Jump to content

MK_Regular

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

MK_Regular last won the day on January 24

MK_Regular had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About MK_Regular

  • Rank
    Situationally Unaware

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. THIS IS NOT COMPLETE YET I'm using Kuntliott's map rating system for this Albatross - 8 A solid map that provides many options to the players, both in vehicle choice and in locations that they can go. These choices are further amplified by the fact that the order of the first and second objectives are semi-randomly chosen along with the spawn location and the objective locations so that the are technically half a dozen or so ways that the mission could be set up. The secondary objectives are easily accessible, and can be used to lead more mobile vehicles to positions that could be advantageous for the final objective. The only real problem with this map is that the "destroy the base" objective can be completed far too quickly by single trigger-happy player and result in the team being up to their necks in enemies and dangerously out of position for the final objective. Anvil - 6 A decent map, but fairly straight forward and lacking complexity. Engagements mostly occur at short range, so light vehicles struggle to remain relevant until the team gets close to the final objective at which point a single player (there really isn't enough space or targets for two players) can drive out onto the pier to put some range between themselves and the enemies. The secondary objectives are relatively easy to obtain, but are entirely meaningless outside of a small increase to the post-battle rewards. Banshee - 6 ... Basilisk - 8 While the single primary objective is not particularly complex, the amount of time it takes to reach the objective area partially makes up for this. There are many good opportunities for vehicles of all types to find advantageous positions that they can make use of, allowing players to use whatever vehicle they want without any major issues. The secondary objectives can be a little bit out of the way depending on which version of them you get, but completing them gives you an extra 3 minutes to complete the primary objective (which can be very useful if your team is struggling to put out the DPM needed). Cavalry - 6 The primary objective is very straightforward, although the map design provides near-constant opportunities for long range support fire. The secondary objectives don't provide any in-match bonus, but are almost trivial to take out. It almost feels like this map needs to have a second objective that occurs after the players have killed off all of the enemies or secured the capture point. Cerberus - 9 One of the more unique maps in that it requires players to kill off specific enemies instead of capturing or defending locations. This change of pace is very refreshing compared to other PvE missions, although it seems to prove challenging for players who are not used to the lieutenants. There are plenty of opportunities for players to find locations to work to the strengths of whatever vehicle they are driving, allowing any vehicle to perform well. Two of the three possible variations of the secondary objectives (namely the "destroy the trucks" and the "destroy the ammo" variations) do not require players to go out of their way to complete them, while the third (the "satcom trace" variation) is worse than the others because it does. My only recommendation for this map would be to get rid of the "satcom trace" secondary objective. Dire Wolf - 4 ... Erebos - 8 ... Frostbite - 8 ... Ghost Hunter - 9 ... Harbinger - 10 An excellent map that provides good opportunities for all playstyles. No mater which vehicle a player is driving, they can always pick a suitable position that will allow them to play to the strengths of their vehicle. While the objectives are not overly complex, the players can choose between one of several routes to complete the first objective. While the secondary objectives don't provide anything outside of the reward bonus and can be a bit out of the way, the fact that the player only needs to shoot them means that they are easy to collect. Hydra - 5 ... Kodiak - 6 ... Leviathan - 9 While I like the complexity of this map, the objectives tend to vary wildly between being too hard and too easy. The randomized locations of the "defend the radio tower" objectives can lead to situations where nobody on the team has enough mobility to reach the new objective on time, causing the objective to fail. Conversely, the final objective is far too easy as the sole requirement for completing it is that at least one player survives until the end of the match. The random locations of the secondary objectives are often too far out of the way for players to reach them before they expire, and do not provide anything outside of the typical bonus rewards. That said, there are plenty of opportunities for vehicles of all types to find suitable positions for their intended playstyles, meaning that any vehicle can be comfortably used for this mission. Life Jacket - 5 ... Meltdown - 8 ... Onyx - 6 ... Perseus - 10 Provides excellent opportunities for squishy vehicles to spot and provide long range supporting fire. The series of objectives give the map the dynamic feel that is usually associated with complexity, and the second and third objectives can both be approached from several different directions if the player so chooses. While the secondary objectives can be a bit out of the way, the one that is the most out of the way spawns several additional enemies that players can choose to engage for additional rewards at the end of the match (helpful if your team is hyper-competent and everyone is trying to maximize their earnings) or ignore completely (although they will occasionally send a few shots at any players that get spotted). Phalanx - 6 ... Prometheus - 6 ... Quarterback - 6 ... Raiding Party - 9 Has the potential to be my hands-down favourite map, but the current mission timer is about 60 seconds too short. Objectives are complex without being confusing, and give players the opportunity to complete them in a variety of ways. Engagements can consistently take place at any range, allowing all vehicles to play to their strengths. The secondary objectives are a little bit out of the way, but generally not that hard to pick up when traveling between objectives. The only thing that prevents me from giving this map a 10 is the mission timer, which is just a little bit too short for an average team of random players to consistently complete the mission (outside of tier 9-10, which seem to do fine). Red Opossum - 6 This map suffers from many of the same problems as Anvil. Most of the engagements take place at very close range, so the effectiveness of various vehicles is heavily weighted in favour of heavily armoured vehicles. While the multiple primary objectives make it more complex than Anvil, the randomized secondary objectives are now harder to obtain while still not providing anything outside of a small boost to the post-battle rewards. Ricochet - 1 This map is a good example of everything that should not be done when making a PvE mission. The engagements all take place at relatively close range (due to a combination of AI spawn locations and urban/hilly terrain) and massively favour vehicles with armour. The map layout is extremely linear for the first half the match, but then branches out to give the players a grand total of 2 routes that they can take in order to continue the engagement - one that will allow players to attempt to get the secondary objective, and one that doesn't expose the players' flanks to a swarm of enemies. The secondary objectives are spaced far apart, and take so long to get to that the match is often over before the team can finish it. Additionally, while the average map time for Ricochet is significantly shorter than the other maps, the rewards from the map are so disproportionately low that a player looking to generate as much income as then can in a given period of time is probably better off skipping Ricochet entirely. The end result is a map that is neither fun nor rewarding to play. Rolling Thunder - 7 A decent map that provides a reasonable level of complexity and good options for different vehicles. Engagements can occur at comfortable ranges for any vehicle on the first and last objective, but only at medium or close range for the second objective. Secondary objective locations are randomized, and are often in locations that are out of the way of the normal paths players would otherwise follow, but are being meaningless outside of increased rewards. Sapphire - 4 Another example of a map that could be done better. The primary objective is very straightforward, which means that matches are usually pretty short. While nowhere near as constrained as ricochet, there are no particularly good spots that players can use to take advantage of the open fields of fire to provide flanking fire without getting spotted. The secondary objectives are well out of the way and require the player be right next to them in order to pick them up without providing any advantage in the match. Scorpio - 6 ... Snakebite - 8 ... Spearhead - 3 ... Starry Night - 6 .. Stormy Winter - 6 ... Tsunami - 7 What would otherwise be a excellent map is hampered by the fact that any players that remain near the spawn for a few minutes after the match starts face certain death. Several enemies rush the spawn within the first few minutes of the match and spot anyone in the spawn for the lieutenant sitting at the end of the road with a clear line of sight into the players' spawn point. The single primary objective is straightforward, but the amount of time it takes to get there mitigates most of this as it gives players the opportunity to explore the map and choose from a wide variety of possible routes. The open area at the start of the mission gives plenty of opportunities for squishies to spot and give support fire, as does the relatively clear trainyard and dockside near the end of the mission. The secondary objectives are spaced far apart, but are not that much of an issue to get since players will need to go there anyways to deal with enemies that would otherwise hit the players with flanking fire from across the map. Umbrella - 4 While this map provides reasonable opportunities for players to use their vehicles to their strengths, it is hampered by being the quickest PvE mission in the game (this is the only mission I have ever completed in under 3 minutes, and I have done so multiple times). The secondary objectives are randomly placed, and could either be well out of the way or in very convenient locations, and are meaningless outside of the post-match rewards. This mission is better suited to being a single objective of a longer mission rather than a whole mission in itself. Watchdog - 8 A good map with varied objectives and decent variation in gameplay opportunities. While it is possible for squishy vehicles to support the objectives from longer ranges, the positions that they need to be in to do this are either not obvious and/or a bit awkward. Secondary objectives are easy to complete and provide decent rewards, but are otherwise useless. Wildfire - 7 While this map has some opportunities for squishies to give spotting and long-range support fire, these locations tend to be a bit awkward. The multiple objectives are relatively open, and offer players multiple ways to approach each objective. Some of the secondary objectives are a bit far out of the way, and collecting them does not provide any in-match advantage. Zero Hour - 10 One of my favourite maps, it is complex while still offering varied gameplay opportunities. Objectives are generally good and, with the exception of the latter half of the first objective, provide opportunities for squishies to spot and give long range support. While the secondary objectives give decent rewards they are quite far out of the way, although going after them does not take a player entirely out of the fight due to the fact that the enemies that spawn with them would otherwise flank the team. While not entirely necessary, increasing the timer for the second objective by 30-60 seconds or reducing the amount of time needed to capture it would make this map slightly easier to complete. What's the most important thing to you in a PvE mission? - gameplay While it is undeniable that all of the choices that were given for this question are important factors, I'm going to go with Gameplay. I have reached a point close to the "endgame" where I have most of the progression tanks and can afford to buy and upgrade the ones I don't have once I research them, so I'm not particularly worried about being sufficiently rewarded unless the earnings from PvE missions were to receive a massive nerf. Similarly, while certain enemy vehicles can be really annoying to play against (the old Swingfire in particular), I have enough experience in dealing with them that I generally just consider them to be "slightly more dangerous" or "mildly annoying". Instead, I'll focus on gameplay since this has the widest scope of things that can potentially be changed: map layouts and objective types (less corridor maps, less linear maps, no escort objectives) AI behaviors game mechanics (vision and spotting, shell damage and penetration mechanics, mobility mechanics, etc...) vehicle balance etc... What's your favorite mission objective preference in PvE? - capturing a location this is really just a placeholder answer, because I don't have the option to select the mission objective types that I actively despise: The escort objectives where you need to escort a vehicle with a limited HP pool and possibly preset pathing are terrible because they remove all of the potential creative solutions in favour of boatloads of DPM. There is no thinking involved with this type of objective, just driving around and holding down LMB and hoping that you can kill everything fast enough. This type of objective should be avoided for all future PvE missions. The fetch objectives where you need to pick up and carry an object have potential, but their expectation in the Moscow Calling season were less than ideal and prone to abuse. This was particularly noticeable in cases where the death of the player carrying the object would result in mission failure, as this turned the objective into a variation of the escort objective where the vehicle that needed to be escorted was marginally more competent than the AI at best or actively and deliberately suicidal at worst. While the other variation of the fetch objective did not have this particular problem, it was still prone to abuse by players grabbing one of the limited number of objects available for pickup and then deliberately not delivering it to force a mission failure. This type of objective could be used in future PvE missions with 2 major restrictions to prevent griefing: the death of the player carrying the objective should not result in mission failure there should be multiple redundant copies of the objective available The "kill the enemy boss" objectives range from being OK to exceptionally boring/annoying depending on what the boss is. An example of this type of objective done well is Cerberus, where the bosses are strong but not overwhelmingly powerful or hard to kill. An example of this type of objective done poorly is the gunship in BSI 3 (particularly in Heroics) where remaining stationary for too long means certain death and the boss takes several minutes of sustained fire (RMB, hold LMB) from the entire team to kill. All of the other objective types are generally fine, and I have no real complaints about them How difficult do you like your PvE? - challenging but doable with random players ...
  2. Commanders will keep XP that you accumulate even if they aren't promoted. While not overly useful, you can use this to "pre-level" you commanders when you're doing the initial rank ladder and to keep an XP buffer in case you want to retrain commander skills without using gold.
  3. Yes, the increased render range would work to discourage camping in PvP, but it would have the complete opposite effect in PvE. It doesn't matter if a player "announces their presence" in PvE by shooting a bot because the bot is hard-coded to not fire at players unless they have been spotted by one of the bots. If the render range was increased for PvE without any mitigating or conditional factors I would expect more players to drive to a good vantage point and then sit there killing all of the bots that they can see without any risk of return fire because none of the bots can spot the player. Earlier I suggested a few possible mitigating or conditional factors to the increased render range, but after reading your reply I think I can expand the list: environmental factors (rain, snow, dust, etc...) that impede visual spotting use the current spotting system, but have a draw range based on the player's view range in which all enemies will render use the current spotting system, but firing automatically makes the player render on their enemies' screens for a brief period of time
  4. I just took her out for a test drive and discovered a rather interesting behaviour with the autoloader. Because the reload timer for the second shell does not reset when you fire the gun, it is possible to fire 2 shots in very rapid succession. Normally, if the second shot is already loaded when the gun is fired, there is a 2-second loading cycle before the 2nd shot can be fired. However, I have found that is it possible to bypass this loading cycle by firing the first shot when the second shot is nearly finished loading. The exact timing between shots depends on how precise the player's timing is when they fire the gun; I managed to get the interval between shots down to one tenth of a second in the test ground (with 0 ping), but with a bit of practice and a consistent internet connection this should be replicable in a live match. I'm not entirely sure if this behaviour is intended or not, but it seems a bit broken. Without knowing what the devs intended, I would expect there to be a minimum of a 2 second reload between shots even if the 2nd shot has less than 2 seconds remaining on its load time, but this is obviously not the case.
  5. As much as this seems like a good idea, I would be a bit cautious about implementing it. Being able to see targets from across the map could encourage more static and methodical behaviour (where players refuse to move up to new positions while there are still enemy vehicles visible even if they're not ID'd) and would reduce the importance of proper scouting and spotting. It might be possible to limit the behaviour effects by introducing or increasing environmental effects (heavy rain or snow) to reduce visibility. Another option that could mitigate some of these issues would be to have the render range for enemy vehicles scale based on the player's view range (scouts would benefit from the increased render range the most, while other classes would still be somewhat reliant on the spotting done by their teammates).
  6. If the entire concept is based on the premise of players being able to see how many people are queueing for a particular map, the entire idea is almost certainly doomed from the start. There used to be a counter for the number of players queuing for matches divided by the tier of vehicles that were being queued, but the devs removed it for reasons that to my knowledge have not been disclosed. Given that the devs generally don't reverse changes that have been made (and the in the few cases where they do they are fairly recent changes), the chances of getting the player counter for queuing is effectively nil. While it is possible that a player counter for the queue might be reintroduced, I would not be holding my breath for it and I certainly wouldn't be holding my breath for a more detailed player counter than what used to be in the game. Allowing players to queue for 2 or more maps at the same time would increase the complexity of the queue system, which would in turn increase the number of potential failure points. While it would be exceptionally rare for 2 maps that a player is queueing for to go into the match at the same time, random chance dictates that the conditions necessary for it to occur would happen eventually, which means that the matchmaking system would need to be able to automatically deal with it without any user input (requiring user input would open up the possibility of greifing by locking other players out of being able to play the game) or causing any game-braking effects (e.g. a player having to play 2 maps at the same time or being forced to abandon their team on one of the maps). A lobby system could work, and the easiest way to do this in my opinion would be to expand on or revise the platoon function. A platoon can take the required 5 players for a PvE match, but joining one is currently limited to receiving an invitation from the platoon leader. Giving the platoon leader the option of making the platoon public and adding a section on the matchmaking tab of the UI for joining platoon would provide the basic lobby function. The exact particulars of how the improved platoon system would work depend on the answers to several questions: Can the platoon leader restrict the platoon to a specific game mode or difficulty? Can the platoon leader restrict players to having a particular classes and/or tiers of vehicle? Can the platoon leader allow more than 4 other players to join the platoon to insure that vehicles of the desired classes and/or tiers are present? Can the platoon leader force a match and leave behind any players that are not ready? Can the platoon leader override matchmaker restrictions with respect to vehicle tiers if they have a full platoon (like they already can with vehicle classes)? Can the platoon leader choose the map if they have a full platoon? etc... While all of these options would work to improve the amount of choice afforded to players, they would all increase the waiting time between matches. A more complex system that gives more options will always be slower than a simple system that restricts player choice. While I wouldn't be opposed to being able to join "public platoons" I personally do not think that the majority of the options I listed should be implemented due to the potential of griefing and abuse
  7. As much as this would be the "ideal" solution, the game does not have a large enough playerbase to allow for it. The devs haven't said how long the average waiting time for a +/-1 tier spread PvE match is, but we'll assume for the sake of argument that it takes an average of 30 seconds (in my experience this is about right for tier 7-10 hardcore PvE). This means that it takes about a full minute for 5 players to queue for a match in the +/-1 tier spread, or about 1 player queuing every 15 seconds (the 5th player gets the match instantly). Of course, this is with a +/-1 tier spread, so the amount of time between players queueing for any given tier is effectively doubled, for a queue rate of 2 players per minute per tier (we can probably also add in "per PvE difficulty/mode" here as well, but I'm not going to bother with it). This value of 2 players per minute per tier means that your idea would not work in the current status of the game. There are currently 36 standard PvE maps in AW, and giving players the option to choose which one of them they want to queue for would dilute those 2 players per minute per tier across 36 separate queues, which would increase the average wait time from 30 seconds to over 20 minutes. This is unacceptable. While this time could be reduced by limiting the map choices to 10 maps which change on a daily basis and increasing the tier spread to +/-2, this would still result in an unacceptably long queue time of over 6 minutes while the increased tier spread would reduce the queue times by about a third at the cost of serious adverse effects on gameplay. This means that the best possible scenario (10 maps, +/-2 tier spread) results in average queue times that are 8 times longer than what they are now and breaks what little PvE game balance we have, both of which are currently unacceptable. The ability to queue for 2 maps at the same time would be nice, but would present so many issues (what happens if a player gets into two matches at the same time, how does the game determine which one the player is sent to, etc...) that it's just not worth adding. TL;DR: While the idea seems like it would work on the surface, the game's player count is too low to make it work without breaking game balance and massively increasing queue times.
  8. It actually seems like an arty would be pretty useful on the final part of the mission once players start figuring out where the infantry spawn. Lobbing HE/WP shells in the approximate locations of the infantry spawns should take them out pretty quickly if they are as bunched up as they seemed to be...
  9. Great, it looks like tier 5 PvP is going to be broken again. Time to load up my T-72A and sealclub the shit out of tier 5 PvP. Maybe all of the whining from the people I stomp all over will encourage the devs to prioritize the low-tier rebalance... (it won't but I can dream)
  10. Yay Ok I guess No. Just no. There are some PvE maps that some players absolutely despise (exactly which maps varies from player to player and which tier the map is played at) and will instead wait for the next mission in the rotation. This change is arbitrary and will result in less PvE matches being played because of players not joining the queue when a map they don't like is being offered (or god forbid 2 or 3 such maps in a row). Edit: I can understand the increased rotation time if the reasoning is "we don't want people to play the same map twice in a 2-hour session", but the benefits of keeping the rotation time the same far outweigh any perceived advantage of doubling the amount of time that a map takes before it appears in the rotation again.
  11. There's no proper explanation based on "realism", but there should be an explanation on how the game engine determines when to show the warning. As far as I can tell, the "missile warning" is shown whenever an enemy fires a missile in your general direction. I'm not sure how broad the definition of "general direction" is, but I can say that the system does not differentiate based on the intended target, distance behind cover, or whether or not you're spotted. If an enemy missile is within the detection range of your APS system and will pass within a particular arbitrary distance of your tank (regardless of whatever obstacles might be in the way), it will trigger the missile warning. As such, it is entirely possible to get a missile warning from halfway across the map (especially in PvE where the ranges are compressed) while unspotted and on the other side of several buildings or large terrain features.
  12. I'm assuming you're talking about HEAT-MP, which deals a small amount of "chip damage" when it doesn't penetrate. Like Knutliott said, the HEAT bonus damage is being phased out and has been removed from all tier 7-10 vehicles. Since you said that you've been encountering this while playing tier 7-9 MBTs, we'll ignore the bonus damage. This leaves us with the "average" damage that is dealt on successful penetration and is subject to a small amount of randomization (+/- 10% on most shells). On some specific shell types (ATGMs, HEAT-MP, etc...) there is also a "non-penetration" damage that is dealt when the shell does not penetrate the target's armour and is subject to the same amount of randomization. In both cases, the damage value given in the shell's info card is just an average value that tells you how about much damage you can expect the shell to do (within reason). There is a major exception to this, which is uncrewed turrets. Uncrewed take significantly less damage than other parts of the vehicle (it differs between vehicles, but you can usually expect to do 75% less damage) from all damage sources (penetrating hits, non-penetrating hits, and ammo fires are most noticeable). In the case of the Hunter, the turret is uncrewed which means that any HEAT-MP shell that hits the turret will deal less damage than it would have dealt if it hit the hull.
  13. Yeah, that would be the easiest way to balance Ophelia in PvP. At the end of the day her shield skill is so broken that it seriously needs to be directly nerfed or otherwise restricted. The devs have said that they are not looking at nerfing her ability, so that just leaves restricting it. If the devs don't like the restrictions I proposed, I would fully support simply just making her shield PvE only if it meant that it made her balanced for PvP and Glops.
  14. You could easily keep Ophelia's shield skill while seriously nerfing it's utility as blatantly a broken mechanic by adding a few extra restrictions to it. To give an example, three possible restrictions that could be added to it (off the top of my head): limit the number of times the shield can deploy in a single match (major effect in Glops, possible minor/moderate effect in PvE, no effect in PvP) add a minimum time between shield deployments regardless of whether or not the player dies (major effect in Glops, moderate effect in PvE, no effect in PvP) require the player to get a kill before the shield can deploy (major effect in PvP, moderate effect in Glops, minimal effect in PvE) Having some combination of these restrictions would allow Ophelia to keep her shield skill functionally identical to what it currently is (which the devs seem to want) but would balance it by limiting the how often the shield would deploy. Personally, I think a combination of the first and third options (e.g. the shield can spawn 3 times per match, the player must get a kill before the first shield, and the player must get another kill after each shield in order to get the next shield) would be a good starting point for reducing the effectiveness of the "yolo strategy" in PvP and Glops.
  15. I just had a funny thought... if the rank reward tanks that people missed are available in future battle paths (and they almost certainly will be given that most of the reward tanks from the previous BPs were available in the store), they will actually be slightly cheaper to get in the BP store than they were to get from ranking up. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that everyone in the BP got to rank 10: tier 8, 9, and 10 vehicles sell for 36k, 56k, and 76k BC respectively. with one reward vehicle of each tier above rank 10, this gives a total "store cost" of 168k BC. there are 40 additional ranks that a player needs to go through to get all 3 reward tanks, with each rank costing 4.5k BC. this gives a total "rank price" of 180k BC admittedly, there is RNG involved with the store so a player might never see one or more of the reward tanks that they don't have, and any store rerolls would only serve to increase the "store cost". there is also the fact any player that picks up the tanks for the "rank price" ends up getting a few extra bits that have direct BC values: 60M CR ("store price" of 2560 BC for 10M credits, 15360 BC total) 600 gold (no "store price", but not insignificant) 11 BC boosters ("store price" of 500[?] BC each, 5500[?] BC total) once the odds and ends are included, the rank rewards end up being the better deal overall (if you care about the odds and ends). If you don't care about the odds and ends, the "store price" in future BPs ends up being the better deal but only if you get lucky and have the vehicles show up on an auto-reroll.
×
×
  • Create New...