Jump to content

Silentstalker

AW Official Staff
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    169

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by Silentstalker

  3. Posted

    Norse_Viking, in my research into this camouflage, I found at least 4 pattern variations with major differences and several smaller ones. My conclusion is that while the "general pattern" seems to be roughly the same, the color shades on lots of these photos depend on actual light. Furthermore, like in any military, this pattern differs from vehicle to vehicle the way the crew saw fit to paint it (such is the case of that "more black" pattern above). This is fairly normal, pretty much every army does that and the colors differ as well in real life depending on what's at hand.

    Conclusion: the way it's done, it's legit. We might make a different Norwegian pattern in the future as a separate camo but right now, it seems okay.

  5. Posted

    4 hours ago, Azdule said:

    Seems like a 5s reload on main gun so maybe tier 9 version of the gun...also the tank doesn't have the cage or add on armor packs...so default tier 9 armor layout?  At tier 10 that would be a big ouch.

    They aren't "driving it" - they just copied the vehicle model to another vehicle. So don't take the video seriously, please.

  7. Posted

    On 5/9/2021 at 5:36 AM, Haswell said:

    I'm strongly on the side of not caring about "real vehicles" as long as the gameplay is good, especially when the game lore has already given a free pass to fantasy elements by virtue of being set in the future. The gameplay is already about constantly being outnumbered, pitted against overwhelming odds, physics-defying airships, and recently fighting a UFO using Cold War tech. Realism got thrown out of the window long ago, there is no need to cling onto the idea of playable vehicles must exist in real life.

    As enlightened as this might be (and as dumb as various things like ufos are), yours is not the majority community opinion.

  8. Posted

    23 hours ago, dfnce said:

    In case of WT you could say that 4 years ago. But within that period of time WT provided many modern vehicles. They still don't touch area of what AW tier 9-10 is but they are close. Also their rank system is flexible enough to expand.

    Console WoT 2.0 (Modern Armor) with modern vehicles yet to grow and improve, and will take even few years before it possibly enters PC market. 

    I am not really worried about WT. Their toxic progression model basically prohibits normal players from reaching so high in any reasonable amount of time. Sure, you CAN get there, but unlike in AW, those top vehicles aren't an integral part of the game. They are more like a cherry on the top. And yes, WT can totally add new vehicles as well, but they are so far behind us in this regard they'll never catch up. And even when we add vehicles WT already has, it usually doesn't affect us in the slightest

    The thing we were actually worried about was Modern WoT, which you probably heard of as "Excalibur" - but that was like 2016 or so (we knew about it far sooner than players, you don't really hide much in this industry). Their development collapsed long time ago, so that's not going anywhere. Console WoT is its own thing that has almost nothing to do with the PC version so it's unlikely that these are coming to PC. And even if they were, it wouldn't really affect us. AW players play AW because it's not WoT. We have many flaws, but not the WoT ones, like arty in PvP on gold ammo.

     

  9. Posted

    1 minute ago, Azdule said:

    Ok, thanks for the breakdown.  Would it add value to get the players opinion on matters?  I know that you can't reach everyone, and getting from here wouldn't be a wide enough reach, but perhaps a simple poll on what players would like to see?  I know cost implication on things, but if the playerbase decides on mass for something, then it should give the devs something to look into perhaps?

    I've noticed a fair few peeps asking in official discord about progression tanks and when their told there aren't any planned, they get a bit bummed out.  If they were to be told that there are no further progression tanks (for xp/ credits) it might give some players a wake up call to say something.

    This is not a matter any amount of feedback short of game-wide uprising (don't...) would solve, and you won't organize that because even our official channels only reach a fraction of players. It's about mathematics, which you cannot do either because you do not have the right input.

  10. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Azdule said:

    I hope for progression tanks soon, because the constant churning of premiums is getting stale for me.  Seems like the game is stagnant and devs just want money rather than adding new things for players.  I know this isn't the case, but it seems like it

     

    So no progression lines at all?  No more tech tree tanks?  I'm not sure I understand the logic of that to be honest.  If players don't have new things to get, then what's to keep them in the game?

    While I appreciate the comment that players will have loads of xp & credits stored up, without something to sink it into, the problem only gets worse the longer it goes on.  Eventually, all players will have nothing to grind for, so what's to keep all the players just joining?

    Yes, that is an element of the game that I like to call "core narrative" - it's a topic I was trying to explain to the developers and producers for two years now. So far without success. It seems really simple at first glance, but it isn't, there are a lot of underlying nuances, some of which I am not at liberty to explain. Suffice to say, the way things are done currently do work. We are not morons (contrary to what some simpler players believe - Dunning Kruger and all that), we see the results of our actions and what works and what does not. The most I can say right now is that it's an ongoing discussion.

  11. Posted

    Just now, Schlock said:

    Sooo, new progression vehicles? Assuming you can talk about it.

    Well, I am going to tell you the same thing I told one of the influencers this morning.

    A new progression line is theoretically possible, but honestly, how will you convince the devs it's worth it when you have models that are on one hand super expensive and on the other hand bring little? Especially the low Tiers, anything below Tier 5 is money thrown out of the window.

    When I first heard of the plans that there would not be any more progression lines, which was like, hmm, mid-2019, the assumption was that the resources would be pooled into something different. It is completely true that this game does have enough progression vehicles and the current progression system is obsolete. Those are completely rational arguments why more progression lines were scrapped.

    When you have the core playerbase with billions of XP, well, it's like inflation. It's not worth anyhting. We do not introduce new free content just for our love of the game, we want players to actually play it. But following various balance 2.0, server reset and other compensations, a significant portion of core players has enough XP/credits to unlock the entire new line right away, resulting in zero gain but huge expenses.

    It's not like that it wasn't given any though, I mean... I personally proposed a  draft of something like a superprogression, where the vehicles would be basically "free" (as in, available for XP/rep/credits) but very expensive. It was a bit more complicated than that, but anyway, it was rejected. But if something like that ever happens, it'll be along those lines. But the same way it was introduced earlier? Forget it.

    Or you can take a look at it from a different perspective. The BP entry fee is basically so low (and for Gold, which we give out for free every week) that BP vehicles basically ARE progression vehicles with premium status. All you have to invest is your time.

     

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, Azdule said:

    I mean, at the moment I imagine there is going to be a struggle to get new tanks into the game without some 'paper tanks' being made?

     

    Sure we could have 37 different variations of the same hull and turret with different ERA config, but I wouldn't consider those as new tanks.

     

    Besides when we eventually get to tier 11, there's gonna have to be paper tanks :D

    I think we have a good amount of realistic designs to implement yet, this year. Next year is going to be more interesting. But we have one massive advantage over WoT or WT. New tech is being unveiled all the time. Armata, VT-5, ZTQ-15, Type 96B, Kurganets... all these designs were unveiled basically during the development process and all of these are high Tier. Running out of interesting designs? All we have to do is wait for the next major expo and voila.

  13. Posted

    17 hours ago, Haswell said:

     I just want to highlight this part in case anybody brings up "real vehicles" at any point in the future. This thing is a napkin design.

    Yes. This basically slipped me by. The devs wanted a tracked Kornet and added it to their plans and when I was looking at it, I totally assumed it was real because it had some render next to it which looked like a photo. A year later, here I am on my old blog ranting about fake Wargaming tanks and how I hate this shit. Boom, two days later, I find out that this is fake but the model is already made (at least it's realistic and designed by a guy who actually understands tank design, unlike the WG shit, but that's just cope), so too late to change anything (and they probably wouldn't anyway since the objective was "tracked Kornet").

    So.... sorry.

  18. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Schlock said:

    i've just done one run so far, and it seems better than last couple of specops missions.

    However, voice acting has improved pretty significantly from Spirithaven and that needs to be acknowledged. Story is formulaic, but character interactions are fun and Hana as Furiosa-like postapocalyptic warlord is pretty great. But thank god for improved VA, American Dream was horrible in that regard.

    Huh. Interesting.

  20. Posted

    Regarding the 6 minute rotation, here's an official developer quote in case you missed it:

    Quote

    We changed the timing of map rotation because 3 minutes is too fast. Players were complaining that they play the same PVE maps over and over again in a day that was due to fast rotation and pool size of 10 maps that leads to a full rotation of maps in 30 minutes, plus players miss two other maps while playing one, due to average map completion being 7 minutes.
    With doubling the pool size and rotation time full map rotation will be 2 hours. Plus this fixes the issue when I see a good map and want to play it, but a 3-minute rotation that is on average is actually 1,5 minutes would be not enough for the matchmaking to find a match. On top of that players usually change tanks between matches, sometimes they want to take explicit tanks for the map. With 6 minutes of rotation that is actually 3 minutes on average will give more time for adjusting your choice

     

     

  22. Posted

    11 hours ago, Haswell said:

    Hmm, but why produce a whole new vehicle just for a base model for skins? Skins could already alter the model geometries greatly (all the recent BP and Raid skins), a new vehicle seem unnecessary. Unless... skins don't sell well alone enough?

    Another possible reason is that the M1 variant has to NOT have the ERA blocks while maintaining similar performance to the 72A. This means a skin for it will have to NOT include the module, introducing the dilemma of skins affecting actual gameplay performance as well as being objectively worse than the base vehicle.

    I'm not overly fond of the tons of reskinniums we have already, but I do see the merits in them. Better to have reskinniums than drawing up entirely new vehicles with possible balance issues. The problem is how to make them appealing to players so they can temporarily forget about the "just a reskin" part.

    Skins can alter just visual model geometry, but not performance. So, adding a giant spike or a dragon mouth to the gun is okay, but you can't add ERA elements as a part of a skin. Or remove them. You also cannot skin-lock certain configurations (this is a bit non-intuitive and I am not entirely sure why because it was possible in the past). So, for example, you cannot make a T-72M1 skin for the T-72A because then you'd end up with T-72M1 with ERA, which is technically a nonsense (it isn't, but let's say it is). Skins also cannot alter the base armor perception. For example, for one skin (the Warhammer), I wanted the devs to remove the rearmost side panel so that the drive sprocket was completely uncovered. I argued that this would have almost no effect on the gameplay and that it was possible to leave that armor there "virtually" (changing the visual model but not the collision one). This was rejected.

    The T-72M1 is my personal idea - I have long argued that we need a "skin carrier" basic Leopard 2A4, basic Abrams and basic T-72M1. The skins can then not only propell the vehicle sale itself, but can act as standalones. While this may sound strange, it can be justified when you look at some internal considerations, but that's obviously not something I can share.

    We'll see how it goes.

     

     

    • Upvote 2

  23. Posted

    Aye, the Ural performance is an issue that we'll be dealing with separately (we know it sucks), but I have no definitive answers as to how. The T-72M1 will come out in "pre-rebalance" standard (so will really just match the current T-72A). And yes, the whole vehicle being a platform for future skins that players from specific nations will enjoy is definitely one of its main raisons d'etre. Might even become a foundation of new separate vehicles. We'll see.

    • Upvote 1

  25. Posted

    On 2/19/2021 at 7:41 PM, itzjustrick said:

    Yes, but you can't really buy any more vehicles from it, except for a handful mainly older premiums... This makes it's use very limited and therefore gold is (except for BP initial buy-in) worthless. The BC conversion rate is at least defo not worth imo.

    Judging by the popularity of battle paths and battle coins in general, I feel that it's still very useful. But I haven't run the numbers to see how much LESS profitable it is. Not that it matters, the shop wasn't made with BC purchases only in mind.

×
×
  • Create New...