Jump to content

di_duncan

Members
  • Content Count

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

di_duncan last won the day on September 15

di_duncan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About di_duncan

  • Rank
    🅱raindead

Recent Profile Visitors

352 profile views
  1. This pissed me off so much. I have no idea who's in control/in charge of these changes in direction, but whoever it is clearly thinks the AW community is far stupider and lazier than they are in reality. Ubisoft fucked up Ghost Recon in this exact same manner, severely limiting game concepts, mechanics, equipment, and even strategies to hand-hold players who just wanted an interesting, versatile, and well-executed realistic tactical shooter experience. This opened up the game(s) to be far more accessible to a wider audience, with Wildlands selling well, despite the critical media and community feedback. But as the timeless adage goes: "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". Breakpoint was catastrophic for both Ubisoft and the Ghost Recon franchise, because instead of listening to valid and well-intentioned community feedback, Ubi Paris doubled-down on simplifying gameplay and adding gimmicks no one wanted. I see AW heading down this same rabbit hole, with "Wildlands" arriving in the form of Balance 2.0 and "Breakpoint" being 0.33. Pursuing game balance is a valiant cause for sure, but implementing such a drastic and unnecessary overhaul without consulting the playerbase is negligent and reckless. When 0.33 was announced, I'll admit I had high hopes, even excitement to a degree, as I envisioned it to be the equivalent of R6S' Operation Health update. However, as the PTS went live, the many issues and unwarranted changes immediately brought me back to reality. The postponement of PTS stage 2 was a good sign on the part of the development team, and when stage 2 launched, I found that several issues from PTS 1 were in fact fixed, while others were acknowledged with improvements promised. This brought back some of my optimism, only for it to be smothered under the oozing, bloody corpse of 0.33 as it was shortly released on live. What's worse is that instead of these changes bringing in more players and opening up AW to become more accessible, AW's playerbase will shrivel and decline. Games such as AW, WT and even WoT are niche by nature, so player retention is crucial. There will not be any third chances; 0.33 will not attract new players, it will not improve the QoL of existing players and it certainly won't be a step in the right direction for the game as a whole. In AW's case, it was already a project on its last legs. With 0.33, I expect the game to bleed out entirely if the management are still unable to recognize and rectify their foolish decisions.
  2. PISH is fine. It hasn't seen significant changes to its state in 0.32. The K2 is inherently weak to PISH, how else would it be balanced considering its frontal immunity against AP with penetration under 850mm? My friend Shrek used to love the ADTU as a soft counter against AP resistant threats such as the CATTB and the K2 (even though the vehicle wasn't particularly competitive against anything else). That being said, I've already voiced my concerns regarding this asymmetrical armor protection in both my previous PTS stage 2 as well as my most recent 0.33 (live) document(s). Thermobarics have come back into the conversation though, primarily due to their raw [potential] alpha damage (although it doesn't look like internal damage has changed).
  3. This was a common occurrence back when PISH and Thermobarics were meta. Even crew killing Challengers was doable with decent ping/skill/luck (or a combination of the three). Now that Thermobarics are extremely powerful once again, I wouldn't be surprised if a resurgence in crew kills occurs once more.
  4. Now that 0.33 has gone live, I've had a prolonged period of time with the rebalance. After cross-referencing my notes from my previous two docs (from stage 1 and 2 respectively) and my records from the PTS with the live version of 0.33, I've formed yet another list outlining the issues, concerns and bugs with 0.33. I don't wish to post a massive reply with all of my observations and thoughts, so I'll just post the link to my new doc here. In summary, there have been multiple changes to 0.33 following stage 2 of the PTS, both positive and negative. Some are noticeable and legitimate improvements (primarily balance-based), while others (mostly those with regards to individual vehicles and/or mechanics) have arguably taken a step in the wrong direction. Several smaller issues and bugs still remain/linger on, but these are mostly harmless and/or minor and honestly expected at this point (sadly). Ultimately, however, many crucial, pressing factors/matters have yet to be addressed properly (or haven't been addressed at all). I've attempted to formalize and objectify my comments and language this time around, as 0.33 has already gone live (and therefor suggestions/recommendations are now moot). Consequently, most should find the contents of this new document to be far less subjective and more grounded/factual. The format of the list has also shifted to that of a virtual Covey Matrix in an attempt to better categorize and convey the urgency and importance of various points. Once again, editing has been disabled this time around, but comments are enabled and welcomed. Subsequent valid/constructive community feedback will be added and/or edited to the doc. I would greatly appreciate it if everyone from the AW community could read and share my work and provide their feedback/perspectives. I look forward everyone's opinion(s), explanation(s), and solution(s) (whatever is applicable). Of course, as before, the intention is to send this feedback to the AW team. As previously mentioned in my earlier post in the PTS Stage 2 thread, I have also been working on proposed armor models/layouts for numerous vehicle lines (as well as several particular/individual high-tier vehicles) for 0.33. This has been a personal initiative to address the lack of diverse and interesting armor profiles/models on the PTS by providing examples for different vehicles/lines in an attempt to establish a foundation/baseline from which the developers could reference as they continue to tweak vehicles. I'm currently occupied with school, so I will have limited time to complete this side-project of mine. However, depending on community interest, I will consider finalizing these models and making an extensive new topic where I can present these visual concept(s).
  5. IIRC SS has confirmed the Stalker crate will supersede the Far East crate, and existing progress on the Far East crate will be reset after players complete the Stalker crate.
  6. @Jamzs3-AU Thank you for your input.
  7. Once again, I've created a document outlining my observations, thoughts, and suggestions regarding the PTS over the last several days. I won't delve too deep into specifics in this post, but to sum up my findings, many improvements and amelioration have been implemented/applied, but many crucial and/or fundamental issues/concerns have yet to be properly addressed. That being said, I'm still hoping our community can come together to compile a comprehensive list of PTS bugs/issues/concerns. I have disabled editing this time around since my formatting is more organized and categorized, so please provide your PTS stage 2 feedback through comments. I will add to/edit my existing material based on valid/constructive community comments and input. Similarily, please take some of my points with a grain of salt, as many of them are ultimately subjective. If anyone disagrees with anything listed in the document, I'd be more than willing to discuss/debate my perspective(s) either in the comments or on this thread. I look forward to everyone's opinion(s), explanation(s), and solution(s) (whatever is applicable). As previously mentioned, I intend to forward this feedback to the AW team. As mentioned in the document, I am also working on proposed changes to the armor layouts of numerous vehicles in 0.33. This is to address the lack of diverse and interesting armor profiles/models for different vehicles/lines. I may consider making a follow up post or even a new topic altogether with visual examples/concepts, should our community be interested.
  8. Note that special Patriot loot crates also have a chance to drop 5000 BC coupons, so it may be worth it to redeem your BC for additional Hunter crates (even if you've already unlocked the Hunter).
  9. This is incredible. Well done @nullptrdereference, kudos to you my friend ;) I tend to shy away from displaying the game(s) I'm playing through my Discord status, but this additional functionality could be very useful when platooning (or attempting to crash another platoon).
  10. It really won't. Their reloads are significantly faster (significantly better DPM) and they no longer feature their undergun weakspot or their weak UFP against HEAT/ATGMs. There's very little that can be done to an Abrams if they are properly hull down. The tier 10 XM1A3 has two viable choices of gun, both with 850mm of penetration with their best respective shells. However, this is not to say that the numbers and potential of the line won't change... My friend Shrek was able to deal 13k damage in a PvP match in the XM1A3 with the 120mm fastdraw gun (albeit cheesing with the ready rack glitch). Plus, why would you trust the opinion of someone who hasn't even tested the vehicle(s) in question? Note however, that I am in no way attempting to defend or uphold the current state of 0.33 (on the PTS). I've mentioned in my previous reply that I've already compiled a ~5 page document outlining the numerous issues and concerns I've encountered with the test server.
  11. Thank you for the comparison @Nekrosmas. Interesting to see the unnecessary simplification of armor profiles [across the board]. However, there is an inconsistency with your comparison I would like to bring up: On the 0.33 PTS, the T-14's Vakum-2 round was buffed to 850mm pen up from 830mm on 0.32.
  12. After testing and playing on the PTS for the past couple of days, I made a document outlining some of the issues/concerns I found. I would like to get some additional community input as well, so I would greatly appreciate if everyone involved with PTS on ArmoredLabs could provide additional comments/suggestions. Some points listed may be subjective, so if anyone disagrees or sees something already mentioned from differently, please comment with your opinion(s), explanation(s), and solution(s) (whatever is applicable). Eventually, I hope to forward these motions to the development/management team as a collective feedback form submission. The doc allows editing, but I have no way to enforce rules if anyone decides to grief, so please do not cause mischief and only submit new/original feedback with valid reasoning/causes. Your effort(s) are much appreciated.
  13. Not to offend anyone in [LABS], but there are far more fearsome battalions/platoons which you may encounter. A1arM being the most obvious one, NASTY, COBET, and PAND being some others. Then there are some common hardcore platoons, such as @Flavio93Zena and his various stet pedder acquaintances ;) PS: Pineapple on pizza is great, fite me about it bruv.
  14. Although it's seems I'm late to the discussion (due to a trip) as you've already made a choice, I'll see if I can put my hat in the ring. Among the T9 MBTs, the Leclerc is by far the best, especially for PvE. It's mediocre armor levels can diminish its efficacy in PvP modes. It features: Incredible DPM (closer to tier 10 than tier 9) Great overall gun performance Penetration Aim time Accuracy Best-in-class mobility Following the Leclerc, the next best [non-premium] MBT IMO (among your listed vehicles) would be the T-90MS, an all-round strong MBT which should be equally effective across all-modes. It offers: A strong and often trollish armor profile across its entire frontal arc Decent firepower Good penetration Good alpha A choice of hard-kill or soft-kill APS Following the Tagil, the Type 99A is probably next in line (for GlOps at least), but would've been far more competitive (and likely higher on the list) if it's frontal armor wasn't "improved". I won't delve into details (in an attempt to keep my posts shorter), but it's a mobile MBT with average characteristics resulting in a playstyle largely resembling those of RU MBTs. It was formerly an excellent brawler, but its capability has been nerfed since. After that, the Leo, then the Chally 2, and finally the [awful] Abrams. For some of my thoughts regarding Wolfli's MBTs, you can read one of my previous posts regarding them here.
  15. Welcome back! We hope you decide to stay ;) It was previously located in Shishkin's British MBT line, a strange Italian outlier in a line dominated by Chieftains and Challengers. It was moved to De Laroche's lines when she was added to AW as a dealer (along with the OF-40). It wasn't a particularly good vehicle before, and it is still very lackluster in the current meta. However, since you already had the Ariete unlocked, purchased and [partially] grinded, you should've automatically received it's replacement, the Al-Hussein, fully renowned for free. The Al-Hussein should have a tier 9 unlock token available to use within Shishkin's tree. Unfortunately not. Aside from the aforementioned unlock token now found on the Al-Hussein, there are few (if any) incentives to play/grind the C1 Ariete. I would definitely agree that it is not a pleasant experience, especially due to the lackluster armour (which is quite underwhelming especially for a MBT); but it's not a particularly great vehicle IRL either (not sure why it's placed at tier 8 in-game TBH). The C1 is likely the worst MBT currently fielded by a NATO power. The hull lacks composite armor, with the small UFP simply consisting of two spaced steel plates, while the UFP is a mere 50mm of RHe. Its only saving grace (which also applies in-game) is its main 120mm smoothbore gun, which can fire standardized NATO 120mm ammunition.
×
×
  • Create New...