MK_Regular

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. 

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.

4 hours ago, knutliott said:

Cheap, easy solution?  Make Ophelia PvE-only like they did with Artillery (as JintoLin said).  That's not an ideal solution because I'm sure there are a lot of PvP players who bought her specifically because she's ridiculously good in PvP, but you're going to piss people off no matter what you do with her so why not minimize the damage?

I mean... she has 3 main abilities, they could even make just that one ability PvE-only.

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.

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.

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.

11 hours ago, knutliott said:

Huh?  The 10M credit pack is something like 2650 BC, isn't it?  And isn't the 1M credit pack 500 BC?

Or did you spend 31.5k BC to get 100M credits?  That's still a bad idea, but would make more sense.

the 31.5k BC was to go from rank 10 to rank 17 (7 ranks at 4.5k BC each), with the original idea being that I would try to work my way up to rank 50

as it turns out, real life intervened and I didn't get as much play time as I would have wanted, which means that I'm effectively stuck with 31.5k BC tied up in ranks and nothing but 10M credits (the rank 17 rank 16 reward) to show for it. I could spend another 36k BC and get myself the Msta-S, but that's falling into the sunk cost fallacy and is not really worth it for an arty imo.

Are we sharing our BP hauls now? OK, I guess I'll share.

I started last night with 15k BC @ rank 17 (in hindsight, spending an extra 31.5k BC to get 10M credits was a bad idea) after picking up the following:

• Shilka
• (~13k BC) Strella
• (~13k BC) Taifun
• (~22k BC) Sabra
• (~22k BC) Type 90
• Kurganets

the main thing here was that I did not have enough BC to get up to rank 25 (the next reward vehicle) without spending any gold, nor would I be able to grind out enough BC before the BP ended.

I decided that the best thing for me to do would be to start rolling and pick up any plat insignias that I saw. I did this for about 20 minutes before I got a 50k BC offer with 10.5k BC remaining. naturally, I picked it up (because of course), and stopped rolling for a bit. I played a few matches with BC boosters, and as of midnight EST I was at 59k BC.

I don't know what I'm going to spend all these BC on, but I'll edit this post with pictures once I've spent them tonight.


Edit: OK, shop offers just auto-refreshed for the last time, I'm at 67k BC, time to start rerolling...

lose 1k BC rerolling, pick up a Pindad for 36k BC (30k BC remaining)

I was going to put more here in case I got something else particularly of note, but that's it. I burned through 30k BC without getting any large BC offers that would have let me pick up another tier 8+ premium, even thought I got plenty of offers for various tier 8, 9 (AGDS, Hunter, Oplot, VT-5 and ZTQ-15 came up several times each) and even 10 (Type 10 came up once) premium tanks.

My final haul for the BP is:

• Shilka
• (~13k BC) Strella
• (~13k BC) Taifun
• (~22k BC) Sabra
• (~22k BC) Type 90
• (~36k BC) Pindad

overall, I'd say it isn't a bad haul for 3k gold entry price, but there are definitely things I could have done better (i.e. stay at rank 10, use those 31.5k BC I spent getting to rank 17 for something useful like another tier 8 or 9 premium tank).

I'd argue that we will have one too many T-72s at tier 5 (2 progression and 1 premium) once the T-72M1 gets added. it certainly doesn't help that the first of the progression T-72s (T-72 Ural) used to be tier 4 before it was moved to tier 5, and that the other progression T-72 (T-72A) is a straight upgrade from it despite being the same tier.

If they're going to add the T-72M1, I really hope they're planning on merging the T-72 Ural and T-72A into a single vehicle to improve low-tier balance (since when was having 2 nearly identical vehicles at the same tier, with one being a complete upgrade (rather than a notional side-grade) a good idea?) and make things easier for new players trying to progress down that vehicle branch.

Yeah, the corridor meta can go die in a fire as far as I'm concerned. MBTs are already strong enough in PvE, they don't need to have the maps tailored for them too.

As much as people hate Moscow Calling 3 for the delivery mechanics and a single player being able to screw over the entire team, it actually has the best map of any spec ops mission imo (probably because it is a full PvP map with minimal modifications). The objectives are far enough apart that they don't need physical barriers (like buildings) isolating them from the rest of the map, there's plenty of open space for squishies to do their thing, while still having enough hard cover in parts of the map for MBTs to be able to keep their flanks covered. All told, it's a good map for a mission that gets hate for the half-polished game mechanics that came with it.

The gimmick on the new leopard is... interesting.

Just based on the description, you need to cripple your RoF in order to use it, but making good use of it (i.e. you don't suck at aiming/pixel hunting) guarantees that every shot you fire will hit and penetrate regardless of the range involved. This seems like it would heavily encourage players to have this tank at the back of the map with the team's TDs, and I'm not entirely sure that this is a good thing to have in the game.

I'd need to look at the vehicle's stats, but I suspect that this will be the tier 10 vehicle of choice for players who like camping at the back with their MBT (actually no, they generally don't care about actually being effective so they'll just keep using the MBTs they're already using).

Quote

Will you improve the decal system by allowing decals to be resized or repositioned from their fixed places?

We are currently investigating this topic. For now, we have no definitive answer.

Are you planning some major new vehicle visual customization options (such as adding camo nets to all vehicles)?

Not for the foreseeable future.

More customization options please, I want to pimp out my tank!

Quote

Can you add a voice warning that you are running out of ammunition of a certain type?

We'll look into it.

This would be a nice little QoL change provided that it isn't overdone. There are times when I run out of one type of ammo and I only realize it when my next shot has a different impact sound. A simple one-time warning of "X rounds of HEAT remaining" or similar would be great, but "X rounds of HEAT remaining .... X-1 rounds of HEAT remaining ... X-2 rounds of HEAT remaining .... X-3 rounds of HEAT remaining" would get very annoying very quickly.

Bonus points if the warning is made at a different time for vehicles that have a magazine or ready rack system, with the warning being issued when the player has a full exactly one full reload of the shot type left (e.g. A player in a Merkava would get the warning with 4 rounds remaining, but a player in a PL-01 would get it at 6 rounds remaining).

Quote

The Type 99A2 Tier 10 progression MBT is too weak – it has a really thin upper front plate, thin sides, offers poor gun depression and no real niche for its playstyle. Can you improve its performance?

We know that it's not great and we are planning to overhaul it in the future. For now, we can't promise any deadlines, it's not like the vehicle is critically broken so that it requires an immediate intervention. Additionally, some of the abovementioned arguments aren't entirely valid. The upper frontal plate is protected by modern ERA, which was overhauled recently. The sides (although only the frontal portion of them) are amongst the thickest on Tier 10 MBTs and we will actually make that thicker area larger. As for the gun depression, that aspect is dictated by the vehicle's geometry – we can't improve it without the gun clipping into the hull.

Are you planning to return alternative weapon systems to VBL or Wiesel? Will MBT-70 get its 20mm autocannon?

Not at the moment, for any of these questions. But we'll consider it.

What about the CATTB? It's poorly armored and has a long reload time to boot.

The sides will receive a buff. The frontal armor of this vehicle is average – as intended, so we won't be improving that. The reload time will not be improved either.

At least they're planning on fixing the worst tier 10 MBT (Type 99A2), so that's good

MBT-70 and/or KPz-70 getting their 20mm cannon would be interesting, might be something to look for with the tier 1-6 rebalance mentioned in the Q&A.

CATTB frontal armour is fine imo, but a buff to the side armour is welcome. Personally, I'd consider buffing the damage and penetration of the CATTB's shells to match the same shells of the XM1A3 before buffing the CATTB's reload.

Quote

In real life, the Armata platform (T-14, T-15) does have ERA elements on its sides. In the game, it does not. Will you add them?

We'll look into that as well.

Please explain the HEAT-MP shell purpose. To us, it's very toxic, because it allows you to deal damage even upon non-penetration. The ATGMs do this too, but they do have a lot of disadvantages the HEAT-MP shells do not, such as being exposed to enemy fire, or being fired by vehicles with light armor.

The HEAT-MP shells are intended to be sort of warning shots. They don't deal massive damage upon non-penetration, but they do force camping MBT players to move, because otherwise their hitpoints would get chipped away with every shot. And it's working. We are currently considering reducing the HEAT-MP non-penetration damage to make this shell type not as obviously superior to the standard HEAT rounds as it is, but we won't remove it altogether.

The BMPT series does not have sufficient autocannon ammunition. Any plans to improve it?

Yes. We'll improve the entire BMPT series ammo count to match that of the T-15. In other words, these vehicles will have 1200 autocannon rounds instead of 900.

And just when I thought the people doing the Q&A had good ideas on how to balance some of the vehicles.

Oh, and then there's this gem:

Quote

We feel that soft-kill APS does not work against AI opponents. Is that intended?

No, that's not intended. If it's so, please submit a bug report.

Apparently the AI mitigating players' soft-kill APS is not intended, and the devs are only now being made aware of this despite this being the observed behaviour since the hard/soft kill APS split.

Gotta love the guy being all "I can totally do that, come back when you can do ch 1-3 by yourself", followed by "I don't need to show you proof, just trust me" when people ask for proof.

11 hours ago, JintoLin said:

Along with these changes they need to remove shared vision and aim bot for all AI vehicles. They also should fix the magic missiles that the AI uses to be affected by SK anti missile systems. They also need to bring the AI vision range down to the same as the player vehicles.

The AI operates on exact the same ruleset that players have, so I'm curious as to why you think the AI should have their shared vision removed.

Quote

[Remove] aim bot for all AI vehicles. They also should fix the magic missiles that the AI uses to be affected by SK anti missile systems.

I often see people complaining about "AI aim bot" without actually knowing what the AI does to achieve the accuracy that players experience. The AI does not "cheat" by removing the shot spread to make every shot pin-point accurate, nor does the AI reduce the accuracy penalties for moving or traversing to allow it to make unrealistic snap shots. All of my experience in the game indicates that the AI operates on the same set of rules that players have when it comes to making accurate shots, and that a player can theoretically duplicate any shot that a bot makes. The basic behavoiur of the AI is as follows:

• At short distances (less than about 100-150m away), the AI knows where all of the armour weak spots are, and will aim for them if they are visible
• At long distances (more than about 100-150m away), the AI will aim for center of mass
• The AI can lead moving targets, but in order for this to matter either the target will be showing their weak side armour or the range will mean that AI is aiming for center of mass
• The AI has no trigger discipline, and will always shoot the instant their gun is both loaded and pointed at the target without waiting for the gun to aim

A few scenarios that are often brought up:

• "The AI shot me while it was moving at full speed from 200m away" - The accuracy penalty for moving is often small enough for players to make this kind of shot more often than they miss. This is something that players can reliably do if they are shooting at a stationary target or are good at leading moving targets
• "I was moving at high speed and the AI shot me from halfway across the map" - Any gun in the game is accurate enough to do this when fully aimed. This can be replicated by players, but you need to be exceptionally good at leading moving targets at long range in order to do it
• "The AI did a 180 degree snap shot and hit me" - I have never seen an AI manage to do this past about 150m, nor have I ever managed to do this past said range. The accuracy penalties for traversing the hull and turret are usually too large for this to be possible at anything other than relatively short ranges. However, inside those relatively short ranges this is something that is entirely possible for both players and bots to do

Missiles are an entirely different beast when it comes to the AI. The missiles that the AI uses are the exact same missiles that players have access to, with the same maneuverability and the same venerability to soft-kill APS. However, the way the AI works pushes the performance of the missile to the extreme. The AI actually makes corrective commands to the missile many times per second, meaning that any potential factor that might cause the missile to miss (the player moved, the player's soft-kill APS tried diverting the missile) are accounted for near-instantaneously. This as far as I can tell, this is the only thing the AI does that cannot be replicated by a human player since the reaction time and amount of precision required are far beyond what any human is capable of. It might be possible to make the missiles less punishing for players by reducing the frequency that the AI corrects the missile's flight path, but this could very easily be overdone to the point where AI missiles are just unguided rockets.

Quote

They also need to bring the AI vision range down to the same as the player vehicles.

I'm going to guess that you're referring to the lieutenants here, as all of the other bot types have vision ranges that are quite often lower than that of a player vehicle of the same type. While lieutenants get the standard PvP view ranges, the bots and players get the reduced PvE view ranges (which are about half of what the PvP view ranges are). However, while players can use commander skills and retrofits to improve their view range, camo factor, and foliage spotting/concealment values, the bots cannot. The end result is that players with a good build and positioning can spot and gun down regular bots without any risk to themselves, while lieutenants require a level of caution from players befitting of their mini-boss status.

I believe that icon indicates that the player is under the effect of an artillery illumination round. As glops is the only mode where you encounter enemy artillery with access to illumination rounds, you will only ever see that icon in glops.

6 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

If you are referring to how many BC's you get are calculated, the spreadsheet that came out several BP's ago said that it was the time spent in the match. 

I actually had a match last night that seems to give credit to the "time spent actively participating in the match" theory.

I was playing on watchdog, and set myself up in a flanking position by the railcars in my ADATS for the first stage of the match. As soon as the first stage ended, I went north to try and sneak under the collapsed railway bridge (like I usually do) but the hitboxes on the bride decided that I wasn't going to participate in the rest of the match and I got stuck on one of the bits of debris. I spent the rest of the match with my tank spazzing out inside the bridge and I only managed to escape by drowning myself about 10 seconds before my teammates killed the last bot. Comparing the matches I did on watchdog last night:

• SPHINX - 220 BC (866 XP - 6:26 match with 6:16 effective combat time)
• ADATS - 100 BC (782 XP - 8:25 match with 3:28 effective combat time)
• ATDU - 270 BC (999 XP - 8:34 match with 8:13 effective combat time)
• Kornet - 220 BC (919 XP - 8:02 match with 6:55 effective combat time)

Just looking at the very limited data I have, it seems like effective combat time is a better metric for gauging BC earned than the actual match time.

7 hours ago, knutliott said:

That's 80 completed daily BP repeatable contracts/BP missions/BP challenges, not 80 matches, and you don't have to complete the requirements in the Kurganets to unlock them.  It'll just happen over time as you play.

If the numbers seem like a lot, realize that there are 10 x challenges in the BP, and that each challenge has 10 levels.  So that's 100 completed right there if you get them all done.  Plus whatever mission chains and daily repeatables you get through while doing the challenges.  It should be fairly easy to get 150 completed by the end of the BP, and IIRC that's the largest number required on any of the vehicles in the Workshop.

Also, if you don't get to 150 completed missions and challenges, missions and challenges from future BPs will also count towards unlocking the upgrades.

The shop can and will make offers that you can't afford.

Case in point, I've seen the ZTQ and Oplot on sale in the shop, both for 55-56k BC while I did not have anywhere near that amount.

Yeah, the division of decals (and to a lesser extent camos and base paints) is a bit overdone.

Even just looking at the image provided, there are Faraday and De Laroche both have 2 subcategories for decals, with no more than 6 decals per category. Why do these need separate categories when a single category for each dealer would be sufficient? Why do different spec ops seasons need different categories when you're only getting a handful of decals from each season?

Personally, I think folders that have less than 10-12 decals in them are kinda useless unless you have no more than 10-12 folders. However, that's not to say that the new folders are entirely without promise, they just need to be organized better.

I hereby suggest folders for our folders, with various types of decals, camos, etc grouped into parent folders based on more general categories (e.g. a "vehicle dealer" folder for decals containing all of the existing subfolders for vehicle dealers).

6 hours ago, smudlicko said:

there is no such a thing in this game anymore, its just point and click as every tank is paper like. If you want skill then 5 years ago obsidian introduced actual weakspots which required actual skill.

I agree that changing the armour profiles massively reduced the amount of player skill needed to perform well, however I am of the opinion that it skewed the lower skill requirements in favour of the MBTs rather than all of the things trying to kill the MBTs.

For example, the infamous armour weakspot below the gun mantlet on the Abrams used to be a juicy target for anyone who knew what they were doing, but the Abrams player could cover up the weakspot by pointing their gun at the ground between shots (I used to do this a lot on the XM1A3). with the revised armour profiles, that armour weakspot was removed and now players don't need to think about covering up that part of their turret front to avoid taking damage, reducing the amour of skill needed to play the Abrams. 

Quote

Now, you are fighting with inaccuracy, heavily nerfed mobility, critical hits for zero dmg, fraction dmg hits, and that's all skill that this game requires.

I the order that you mentioned them:

• Yes, vehicles in AW are significantly more inaccurate than they are irl, if they had irl levels of accuracy you would be able to snipe weakspots on tanks on the far corner of the map. At these ranges, the game does not render vehicles and some smaller objects because it would be too taxing on many player's computers. Instead, the game compresses the engagement ranges to a few hundred meters (and then compresses them again by a factor of 2 of PvE) to give maps a sense of variety and scale that they would not otherwise have without making the map feel empty (reducing the level of detail) or increasing the system requirements
• As far as I can tell, this isn't really the case. Most vehicles seem to accelerate at a rate that one would expect a multi-ton chunk of steel to accelerate at (sometimes even a bit faster than one would expect in some cases) and have similar (if not identical) top speeds to what the actual vehicles have
• Scoring a zero-damage hit and getting a "critical hit" feedback indicates that your shot hit an external module (gun barrel, gunner's sight, tracks, etc...), even if it didn't do any damage to the tank itself. This situation is a good candidate for getting the voice line used as feedback changed, but I cannot think of anything good to change it to
• One of several things could be happening here:
  • You hit a tank with a HE, HEAT-MP, or PELE round but didn't penetrate (this was originally introduced by Obsidian, then expanded upon later)
  • You hit an uncrewed turret for reduced damage (this has been around for as long as I can remember, possibly since Obsidian was still around)
  • You hit the tank with an ATGM (this is a recent change, one that I think is dumb and unnecessary)

Quote

Nevertheless its rather frustration and mostly only dmg per minute is determining outcome of all PVE games.

There is nothing more to it anymore 

Damage per minute is far from the only deciding factor in PvE, although it is definitely 2nd most dominant factor after player skill. If damage per minute was the dominant factor, games would be entirely dominated by T-15s and Terminators and you'd never see low DPM vehicles taking the top spot for XP earned, and yet in the last 20 games I've played...

Leopard 2AX beating an ADATS and a GAU:

A pair of T-90s beating a Terminator 2017 

An ATDU (2nd worst DPM at tier 10 after the Shadow) beating a beating various tanks in XP earned and damage dealt

A pair of T-14s beating a Terminator 2, a Kornet-EM and a GAU

If DPM was the primary deciding factor for a PvE match, none of these results would have been possible. While the role skill plays in determining the outcome of a PvE match has been reduced in the last few patches, skill is still the primary determining factor.

Yeah, the ATDU is kinda meh in PvE.

The only thing that makes it even remotely worthwhile is the PISH round, and with the PISH nerfs you need to have Sabrina to make the PISH useful. Once you get Sabrina and you use a mostly PISH loadout you end up with a tank that is above average in terms of capability (it's tanky enough to do the job, the PISH round deletes ammo racks for massive damage). Even then though, there is really only one way to make the ATDU work well, but other MBTs (in their "top" configurations) are still just straight-up better than the ATDU in most situations.

The problem with the ATDU is that it is a one-trick pony. It's entire viability as an offensive tool (because most MBTs have similar capabilities as defensive tools after 0.33) is based on the PISH round. If the PISH round works the ATDU is a viable offensive tool, but if the PISH round doesn't work the ATDU suffers. It could be possible to make some changes to the ATDU to pare back the damage dealing capabilities while improving the defensive capabilities (e.g. increase side armour, reduce rate of fire) that would make the ATDU feel a bit more different from the other MBTs, but they would be in almost the complete opposite direction of the 0.33 balance changes (and as a result, we're probably not going to see it). The other option would be some nerfs to other MBTs (my.com have said that they were trying to make a MBT meta with the 0.33 changes) to bring them in-line with the ATDU, but I wouldn't bet on that happening either.

The whole thing just looks like a race to the bottom for the whales. Only one person is going to get the "epic" prize, and unlike a normal auction you'll end up paying the amount you bid regardless of whether or not you got the top prize (at which point you might end up paying $10-15 for a decal).

If they end up doing it again, the only way I'd even consider forking over some money would be if one of the standard prizes was really good and I saw it before everyone else jacked the price up.

if you're using Sabrina with her 50% module damage bonus, PISH turns the ATDU into a monster if you know where the ammo racks are on most tanks. For example:

• Abrams - anywhere on the turret bustle that you can penetrate with PISH
• AMX-10RCR - approximately center of mass (from the sides)
• ATDU - the part of the turret bustle that's only protected by cage armour (note: takes reduced damage from ammo fires)
• Bradley - turret ring on the right side of the turret
• K21 XC-8 - turret bustle or rear quarter of the hull
• Leopard - turret bustle or hull front next to the driver
• Merkava - turret bustle, directly below the turret ring (Merk 4/4M from the sides) or the rear portion of the hull (Merk 3) (note: these all take reduced damage from ammo fires)
• PL-01 - left side of the hull near the center of mass (behind the engine)
• T-14 - approximately center of mass directly below the turret (from the sides)
• T-15 - vertical strip of armour directly below the turret (from the front) or directly below the turret (from the sides)
• Terminator 2 - lower front plate (from the front) or directly below the turret once the ERA is gone (from the sides)
• Type 99 - directly below the turret (from the sides)

12 hours ago, dyrewolfe said:

It really is a fun-killer when you're teamed with them. Think about it: does anybody log in just to be a spectator? Which is pretty much what you are if you try to play an MBT.

I must be playing entirely different MBTs then. Having a T-15 or two on my team usually doesn't affect me all that much. Sure, I might not do as well as could have if those players had been driving something else, but I can only think of one instance where having a T-15 on my team was the reason my final results were way below my average (and that was only because the T-15 player was extremely good with their positioning).

I've found that the easiest way to prevent yourself from being a "spectator" in a MBT is to be aggressive and keep moving forward to give yourself a steady supply of targets. Even if you don't manage to kill anything, you've spotted the targets for your teammates and you'll get credited with the assist damage.

Quote

... if there is more than one OP gamebreaker in the team I simply quit the battle before it starts and move on to the next.

Needless to say I do quit quite a lot of battles (90% of the time they do just fine without me).

Yeah, that 10% of the time where they don't do fine without you? That's effectively the same as you throwing those matches for the rest of your team. Players can and will report you for that, which may end up with you getting banned (either temporarily or permanently depending on how much you do it). 

Based on the recommended builds in HYPE's commander skill builder, we can expect the following changes to the hilariously out-of-date "meta" builds:

• Sabrina's AFV build trades the ammo swap skills (D1 and D2) for a 1.2% RoF buff. It might be worth investing in an alternate build that trades the hull traverse skill (E1) and reduced dead driver penalty (C1) for the (currently) ammo swap skills (A3 and B3) for the 4.88% firing camo penalty reduction, or one that just ignores the 'meh' RoF skills entirely.
• Rashid's ATGM build contains all of the skills that are due to be changed. The swap skills (D5 and D6) are being changed to give a combined 1.2% RoF increase, A3 and A5 are being changed to give a combined 4.88% reduced firing camo penalty, and B7 and C7 are being changed to give a combined 56% increased chance of engine fires. The reduced camo penalty should stack quite nicely with his starting skill (up to 21.52% reduced camo penalty from 16.64%), and the increased fire chance has the potential to be quite nasty, but the reload buff is kinda meh when you consider that you can get a a 4.92% reload buff for your ATGMs and/or a 2% RoF increase (with a bunch of other nice crew stat bonuses) if your vehicle has a loader and you build to the left instead of the right.
• Ioannis doesn't have a recommended build, but is having his ammo swap skills (C5 and E5) replaced with a combined 1.2% RoF buff. Ioannis always struck me as having a setup that was a bit awkward, so I'm debating swapping my current build for something a bit different. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what people do with him now.
• Konig and Sokolov's XP grind builds use one of the two ammo swap skills (B4, the other is C4) that will be changed. It might be worthwhile to drop one of the tier I repair speed (5%) or ramming damage reduction (12%) skills to pick up the other RoF buff.
• Cortez becomes a little bit more broken. It would actually be pretty funny if it wasn't for the fact that the only way to get him is to fork over some cash.
• Anthony Diaz does not have a recommended build, and will be having his only ammo swap skill (C7) replaced by a 0.6% RoF skill. It's barely worth mentioning.
• Andrey's TD build is an interesting one that has several variations (notably the option to trade TD RoF and/or firing camo penalty for crew damage). The way the changed skills are set up (2.44% firing camo penalty reduction at B4 and E4, 0.6% TD RoF increase at C1, C4 and C7) will make it very difficult to get the maximum TD RoF increase unless you are willing to sacrifice most of Andrey's other useful skills, but will feature a further reduced firing camo penalty on the base build. I suspect that most players will take the (admittedly rather nice) minor buffs and not bother changing their builds for him.