the practice of drying up freebies for players, disabling the codes is in fact in the company's best interest to preserve their monetization strategies and profits. SS works for the company, it's his job to respond to this potential sale loss in the best interest of the company. I don't expect anything less from any employee loyal to their company, especially when they are just doing their job. If nothing else, the concern that the codes may be internal leaks alone is enough justification to disable them. It's fun while it lasted, congrats to those who snagged the codes in time.

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-directed-mechanized-infantry-fire Let's see how long we have to wait this time, or if it gets canned again.

Forgot to mention, you don't get compensation from the codes for vehicles you already owned, so people who already had the Chief 6 or 62 Vet or WZ don't get anything extra. It's just some prem time, 1k gold and 1mil credits. I don't think this is worth rolling back accounts, but disabling the codes are entirely in their purview. goes back to helping people farm credits in heroics

Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/ArmoredWarfare/comments/j4ovel/just_a_little_something/ Can confirm codes from both lists work. There are over 900 codes on each list, if you're unlucky enough to nab a used code just try another one. Backup read-only copy of the two lists in case they go poof or vandalized, since the originals weren't protected: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16ZV0PzjsLDwvv7VgXeHtBINZiRvXwEPP/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o0EY6ciKon2EjmK5TIKUAZ8kNDFAeH-q/view?usp=sharing Edit: code can be redeemed at your profile page on the AW webpage (log in first): https://aw.my.games/en/user

Interesting, is this a developer or operator/publisher decision? I know you've been screaming at them that it's a retarded idea, this makes me think the rifts between devs/publisher/operator/community are growing bigger and bigger. In case people missed it the last time, the BH changes were already discussed to death and people generally agreed that it's bad. The initial 0.33 update removed the missile spam from MBTs, this got reverted (and undocumented) in the Sept 24 update. The missile spam is now particularly annoying due to the all the MBTs having massively buffed RoF and penetration. Even if they don't penetrate you, they will pop your APS and apply chip damage as fast as they can reload. Merks, 99 series, Oplot, they will all chip you to death. I wonder if bots feel rewarded by the chip damage.

Split the ZTQ discussion out from the other In Development thread, since people are now playing it. How does it perform compared to the Thunderbolt? Assuming HEAT spam on both of course.

That actually looks pretty good, better than the new textures I think. IIRC when My.com took over development they wanted to remove everything OE did, and implement their own versions instead. There might be licensing or copyright matters involved as well, but my suspicion is that the old textures didn't get used simply because OE made them.

@Silentstalker I thought the BH changes got shelved for the better, why bring it up again now? Yes.

Issue still not resolved as of 0.33.7341. Spall threshold and penetration stats continue to be mismatched in garage and in battle. Target testing reaffirms this discrepancy. If the penetration is indeed 130mm then the rocket should be dealing full damage (at least 300+ even with the worst RNG) and not partial damage.

Your numbers didn't prove the presence of skill-based MM, all your data showed is that the MM don't distribute platoons and vehicles equally (which is already known). You're taking a giant leap by saying this unequal distribution is somehow related to anything skill-based at all. You are also ignoring the impact of yourself in each of your match outcomes. Regardless of your skill, your performance (or lack of) will have effects in each of your matches such as allowing your team to have the local numerical advantage/disadvantage. If you damage something, that's an impact in the overall match. You cannot prove the presence of skill-based MM when you yourself is a variable in your experiment. Your sample size of 299 is also statistically insignificant in what you're trying to prove, given the Glops player population of a few thousand (I think) and the total number of Glops matches played server-wide over the period of time it took you to sample 299 matches. I'm sorry, your math is actually just bad and your experimental method flawed. SS is correct in pointing that out. I would ignore the numbers and stay with the theories and suggestions.

Tier 1 PvP is generally super chill with mostly bots and few actual humans, but you do run into the occasional players trying to sealclub or cheese the contract missions. At least with the BP over, all the coin farmers are now back in hibernation.

Pics, recipes, midnight munchies experiments, what have you. By popular demand in case Discord isn't enough.

AFAIK the MM tweaks for BHing never made it in. Can confirm the BVP benefits from both premium and BH multipliers.

But the direction of the game is clearly starting to cater towards casual players. If Glops and PvE are what the casual players want, why focus on PvP which require considerably more skill than the other two modes? Statpadding is pointless in AW since there's no competitive game mode (not counting the current ACG League that didn't get advertised outside of RU) where stats actually matter. There are no regular tourneys, no battalion vs battalion mode (Ranked don't count since people can soloqueue and get teamed up with random people), basically nothing where discerning player skill would be useful other than epeen stroking.

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-al-dabbah-map PvP, meh.

Last chance to get whatever you wanted from the BP.

The question asked was "Abrams now a new Challenger and vice versa, is this change is intended?" and your response was affirmative, if a bit vague. Will correct if that's not what you meant, my comprehension skills probably suffered since I was compiling this at 3AM. To be fair Eisen said that, not you. I don't have a source right now, but the commonly used official response to why the Bradley lack elevation/depression in-game is that it's also that way IRL. This response became common enough to circulate around regardless of its validity, the clarification now is much appreciated. I'll say here that the skill involved in AW, in PvE at least, isn't so much about learning weak spots (lower front plates were already universal weak spots before 0.33), but rather knowing how to avoid receiving damage against enemies with weaponry that allow extremely short TTK or have high alpha (ie. autocannons, missiles). Lower tiers in particular places very heavy emphasis on not getting hit by missiles, which the Swingfire is likely the most infamous example due to their high alpha missiles, fast burst and overall abundance. It's very punishing and discouraging to casual players when they attempt to advance forward, only to lose most if not all their hitpoints from a Swingfire that they couldn't spot. Higher tiers had the same issue with T-15 missiles, but 0.33 addressed that adequately I think. If anything, I would say the barrier to casual players isn't in the skills required to perform well, it's the disproportional punishment that they suffer from making mistakes such as overextending or not exercising vision control. It only requires a middling level of mechanical knowledge to know where to go on maps and how to damage enemies; it requires a far greater degree of skill and experience to not make mistakes that would otherwise be extremely punishing. There are many ways to go about to deal lots of damage or destroy lots of enemies, but it only takes one Swingfire or T-15 at the wrong moment to send you back to the garage. Balancing the game between casual and skill-based gameplay is always difficult in pretty much every game title, and will almost always inevitably divide players into casuals and tryhards (with all the accompanying screaming). One way to get around this is to not punish casual players while making skillful play more rewarding through mechanics that don't directly impact gameplay. Map timers for instance is a good way to start, casual players should be allocated more than enough time to complete objectives to keep it casual, and the rewarding "skill" factor could be bonuses for faster completions. This however goes directly against the current system of rewards scaling positively with mission time, the fact that you get rewarded more for being time-inefficient (especially for BP coins) boggles me to no end. Trying to cater to every skill level using the same gameplay mechanics will only end up being balancing headaches, and leads to both casual and skilled players getting frustrated.