Haswell

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.

Lots of stuff, I tried to truncate the uninteresting bits but there's still a ton of mildly interesting answers. MBT side armor being homogenized as steel (losing the extra armor from tracks and add-on blocks) is intended. MBTs are not intended to be more mobile than lights, this is still being looked into. AGDS missiles having a ~50m minimum range is intended for balance. No new dealer this year. No plans for next year yet. TDs not having fast ammo swap is intended because balance, and players "generally have more time" (note: MIGHT be true if said players exclusively sit at the back of the map, which brings their competency into question) Vehicle balance will continue to be tuned throughout 0.33. 0.34 will feature bigger balance changes based on data and feedback. 0.34 will come this year. (note: possibly November/December for the next BP) MM changes did not happen with the high tier rebalancing. ATGM chip damage is intended to counter long range hulldown invulnerability and reward players for hitting things. The chip damage isn't effective in PvP. (note: if it has that little effect in PvP, why add it in the first place?) Excessive drifting may be bugs. The next Raid will have adjusted missions, but the mechanics will be the same as the previous one. (note: which means nothing of value will be lost if people ignore the whole thing just like last time.) Abrams and Challenger series having their armor characteristics swapped (Abrams having much better armor now) is intended.The The current armor configuration of Challenger series is intended. MBT armor being homogenized and made boring is because "the developers wish it so". Devs want to change the meta from learning weakspots to simply checking distance and swapping ammo. (note: literally removing skill from the game) Custom decals in 2021, maybe. (note: just mod them in yourself) Arty in PvP got shelved, at least until 0.34. Move command for infantry is canned. Direct fire command is being developed. No plans to monetize player avatars and titles, not worth it. New PvE missions in late 2020 or early 2021. HE mechanics got changed, but it's not described in the patch notes and even SS isn't sure about it. (note: what's the point of patch notes then?) Skill-based gameplay "got us nowhere". (note: not sure if this is SS's opinion or fact. Either way it matches the trend of gameplay being dumbed down.) No plans to accelerate account progression (ie. grinds), the progression is already fast enough as it is. ATGM reload animations are expensive and complicated to develop, requiring maybe one month of work per vehicle. No plans to add daily overviews (ie. WoT-style session logs). Not needed due to the low amount of matches played daily (2-5) for the typical player. No plans to improve infantry movement animations, too expensive and not important enough. 0.33 was deemed "sufficient" after PTS2 for release. The release is also partially forced by deadlines and milestones. (note: this confirms my suspicion of the operator holding the reins on the devs.) Overall feedback for 0.33 is positive, there will be no rollbacks. No plans to change SPG mechanics. Abrams series will be remodeled, and possibly the T-80U next. Tracked vehicles not losing much speed on turning is intended "to make gameplay more dynamic" (note: someone also said the same thing about arty in WoT promoting "dynamic" gameplay) The upcoming PvP map Al Dabbah will be "really big". Soft kill APS is being investigated, but the increased missile noise is intended "to make [hits] feel rewarding". (note: so literally reward mechanics based on RNG) One reason for the 0.33 changes is to "make the game feel more fresh". (note: different, yes. Fresh, probably not.) MBT side armor being largely invulnerable to autocannons is intended. Spec ops is over, no more spec ops. (note: this is the 3rd time someone asked this IIRC, read the previous Q&As) AI behavior will get tweaked. Wheeled bots soon, hopefully. SS would like to see a good storyline without the Enigma stuff, more PvE and less PvP. (note: one can dream) No plans for smaller team sizes in PvE (including spec ops). Bradley TOW launcher never elevated. (note: false. See Salter & Morey, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle Procedures Guides: Evaluation, Appendix D, pg. 34 & 46. Link below.) Bradley TOW launcher never had elevation/depression in the game. Some HE shells aren't tuned properly, probably related to the undocumented HE mechanic changes. MBT meta is intended. Some HEAT shells retaining their bonus damage are not intended, will be fixed. Ranked Battles disallowing platoons of mixed battalion members are intended, in order to promote large battalions. TD autocannons having double shot (ie. twin barrel Termi series) is a bug. Low tiers will also be rebalanced. No new heroic maps. Not worth it, maybe next year, maybe not. Launcher elevation/depression in-game is only considered for vehicles that have the ability IRL. (note: didn't they say the same thing last year about the T-15 fixed launchers being intended, then added launcher movement anyway?) The current contract reward lootbox is still the Eastern Crate. No plans to nerf HESH/PISH. The current gameplay feels more "dynamic", akin to pre-0.19. Devs are not keen on adding back the Wiesel 20mm. Devs prefer to add interesting vehicles, such as having multiple turrets or other interesting mechanics. Each game season will become very long. Spirithaven started in February and will end later this year. Infantry skins are very expensive and lack monetization potential. Enigma's Legacy performed "surprisingly well". (note: if they mean more players spent money, maybe.) The next PvE mission will use a modified spec ops map. Raw dump: Salter & Morey, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle Procedures Guides: Evaluation https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA138578.pdf See Appendix D, pages 34 and 46 for operation procedures for elevating/depressing the TOW launcher.

Issue partially resolved in 0.33: name got changed. Spall threshold stat in garage and in battle still don't match up. Garage stat is now missing penetration.

Still present as of 0.33.

Bonjour! Bienvenue chez ArmoredLabs! The VODs are in French, but the analyses are fairly thorough with PvP focus. If people are interested in the PvP side I'd recommend watching them for some new perspectives.