Haswell

Because the PTS is only available to me during bumfuck hours, my feedback so far is fairly limited. Much of what I want to say have already been covered by everyone else, but I'll try to be thorough anyway. Everything here is from a PvE perspective only. Ammo changes AP changes Largely irrelevant, since it's still pointless to be using AP when you have HEAT (except HEAT-MP). Penetration decay with distance can be flat out ignored in the PvE setting, because the engagement ranges are typically within 300m and never far enough for the decay to matter in the slightest. HEAT changes For HEAT/HEAT-T/HEAT-FS, the increased raw alpha compensating for the lost thin armor bonuses AND increased penetration across the board allows them to continue to hold superiority over AP in all practical situations in PvE. Even though there are fewer targets and weak spots vulnerable to HEAT, skillful maneuvering and positioning can easily circumvent this limitation and the alpha advantage is enough to outweigh this drawback For HEAT-MP their alpha and penetration can only be described as near identical to their AP counterparts. This makes them far less appealing to use over AP, since the primary advantage of HEAT over AP is the higher alpha. The argument that HEAT-MP has the ability to deal damage even with non-penetration is moot, as AP will be more likely to penetrate and deal full damage anyway. ATGM changes Massive penetration increases across the board for all gun-launched ATGMs makes them extremely appealing to use over every other ammo type. There are no practical advantages in using HEAT/HEAT-FS if you have the option to use gun-launched ATGMs instead. Softkill APS have little effect on them due to their velocities and short engagement distances. Hardkill APS may defeat your first shot, but you will always reload fast enough to fire another shot to make hardkill APS largely irrelevant. Granting non-penetration damage to all HEAT-based ATGMs translates directly to receiving constant unavoidable damage in PvE, due to the abundance of missile-slinging bots wanting to make you suffer. There are also zero practical advantages for using HEAT-MP missiles if you have other alternatives with higher alpha and/or penetration (ie. Wiesel HOT). HESH changes Only tested this with the ATDU, the increased penetration does not in any way outweigh the massive disadvantage of lower alpha compared to AP, nor is the module damage significant enough to warrant its use. Because ammo rack explosions aren't reliable enough as they are, it is highly unlikely for HESH/PISH to inflict total damage per shot greater than AP. Not worth using at all. General observations Vehicles with gun-launched ATGMs and HEAT-FS/HEAT-T benefit the most from these changes, while those with HEAT-MP and HESH get the short end of the stick. In a less subtle sense, this is literally RU bias since 125mm guns do not use HEAT-MP and also have the choice of using ATGMs, while NATO vehicles with HEAT-MP get left in their wake. Because of the general alpha increases (and also the universal reload buffs), this actually resulted in far lower TTK when playing MBTs against everything. The TTK on the production server is already low enough that individual targets don't tend to survive for more than 30 seconds when players start shooting at them, this change practically turns the game from what is already about fast-paced tactical decisions into an even faster-paced twitch shooter (ie. Call of Duty). -------------------------------------------- ERA changes Because I'm already somewhat adept at utilizing HEAT over AP in almost all circumstances, I don't find the ERA changes to have any impact on my gameplay at all. Since being able to perform well using HEAT already relies on knowing how to avoid ERA pieces, it's easy for me to instinctively avoid ERA as it is regardless of the shell type I'm using. It is worth nothing that ERA almost never cover the frontal vulnerabilities of most vehicles. Seeing how most of the engagements in the game are either spamming AP against frontal targets and HEAT against flanks, I don't see how the ERA changes are significant in any way. MBT armor changes All the MBTs have cookie cutter armor profiles now, frontal vulnerabilities are nonexistent except in the lower plates (and occasionally upper plates for Leo 2s) and flanks are even more vulnerable thanks to the universal penetration buffs. There is practically no gameplay difference or distinctions between any of the MBTs now except in ammo types, they now all fall under the "hide your lower plate to be invulnerable" category. This change however did NOT improve the survivability of MBTs noticeably, for both player and bots. Against bots, their survivability actually decreased due to their propensity to expose their flanks coupled with the universal alpha and penetration increases. For players. they are already bordering on being invulnerable as long as "front towards target" is followed in the production server, the armor changes are not too significant but does serve to remove weak spots that would otherwise get targeted by bots. MBT mobility changes Everything can now go fast, everybody can rush around at above 70km/h easily and even outrun squishy vehicles, which are supposed to have mobility advantages over MBT. If not for vision control, there would be zero purpose for the existence and utilization of squishy vehicles. Movement also feels extremely slippery, almost as if terrain resistance got massively decreased. It is difficult to stop and/or turn precisely because the brakes distances are so long, as well as the overall slipperiness. MBT view range changes I don't find the changes to be significant, as even before the changes my general playstyle in everything with a modicum of armor is to be aggressive and push against bots. The lower overall view range does not matter when you are constantly within 200m of your targets, the maps in PvE simply do not have enough distance for MBT view ranges to matter when they have sufficient frontal protection to push into everything. I understand the intent to reduce view ranges for MBTs is to allow more emphasis on squishy vehicles for vision control capabilities, but most maps in PvE simply do not offer opportunities or demand for squishy vehicles over MBTs being played aggressively. Overall the concept of the change is good, but when coupled with everything else it is still largely irrelevant.

Just some more curiosities from the PTS client. Some sort of anniversary event in September probably, and the ZTQ-15 will be a lootbox vehicle most likely.

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/033-pts-stage-1-now-available And the actual patch notes:

Will add the other parts to OP as they come out. https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-model-improvements-update-033-part-1 Nice, but I think most people can live without model changes as long as the mechanics don't change. Unless of course the armor layouts get changed with the new models. 1mm holes anyone?

OS: Windows 10 Home, build 10240 (yes) Game Version: 0.32.7221 Brief Description: "Green" ammo types that are not HESH (ie. PELE) are incorrectly recorded as HESH in the outgoing damage log. Steps to Reproduce: Enable outgoing damage log in settings Use any vehicle with "green" ammo types that are not HESH, equip said ammo type Go into battle Deal damage using "green" ammo type Note outgoing damage log Result: Outgoing damage log aggregates all damage dealt from "green" ammo types as HESH, even if the ammo type used is not HESH and do not share HESH characteristics. Expected Behavior: Outgoing damage log should classify "green" ammo types properly and not list non-HESH ammo as HESH. Fixes/Workarounds: None. Other Notes:

OS: Windows 10 Home, build 10240 (yes) Game Version: 0.32.7221 Brief Description: 73mm RA-79 rockets on the ADATS are incorrectly named as HESH, despite the SAPHEI label and SAPHEI-like characteristics in performance. Penetration and spall threshold values in battle and in garage do not match. Steps to Reproduce: Be ADATS Equip RA-79 rockets Examine ammo tool tip in garage, note the listed penetration (130mm) and spall threshold (5mm). Also note "green" classification of ammo type. Go into battle Example ammo tool tip in battle, note the listed penetration (5mm) and spall threshold (130mm). Fire rockets at armor less than 130mm thick (ie. rear of vehicles), note lack of penetration despite penetration indicator being green. Fire rockets at relatively thin armor but still thick enough for the penetration indicator to turn red (ie. Bradley lower plate), note damage dealt even with no penetration. Result: RA-79 rockets exhibit SAPHEI-like performance characteristics instead of HESH; penetration and spall threshold values are mismatched in garage and in battle. Expected Behavior: Name of RA-79 rocket should not include HESH, perhaps replace with SAPHEI Penetration and spall threshold values of garage tool tip should match in-battle tool tip Ammo type classification should be orange, to differentiate SAPHEI from HESH Penetration indicator color should properly reflect probability of penetration Fixes/Workarounds: None. Other Notes:

OS: Windows 10 Home, build 10240 (yes) Game Version: 0.32.7221 Brief Description: Seon'gun-915 has incorrect top speed of 85km/h listed in garage, or it has a hidden speed cap of 80km/h. The listed top speed will never be reached even when using the Top Speed ability, the vehicle will not go faster than 80km/h. Steps to Reproduce: Be Seon'gun-915 Equip the "Improved Final Drive" module and Improved Filters V2 retrofit, perhaps the Top Speed ability as well. Go into battle Drive straight and try to reach 85km/h Result: Acceleration continues until reaching 80km/h, then stops. 85km/h is never reached. Expected Behavior: Vehicle should continue accelerating until reaching 85km/h, or listed top speed should be amended to 80km/h. Fixes/Workarounds: None. Other Notes:

That RCR looks so chonky, it's actually cute. I want that in-game, for real.

Big copypasta inbound: https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/tier-7-10-rebalance-part-4-individual-vehicles

THE tahax? I'm a big fan of your custom modeling and skins! I've been meaning to contact you on ArtStation and ask how you made the custom models and skins, looks like you found me first! Would you mind sharing how you made them? I've only managed to make custom camos and haven't found out how to retexture the models yet, let alone splicing up custom models such as your T-15 w/ 152mm gun. In case anyone is confused, check out his amazing ArtStation portfolio here: https://www.artstation.com/tahax

Added extra answers.

Merged the other thread into this one.

My bad, thought I read something about it being sold on the My.games market. Fixed.

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/maintenance-august-12 https://armata.my.games/news/6305.html Yay.

You know the drill. Interesting stuff in bold. The Abrams remodel is said to have excellent quality, and will come with 0.33. Sphinx missile bug is being investigated. Spirithaven spec ops will still be active in 0.33. 0.34 will feature a new season. No new progression branch in 2020. No plans to separate American and Asian vehicle branches from the Faraday and de Laroche dealers. No plans to add HEAT to the T-14-152. No plans to add more Japanese vehicles in 2020. The next BP will share the same core mechanics as the current one, but there may be some surprises. 0.33 rebalance is primarily focused on PvP. PvE concerns are addressed separately. SS feels the game should cater more towards the casual player audience. (note: I agree, the PvE meta right now is fairly punishing to inexperienced players.) Bradley ATGM launcher having fixed elevation/depression is intended. (note: god damn it.) No plans for rewind feature in replays, because spaghetti code. SS is against adding the Strv 103 because of its numerous disadvantages, also because it's not worth the effort. No plans to add map picking. More arty are planned. (note: plsno) PvE battles make up 60-80% of concurrent battles, depending on the time of day. PvE changes in 0.33 are mostly reactionary to the rest of the changes. Devs are aware of the negative opinions on the Battle Hardened mechanic changes (pref MM). SS have conveyed that a rollback may be the best option, but it's up to the devs. Blowout panel mechanics are already in the game. (note: very poorly explained, and impossible to tell without actual gameplay experience) No plans to allow removing skins from skinned vehicles (ie. M1A1 AIM). There are plans for more endgame content. Heroics require a lot of resources to develop but are only played by a very small percentage of players, making them a fairly poor return on investment right now. Because lootboxes with vehicle parts and other items are part of the game's monetization model, it is intended for the trading system to be restrictive. It may be expanded to allow more items to be traded in the future. Separate balancing for PvE and PvP won't happen, because balance involves the environment. (note: is there any reason why the maps and bot spawns can't be rebalanced then?) Crew rework was planned, but it didn't happen. Base system won't come in 0.33. No plans for horde mode in 0.33. No plans for permenant versions of the T-14 Hades, it is intended to encourage continuous battalion play so players don't quit after getting it. No plans for arty rework. Arty is intended for the "sit and click" playstyle that some players enjoy. (note: one-handed arty pro) No plans for infantry skins, too costly and low ROI. No plans for non-universal retrofits in 0.33. Bigger maps will be the norm for PvP. No plans to make dead-end vehicles like the Evo or Ariete more appealing. Raw dump: Round 2 answers: SS would prefer the game to be PvE centric with good narrative. (note: I feel the same way, the only thing AW has over WoT and WT is PvE.) Infantry command mechanic was last planned to exclude movement, but may be scrapped at this point. Regional servers won't come back. (note: of course not, the playerbase isn't nearly big enough.) No plans for adding bots to training rooms. It's possible for vehicles to use multiple abilities, but not planned at the moment. Ammo nomenclature is messy right now, ie. 30mm Bushmaster autocannon being able to fire 40mm ammo without module changes. Meta Publishing owns the game right now, they are former Mail.ru employees. My.com collaborates with them on some things. The American vehicle lines are intentionally mixed up so less appealing vehicles don't get neglected. (note: it still makes zero sense why the Vigilatne leads to the MGM, while the TTB leads to the GAU.) Module-based vehicle progression (ie. different vehicles for different module configs) was considered back in 2015, but got turned down because it's resource-intensive and unfamiliar to players. Hunter lootboxes have one more sale period planned. (note: ugh) Stryker ADATS and Griffin 120 won't be sold soon. The current BP (Enigma's Legacy) is doing better than the previous one, although there are many confounding factors. The low income for arty in PvE matches the lack of difficulty of one-handed arty pros. One new PvE mission is being worked on, but not planned for 0.33. Seasonal spec ops are over. They required a lot of resources to develop. The focus now is to improve existing maps. The upcoming Raid will have changes compared to the previous one, such as removing MBT sniping missions. No plans for easily switchable garages, it requires effort to keep all the garages up to date with the constant visual changes. (note: you can still switch garages by modding, but YMMV.) No plans for being able to test drive PvE maps. Flags were controversial even internally. No plans to touch the existing system. BP mission sets being restricted to current BP vehicles only is intended, in order to promote the BP vehicles. AI-only vehicles were considered, but not worth it. They would be broken when driven by players. BP is essentially pay-to-grind-less. Extending the current BP is considered, due to the constant issues affecting players. Type 15 (ZTQ-15) will be available before the next BP. It will be a premium tier 9 for sale. No plans to retrofit old vehicles with NERA. Type 10 was originally modeled to have the commander sitting out of the hatch. The commander is too vulnerable to damage so it got removed. No plans for battalion inventories. 0.34 will come this year. Cougar FSV is an unused model from the OE era. No plans for improving the armor inspector. CATTB will be available for sale soon. Dumperino: Type 10 with the commander. Cougar FSV Extra answers: Previous Q&A summaries: https://armoredlabs.net/index.php?/topic/232-may-26-qa-from-discord/ https://armoredlabs.net/index.php?/topic/278-june-16-qa-from-discord/ Edit: round 2 is ongoing right now, new answers soon. Edit 2: round 2 added. Edit whatever: added extra answers

This is so retarded, I love it. You guys got excellent RNG on the bots spawns though, barely any T-15s on caps 1 and 2 so you could afford to push a lot more aggressively. Edit: you two got famous :D https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/community-highlight-two-man-heroic

This is obviously big for PvP (as far as I know) since the power difference between the tiers are massive. I can easily foresee statpadders/sealclubbers/farmers BHing their preferred vehicles in order to guarantee weaker enemies. Whether or not this will wreck havoc on the MM remains to be seen, but this is practically pay2win under a thin veil. On the other hand, I don't see this affecting normal PvE too much because of how the tier brackets already work. I'm assuming pref MM will mean a +1/-2 tier spread instead of +2/-2. This will have zero benefit on tiers 2, 3 (on standard), 5, 6, 9 and 10, because all these tiers are either already at the top or just one tier below the top of their respective brackets. If however pref MM means a more serious +0/-2 tier spread, this will mean BH'd vehicles will always be top tier. This drops the unaffected in PvE tiers down to only 3, 6 and 10. For those who are unenlightened, the tier brackets for PvE are as follows: Map rotations change, but the brackets stay the same. There is however a significant downside to having pref MM: less powerful enemies mean less damage to farm, which in turn will result in lower base payouts before multipliers. This will actually make damage and XP farming missions (ie. BP/Raid) LONGER to complete, assuming you don't have any issues against harder enemies as it is. Imagine having to farm 450k damage at tier 8 but you never get to meet big sacks of hitpoints like superior Merk 4Ms and ATDUs. This will benefit the average inexperienced player maybe, but definitely detrimental to those who know what they are doing. I strongly suspect the BH change is a marketing/monetization decision rather than game design, which would also explain why this might get pushed ahead despite player backlash. If nothing else this will provide a method to suck up existing gold stockpiles and to entice players to purchase gold. I will not fall for it, and I hope others will have enough willpower to resist. Good, I don't want to see gaudy skins like police lights. Not that people couldn't already mod all existing camos so that they are effectively invisible anyway. Meh. This is NOT a "minor" change. Knowing where your weak spots are and how to protect them is a crucial gameplay mechanic and personal skill, as is guaranteeing fires by intentionally targeting and destroying fuel tanks. This skill and knowledge is invaluable when attempting to complete Detonator (5 kills by fire or explosion) or any other mission that involves starting fires. This screams "remove player skill" to me and dumbs down gameplay to appease casual and inexperienced players. Why not remove ammo rack fires as well, seeing how there are plenty of vehicles with frontal ammo racks and also plenty of players who don't know this? To address all the "ammo racks are easy to hit" arguments, is there any reason at all why fuel tank fires can't exist alongside with ammo rack fires? Does it benefit gameplay in any way by removing one of the only two sources of guaranteed fires? Before anyone tries to say "engine fire", note that they are NOT guaranteed and entirely subjected to RNG. 0.33 is looking more and more bleak by the day.

OS: Windows 10 Home, build 10240 (yes) Game Version: 0.32.7198 Brief Description: Sphinx missiles on initial launch have no elevation/depression, contrary to what the vehicle model suggests Steps to Reproduce: Be Sphinx Be on a slope, doesn't matter whether it's inclining or declining Aim at a target, preferably one within your elevation/depression limits (use the crosshairs as an indicator) Fire missiles at target Result: Missiles on launch do not align with your supposedly depressed/elevated launcher model (they don't respect where you're aiming) Expected Behavior: Missiles should respect launcher elevation/depression angles on launch. Fixes/Workarounds: None. Avoid slopes maybe. Other Notes:

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-quality-life-improvements

A perfectly balanced vehicle, premium or not, would also not be weaker than other vehicles at least in the sense of gameplay viability. Sure it can be weaker in one aspect (ie. durability) than others, but other aspects can then be made comparatively stronger. That would be the perfect world where nobody could say "X is better than Y" in generalization without examining the specific circumstances, but sadly nothing can ever be perfect. In the case of current balancing, a good premium vehicle could be one that is on par with the best performing (statistically) progression vehicle of the same playstyle, with some differences in characteristics (ie. slightly better mobility for slightly worse firepower) to give players a sense of variety. It certainly wouldn't be as appealing or sell as well as something that is blatantly broken (note: not overpowered, big difference), but that's the price to pay for having well-balanced vehicles to promote healthier gameplay. There has to be some way that balance can be marketed as a selling point, even if the benefits aren't immediately obvious. Vehicles can also be made attractive by having perks that don't directly affect gameplay balance (ie. 640 with its 1.25x multipliers). Assume that the game economy isn't in complete shambles like it is now, extra XP and credit multipliers would easily add appeal to otherwise boring vehicles. Theses perks wouldn't necessarily have to be constant, they could come and go on rotating schedules to periodically refresh the appeal of older vehicles to older players, and entice newer players to purchase them. For example, say there are monthly events that focus on specific categories of vehicles (ie. heavy AFV, light AFV, wheeled TDs, etc), and premium vehicles of said category in focus would receive income bonuses for the duration of the event. This would also have the positive side effect regularly of shaking up the gameplay meta since certain vehicles would become more popular, preventing stagnation without having to keep releasing new vehicles to keep gameplay fresh. If anything, the game desperately need regular and continuous credit sinks NOT in the form of overprogression to bring the economy back down to sane levels. Perhaps the base system would offer a solution, but that's going off on a wild tangent. I realize the goal of any game development is to earn profit, unless it's a pet project of some sort. But even then there are ways to monetize game content without compromising gameplay balance or overall game health (ie. playerbase sustainability). It's like the fishing industry, overfishing will definitely generate great profit at the cost of being unsustainable in the long run, while sustainable fishing will ensure profits to continue a great deal longer, and most likely far more profitable than trying to make all the money as fast as possible.

Just to stop the dumpster fire from starting, keep in mind that official game staff are here on the forum in an unofficial capacity unless they state otherwise. Same goes for anything they say, it would simply be their personal opinion unless they indicate differently. Think of it as bumping into your landlord or local management at a pub, they are there to chitchat with people and enjoy themselves just like you and I do. Don't grill or harass them, treat them as you would want to be treated yourself. I have very little experience in PvP, so I'll comment only on the PvE aspect here. And since we don't really have any details for the 0.33 rebalance yet I'll base my comments on the current meta instead. The tier 8 squishy dakka meta right now includes the K21, Marder, Griffin and Bradley. K21 and Marder are damage incarnates, Griffin specializes in high consistent damage over time and great stationary camo, Bradley kind of just derps around. All of them are fairly adept at vision control (except for the Marder, but it's also not bad) with very decent damage output, with moderate mobility. The Stalker could fill the niche of having high mobility and great vision control (but not necessarily both view range and camo at the same time), at the cost of comparatively lower damage output (think BMD-2M levels), which is basically what the article suggested. The hard part would be how to balance it as to not make the VBR completely redundant, since the VBR already do the same things at the cost of having wheels instead of tracks. The obvious way would be to simply let the Stalker have slightly lower vision control capabilities, lower total view range and camo for example, but still higher than the other tracked AFVs. Admittedly this sort of low damage output, high vision control playstyle wouldn't necessarily be friendly or easy for inexperienced players, nor applicable in every map. This may decrease the appeal of the Stalker to the average player, but likely no worse than the VBR already does. Rosomak is a turd who's only saving grace is the autohoming missiles, so I won't even try to compare it.

Leftover coins go to waste, so blow them all on the lootboxes when they inevitably become available at the end of the BP. At the very least you might get an extra booster here and there. Boosters can be used indefinitely for any of the upcoming BPs, so save them up.

Part 3 of rebalancing, ERA galore. https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/tier-7-10-rebalance-part-3-era

What did you actually say? I doubt you got banned over a single comment, unless there's something I'm missing here.

Just a heads up, the final Enigma mission that requires you to kill 7 bots in the first 3 minutes, actually require eliminates. Found that out the hard way yesterday.