Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MK_Regular last won the day on June 25

MK_Regular had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About MK_Regular

  • Rank
    RNG Conspiracy Theorist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. is it just me, or does it sound like Desert Viper will be using that glops desert map with the aircraft carrier in port? either way, I'm curious to see how these maps turn out
  2. Sooo, enough BC for two commanders and a tier 9 premium? Haswell, you lucky bastard. Good for you on figuring it out so quickly though.
  3. A few things of note about the reward vehicles that I'm not sure got picked up since their announcements CV90105 TML The TML's heat round is fairly competitive compared to the Stingray 2, with 520 damage and 744 penetration (stingray 2 gets 510 damage and 770 pen) giving it slightly more damage per shot but slightly less penetration. The AP rounds are identical The reload time for the TML's guns was reduced by 2 seconds (28s/16s for the 12/5 shot guns) and the optional upgrade for the 12-shot gun now reduces the cyclic time from 2.5s to 2.2s Aim time on the TML is 1.41s, meaning that you can just about get a fully-aimed shot off without any delay when using the 5-round clip (1.3s reload) The ability to use vision control of the TML is better than the Stingray 2, with an extra 2% camo (32% with paint) and 30m view range (450m with the view range unlock) before retrofits and skills Armour seems like it will be fairly reliable against autocannons from the front, with a few minor weak spots (290mm gun mantlet, 120mm turret ring, lower glacis of 210mm/180mm/145mm at tope/center/bottom) CV90 Mk IV Base camo and view range are superior to it its peers at 480m (510m when stopped) and 36% with paint. Probably good enough to give the VBR a run for its money Armour seems surprisingly good on paper (better than Marder on stats card!), can probably stop a lot of autocannon AP from the front if it doesn't hit the few weakspots (125mm turret ring, 205mm/180mm/80mm lower glacis) Gun stats are copy-paste from Marder (same accuracy, aim time, reload, and damage) but trades the PELE for HE (as previously mentioned) with 95 damage and 40mm pen CV90120 Ghost The ghost gets access to the upgraded transmission for the tier 9/10 LTs, allowing it to reach 85 km/h The upgraded AP round for the single-shot gun only increases the penetration only offers increased penetration (850mm instead of 800mm) for the same damage (600) The ready rack gun has significantly less damage per shot (510 vs 600 for AP and 610 vs 720 for HEAT) as well as reduced penetration (780mm AP instead of 800mm, 855mm HEAT instead of 880mm) There is a built-in flash suppressor upgrade that reduces the camo penalty from firing by 50% (this is in addition to ADAPTIV) Reload times for the ready rack got buffed from 5.6s per shot to 5s per shot and 2.8s cyclic to 2.4s, while the single-shot gun got buffed from 5s to 4.4s Turret armour will not resist large-caliber AP/HEAT rounds, but should be able to resist all auto-cannon AP from the front (>400mm). The weakest points of the frontal armour are the turret ring (190mm), the parts of the lower glacis not covered in applique (210mm), and the rest of the lower glacis (290-310mm) Strv 2000 Armour seems strong from the front, but far from invulnerable. Lower glacis is 800mm/700mm/600mm against AP (with the 800mm and 700mm portions being covered with three segments of 600mm NERA) and 880mm/770mm/900mm against HEAT (880mm and 770mm parts covered in the three segments of 900-1200mm NERA). The turret ring is venerable to HEAT and ATGMs with 920mm of protection. Turret sides are >400mm except for the rear-most part (250mm) and hull sides are between 200mm and 400mm (the rear-most section is 200mm and is covered by a piece of 35mm spaced armour, the 400mm and 250mm sections are covered by 9 segments of the same NERA as the front). Once the NERA is gone, you have comparable protection against large-caliber AP and HEAT as a light tank, but maintain complete resistance against autocannon AP for most of the frontal arc The known stats for the 140mm gun are unchanged, but the stats that were previously unknown are directly comparable to a stock XM1A3 (accuracy of 0.129 and aim time of 2.38s are the same as the stock XM1A3). The upgraded XM1A3 will still have the superior 140mm gun since it has access to upgrades that the Strv does not (10% accuracy increase, 20% aim time reduction, an improved AP round and a RoF upgrade) that more than make up for the extra 40 damage on the Strv's HEAT round DPM on the 40mm is around 11.4k before retros, with the first/second/third shots of each burst having 230/~310/~400 penetration at 100m. Note that for every shot of the burst that does not penetrate reduces the DPM of the autocannon by ~3.8k (11.4k if all 3 pen, 7.6k if 2 pen, 3.8k if only 1 pen). This seems to be an acceptable trade off compared to the Obj 195's 30mm autocannon since it trades anywhere between ~37% to ~79% of the 195's autocannon DPM for 15% to 100% more penetration (although how acceptable it actually is remains to be seen) tl;dr: The TML seems like it will be a good alternative to the Stingray 2 The Mk IV is probably going to be exceptionally good once it is fully upgraded The single-shot Ghost is on par with or better than both the Thunderbolt and Anders nearly across the board (aim time is a notable exception), while the ready-rack Ghost trades sustained DPM for a lackluster amount of burst DPM The only thing that might make the Strv OP will be the autocannon (if anything, it seems like the Strv would actually be underperforming if it didn't have the autocannon)
  4. Part of me hopes that they have a way to separate the trolls from everyone else who actually wants to do it properly at some point (say halfway through the campaign). Let's say that they record the choices that individual players make for a single episode (they only need to do it for that episode). From there, they can give the players a choice where the good and bad choices are super obvious and will have massive consequences. Once everyone has made their choices, they could use their DM powers and go "yeah, there was a schism in the group of story people, some of them decided to leave and do their own thing" and separate everyone who picked the "bad choice" into their own separate group that gets a series of extremely hard tasks (that will only last 2-3 episodes because they're almost impossible to complete) for no increased rewards while everyone who picked the "good choice" get's to continue on as if nothing happened. Edit: In the event that some players do manage to complete the nearly impossible tasks, they could be added back into the normal group, but any remains of the in-story splinter group would not be trusted by the others, and this could be reflected in-game by the removal of the surviving trolls' decision-making powers.
  5. 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
  6. It looks like I got pretty close with this one, I wouldn't have guessed that it would have the 50mm autocannon if I hadn't looked it up. I look forward to seeing it in the game.
  7. The Abrams series wouldn't be a bad choice either. It has decent buffs without a massive difficulty spike, and with the 0.33 changes the vehicles actually play a lot better than they used to (they tend to be tanky as long as they don't get uptiered, good mobility, good firepower, etc...). It might be worth picking them over the European MBTs since the Abrams would perform better (Challenger) or be easier to play (Leo, Leclerc) than most of them.
  8. The cold war IFVs look like they're a complete non-starter. They've got terrible modifiers against PMCs and armies (even after taking the reduced difficulty into account), and have a requirement where 50% of the players will need to meet all of the objectives in half of the allotted time (I'm guessing the allotted time is measured in days/weeks?) or the entire episode is effectively failed (I have no faith that enough players will be able to complete the "very difficult" additional objective). The modern IFVs have a bit of unclear wording that will either make it one of the best choices or one of the worst ones. Depending on whether "at least 80 percent of players don't complete the objective in the allotted time" is taken to mean "at least 80 percent of players must complete the objective" or "the number of players that do not complete the objective cannot exceed 80 percent", the exact difficulty of this class will either be really high (the first interpretation) or potentially fairly easy (second interpretation). I hope it's the latter, but I suspect it's the former. I'm a bit peeved that most of the high-tier light tanks (Stingray 2, XM8, Dragun, XM8-120, Anders, PL-01, K-21 XC-8, etc...) aren't available as choices, but I'm not exactly sure where they would end up if they were choices...
  9. If the CV90105 can be compared to any tier 9 LT, it's probably best to compare it to the Anders because of the magazine loader. Using the devs stated balancing goal of "a fully upgraded tier 7 is about as capable as completely stock tier 9" should give a rough idea of what a fully upgraded CV90105 will probably be capable of with the 5-shot autoloader. The 12-shot autoloader is a bit of an unknown since there aren't any other light tanks in that balancing bracket with such a large capacity magazine.
  10. Looks interesting, I'll probably play around with both the 12-shot and 5-shot options. Just looking at the minimal information we have so far, it seems like you might be able to get the reload on the 12-shot option down to just over 20 seconds if you use the appropriate upgrades, retrofits, commander skills, AND use the rapid fire ability when reloading, but exactly how low you can get it will remain to be seen (although the lack of partial reload will still probably kill the 12-shot option for most uses).
  11. Back when I played it the Sabre was very much an ambush vehicle, although that might have changed if they reworked the autocannon since then. A few things to note about the Sabre (as of over a year ago): mobility is excellent, 80 km/h both forwards and backwards with good acceleration and traverse armour is paper, it can be penetrated by 7.62mm MGs and 76mm HE view range and camo are on the better end for a tier 6 AFV, but nothing that special the missiles deal lots (800-1000 on average) of damage and can be guided in 3rd person from behind obstacles (useful considering the lack of armour), but they have a very long (28 seconds) reload the autocannon has decent penetration for tier 6, but damage output is severely lacking due to the 1.8 second reload between 6-shot bursts that deal ~140 damage (sustained autocannon DPM on my sabre is just over 3.3k, which is pitiful) the designate target ability isn't particularly useful to the vehicle since the ability is bugged (and has been for years) and doesn't work for HEAT-type ammo, which means that it will only serve to improve your anemic autocannon burst damage by 10%. It is best used on targets that you cannot kill to encourage your teammates to kill them while your ATGMs are reloading The end result is a vehicle that can decimate a single target in a very short period of time by slapping it with missiles from behind cover and then finish it off with the gun, but can only do so once every ~30 seconds. During the downtime, it would be best to use your mobility to retreat (since you probably got spotted if you used the gun) and/or relocate to a new/better position where you can set up for another attack. Overall the vehicle was OK-ish for when it got introduced, but it has been powercreeped to hell and back with the introduction of other high burst DPM vehicles that don't have many of the drawbacks (like the low sustained DPM) of the Sabre (cough XM247 and AMX-13 DCA cough). I would not recommend buying it until the low-tier rebalance is implemented and players can try the "new and improved" sabre.
  12. I'm pretty curious to see what the devs have done with these vehicles. Looking at the renders shown and some quick google searches, I'm guessing the following: CV90105 TML: The 3D model shows 360 smoke launchers, other than that I'm stumped. The model seems to have an interesting shell ejection hole on the left side of the turret. CV90 Mk IV: Probably analogous to or heavily based on CV9035NL MLU. The 3D model shown shows the hard-kill APS (Iron Fist?), Spike-LR ATGMs on the right side of the turret, and a MG (FN MAG?) in a pod on the left side of the turret, all of which are key features on the CV9035NL MLU. One possibility that isn't entirely clear is the gun(s) that it will have access to, especially considering that the Mk III and Mk IV are designed to mount the Bushmaster III autocannon, which comes in 35mm and 50mm varieties. Strv 2000: The model for this one is a bit confusing, specifically when it comes to the APS. It seems to have the warning receivers and launchers for a hard-kill APS on the front of the turret, but it doesn't have and receivers on the back of the turret. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure if this is an oversight by the modeling team or if it indicates that the hard-kill APS will only cover a limited arc around the turret (specifically the front). If it is the latter, I am very interested to see how it will play out. CV90120 Ghost: Appears to be based on a heavily modified CV90120-T which was used the basis for the PL-01 mockup. I'd expect something that has the most of the stealth capabilities of the PL-01 but loses out on firepower (if only slightly) compared to the Anders. While I'm definitely happy that we're getting more light tanks (yay light tanks), I'm mildly disappointed that the top prize isn't one of them (although I understand an MBT version of the Strv 2000 is preferable to one of the TD or LT versions because the skill floor for MBTs is much lower in-game).
  13. Since all of the other tier lists posted here include all of the tier 9/10 vehicles in the game in ranked positions, I thought I'd add an unranked position to the chart for transparency purposes.
  14. I second this bit. I don't really care if a vehicle is "real" or not as long as my suspension of disbelief is not broken. I am willing to make relatively minor concessions for gameplay purposes (e.g. the 30 ATGMs that the wiesels get), but the design of the vehicle itself must at the very least be plausible (and somewhat sensible). To this end the Kornet D1 is perfectly fine imo, since it takes two existing systems and combines them in a way that would probably be functional in real life. I have no issues with this kind of thing in the future if the devs want to add some of the more obscure vehicle designs or proposals that never made it to the mock-up stage (as long as the designs would have been functional had they reached the prototype stage, designs without room for the crew or with no way to load the gun are a no-no). The only vehicle in the game (that I've seen, I haven't done SH ch4) that breaks my suspension of disbelief is the airship, which continually takes any suspension of disbelief that I might have and throws it out the window whenever I so much as look at it. There is no way that such a contraption would be able to fly, let alone carry several hundred tons worth of armoured vehicles, and yet every time we see one of these offences to aerospace engineering it manages to do both. I'm not going to get into the details about how much thrust you need in order to lift take off and land vertically with several hundred tons of cargo, but it should suffice to say that the airship's lift fans wouldn't be able to provide the required thrust (which is probably comparable to the first stage of a Saturn V rocket). As long as the vehicles (playable, and preferably non-playable) are nowhere near as egregiously physics-defying as the airship, I have no issues with them.
  15. Without having any experience of what OP is claiming, or access to any corroborating evidence, I am inclined to wait until someone provides evidence proving or disproving OP's claims. That said, OP seems very sure of their claim that the devs are doing what OP claims they are, so I'm sure they have some kind of hard evidence (claims of "I didn't notice this happen before" don't count since human perception is notoriously unreliable) that supports their claim. In the event that OP is correct, I suspect that whatever changes the devs have made are only temporary and will be reversed or otherwise changed when low-tier gets its rebalance.
  • Create New...