Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


di_duncan last won the day on July 28

di_duncan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15 Good

About di_duncan

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

222 profile views
  1. GlOps is by far the best mode to grind for XP (aside from heroics) and/or BC (IIRC). It has been my go to gamemode since I've come back to AW in 2018. Even with higher than average ping, PvP is definitely playable, since AW is far from a twitch shooter. Unfortunately, queue times for tier 8 and below are quite long, so expect to wait if you are queuing those tiers. Tier 9 and 10 however, are quite active; to the point where wait times can be in seconds instead of minutes. TL;DR: Play GlOps if you have the chance. It's far less frustrating than Random Battles. Let's get those queue times even lower ;) I've had GlOps games where I've earned >1 million credits without premium account. So yes, it's definitely a good credit grind :P
  2. Unfortunately, unlock tokens are only available for use after its respective vehicle is renowned (100%), so a full [painful] grind of the M1A2 is required before you can unlock a tier 9. Totally understandable, after all, the current Abrams line is dreadfully underwhelming. Since the M1A2 falls under Wolfli's tree, you'll have several options: M1A2C Quite terrible, akin to the rest of the Abrams (aside from the XM1A3). Poor DPM, tragic armor, but it's one of the very few tier 9s with a gas turbine (if that's worth anything to you). Leopard 2A6 Despite the mediocre DPM, it's a rather interesting tier 9 MBT. Armor is quite decent actually, especially against HEAT (if you are able to hide/shield the weakspot under the gun). Mobility is above average as well. However, the 2A6's L/55 (and ammunition) is where this vehicle shines. The aforementioned reload is slow, but the penetration and gun handling is superb (among MBTs). Centauro 120 A gun TD with traditional gun TD benefits (gun handling, DPM) and drawbacks (paper armor, wheels). The Cent 120 is a DPM monster, armed with a cannon with a 6 round ready rack, resulting in exceptional burst damage capabilities. Gun handling is sublime and camo is quite decent as well. Note however that the gun TD playstyle is a paramount shift from that of MBTs. B1 Draco Essentially an unmanned 76mm DRACO AA turret on a Centauro hull. Again, little in the way of armor, but it's actually possible to occasionally hull-down with the Draco, since its uncrewed turret takes reduced damage. Its unique armament features insane DPM values, but far less penetration compared to 120mm or even 105mm cannons; so accurate targeting of weakspots is necessary to deal consistent damage. Incredibly fun to play IMO. CRAB A lightly-armored "scout" AFV with a roof-mounted ATGM and autocannon module. Not particularly easy to play (like all other scout AFVs), especially in PvE (where MBTs reign supreme). Exceptional mobility and camo aren't major advantages in PvE. Considering you are rather new to AW, I would recommend steering clear of it. Aside from these Wolfli vehicles, the M1A2 also leads to a vehicle in the Faraday tree (without requiring the token): TTB As a vehicle, it's a decent MBT (albeit more suitable for PvP modes IMO); but as a grind, it's awful. Equipped with an unmanned turret, hydro suspension, and a 6 round ready rack cannon, the TTB is far more survivable than its "normal" Abrams counterparts. Unfortunately, many of its more important upgrades are locked behind overprogression. It too features a gas turbine engine option. IMO, the Leo should be the best [Wolfli] option going forward (at least until the rebalance). Armor is quite good and the gun performance is remarkably consistent. I would recommend waiting (as you've described). No one knows how the rebalance will pan out, so it would be far safer to wait and see for yourself. There will be a PTS available prior to the official release of 0.33. It will likely be buggy, but it will give you a good chance to experience the changes before the update is pushed to live. Nigh impossible. It's been mentioned that the three "legacy" dealer trees (Wolfli, Shishkin, and Feng) will see minimal (if any) future change(s) in vehicles and/or organization.
  3. Sorry to hear of your negative experience. Personally, I've only had positive encounters with mods and/or staff on Discord. I've PMed SS numerous times, and in the majority of our conversations he was professional and straightforward. Considering he has to reply to and reign in the entire AW community (outside of RU), I'd say his work is rather busy/stressful, so I can imagine he has limited tolerance for insults and/or ridicule (not claiming that's what you did, purely my observations). As for listening to feedback, a distinction should be made between listening to all feedback and listening to the right feedback. Just because one player voices his thoughts doesn't mean that his opinions are for the greater/common good. AW has made numerous previous changes as a result of player feedback (eg: removing Armata/Merkava automatic super APS, removing ammo and [some] consumable costs, nerfing the 490, etc.) and I've personally complained server times (in the official discord server) of changes which I disliked (eg: Chinese high-tier MBT armor remodel) albeit without enacting change. Considering this, I don't think your claim about the staff silencing/ignoring discussion and player feedback is valid. Ultimately, it's up to the player to decide if the final BP reward is worth it for him/her. No one is forcing anyone to spend money. Plus, I'd say the value for money proponent for AW's BP is rather good. Plus, if the Type 10 is "OP as hell" right now, doesn't that justify a nerf? If a wide-ranging overhaul improves overall balance (and therefore playability), I'd welcome it with open arms. It's miles better than WoT's policy of buffing OPAF clan war/rewards tanks (*ahem* Obj 279e *cough* Chieftain) IMO :P Although I can't say AW hasn't had it's own fair share of cheese vehicles, as the CATTB has been meta for quite some time now (although it is also being nerfed come 0.33). Exactly. I wouldn't make any assumptions before knowing the context. Perhaps @Silentstalker could elaborate? I doubt a single comment can result in a permaban...
  4. @Terminator83 The K1 has always had a hydropneumatic suspension. It's automatic, so the suspension will naturally lower or elevate the tank depending on where/how you are aiming the main gun. Try depressing the cannon as far as you can in the testing range, you should be able to see the K1 gradually "kneel", lowering the front suspension to increase gun depression. This is particularly useful in hull-down positions, allowing certain vehicles to only expose their [strong] turret armor. Note that hydropneumatic suspension(s) usually aren't visible on vehicle model(s) or as an upgrade/modification. You might be confusing its hydropneumatic suspension with the active "dynamic suspension" ability, which allows a vehicle to lower itself entirely using its hydropneumatic suspension, shortening its profile. The K1 has never had this ability, instead it is given the ability to designate targets.
  5. I think the previous responses have already mentioned most (if not all) of my pointers/suggestions, so thumbs up to all who've contributed and I'll try keep my reply short. One tidbit I'd like to add is the upcoming 0.33 rebalance, which will likely see a universal buff (either direct or indirect) to the DPM of manually loaded 120mm cannons. This means T7 to T9 Leo, Abrams, and Chally variants will most likely become more competitive, especially in PvE, where armament is generally more important than armor. If you are still grinding the 2A6 in September, it may be easier for you to compete with it, even in uptiers. For NA, 120ms is quite average. Even PvP and GlOps can be played with sub-200 ping (assuming it's stable). On the east coast, I get ~100-120ms to Amsterdam, so I'm in the same boat. Compared to EU and even RU pings however, 120ms is quite high. Most EU players will have sub-50ms connections, while RU players are generally 80ms and under. Higher pings in PvE are not major concerns, since it is against slower, AI opponents. The game server will only need to register the positions and hits from the 5 human players against the computer-generated opponents (and vice versa). Connection speeds in PvP modes are far more important, since the server will be simultaneously tracking and calculating the movements and actions of 30 human players. Often, when I am a one-shot, I will fail to register a hit against an opponent despite firing on my screen, since the server registered my opponent's hit first, effectively killing me before the server could receive the packet indicating I've fired as well; therefore invalidating my shot. However, some aspects of the game will be affected regardless of mode. For example, ATGMs are far more inconsistent (and therefore arguably more difficult to guide) with high pings, since it requires more time to send and receive the packets responsible for guidance. Self-guided ATGMs are far easier to use in this regard.
  6. I much as I don't want AW to become a copy/ripoff of WoT, I think some of the blindfiring mechanics from WoT should be implemented in AW. Currently, when you hit a target when they are not spotted, your round [tracer] continues to travel through the target and hit the ground behind (if applicable) as if nothing was there. Personally, I would find it far more satisfying to be able to see the round "disappear" (or bounce off for a non-penetration) when successfully hitting an enemy blind. This could also give the coaxial MG another use/purpose, where players can "strafe" common sniping positions and check if their bullets are hitting/bouncing on anything. This could make sniping far more dynamic and interesting, as blindfires (with main weapons) could involve less guesswork and more intelligence/prediction. Blindly firing your MG would also expose your position, so such exchanges may largely be risk vs reward. I dunno, could be a long shot falling on deaf ears, but I definitely think it would be an improvement.
  7. In the current game meta? I would agree with you here. However, with the arrival of 0.33, I hope the LT and TD role(s) can become more distinguished from each other. One significant aspect which should be looked into and tweaked (IMO) should be vision and camo capabilities. I believe LTs should have a significant view range/spotting advantage in comparison to TDs (especially armored "TDs"). This would complement their role as a secondary spotter (surpassed only by "scout" AFVs) which just so happens to be a countermeasure to camping/sniping vehicles (like TDs). On the other hand, TDs would benefit from various relevant bonuses while stationary. Additional camouflage (perhaps a mechanic which adopts a specific percentage of camo value from surrounding foliage within a certain radius?), reduced camo loss upon firing, or even improved gun handling and/or module damage/range, etc. All things considered, stationary TDs should become far and away the best long to medium range sniping platforms, with improved statistics where it matters (aforementioned less AP penetration loss over distance, greater velocities at range, gun handling, etc.) Essentially, LTs would be specialized/intended for offensive short to medium range fire support (alongside the MBT vanguard) while TDs would excel at defensive fire support at longer ranges. Protection is yet another area which can be explored to create distinction between the LT and TD classes. In my eyes, LTs should be able to somewhat resist standard (not ATGM) HEAT rounds (at least turret front, maybe UFP?), since they are intended to push forward alongside the rest of their team. This could potentially mitigate additional (HEAT-based) damage (both HP and module/crew) from HEAT rounds and AT squad rockets. Such a change may also compel more diverse ammo use (especially for MBTs, which are already "encouraged" to switch ammunition type(s) based on their targets in 0.33). [Gun] TDs on the other hand, will be vulnerable to nearly every weapon/ammunition type they can encounter, so they will be far more "squishy" and vulnerable to additional [HEAT, PISH, PELE, etc.] damage.
  8. So because the majority of players enjoy playing MBTs, their performance should be emphasized/prioritized? That's not a particularly valid/convincing argument. According to such logic, all other classes should remain inferior to MBTs largely in part due to their overwhelming popularity and accessibility. May as well remove/exclude all the other classes entirely then, since all of their roles can be effectively performed by MBTs (at least in their current form). I knew several players who enjoyed playing lighter vehicles who quit AW simply because of the dominance of MBTs. I don't think it's particularly enjoyable to be forced to one class due to that specific class of vehicle(s) being far more effective on the battlefield. I mostly agree in these regards. Note that extensive rebalancing is planned for some of your concerns in 0.33. @Silentstalker has already confirmed the CATTB will be seeing a nerf and the vehicle movement/mobility system is being overhauled as well. However, I have no particular issue with mortar infantry. Sure, indirect fire is certainly annoying, but I would rank AT squads far more dangerous and/or troublesome (especially T9-10 HEAT-MP). Improvements to spotting and incentives for assisting damage would definitely be greatly appreciated though. I don't think it's a matter of reliance on other classes, but a matter of balancing overall vehicle capabilities. MBTs should be able to spot their own targets, but only if they actively approach them. Their armor and increased HP pools allow/afford them to push towards the opposition. Consequently, their view range(s) should be far less than those of AFVs and LTs, whose greater view range(s) should allow them to employ active or passive vision control because they have far less protection compared to MBTs. As much as I hate to reference WoT, their dynamic between HTs, MTs, and LTs is far more balanced (ignoring TDs and SPGs). All classes have their strengths and weaknesses, which are reflected in their defined specializations/roles. A WoT heavy's vision pales in comparison to a light because heavies are far better armored and are intended to take fire. Does this mean heavy tanks must rely on light/medium tanks to spot targets and do damage? No. However, this "encourages" heavies to push forward to find (and deal damage to) targets; whereas lights (and some mediums) can passively spot enemies pushing and/or overextending (hopefully without being detected themselves) due to their smaller size and to compensate for their far thinner armor. MBTs should not be the be-all and end-all of classes in AW. Although they may reign superior while serving with the armies of the world, their capabilities should be equalized in-game.
  9. Out of curiosity, where are you playing from? Preferably all of them. The more information, the better. Again, it could also be useful. It would also be nice to have some context regarding which commanders you currently have unlocked (for potential alternatives). I believe you have to paste the replay file into the AW replay folder. Playback of the replay should be done through the game itself.
  10. While I agree that increasing ERA effectiveness is a good idea, I hope they nerf the sides of some MBTs as well, since that would encourage smart positioning (for MBTs) and flanking (for AFVs, LTs). Currently, it seems the sides of MBTs are incredibly inconsistent; some are incredibly weak (Type, K2, etc.) while others are extremely strong (Chally, XM, etc.). I'm fine if some MBTs are better armored than others, but there are several culprits whose sides are unreasonably trolly, even without ERA (CATTB, I'm looking at you). That should be the sweet spot, effortlessly/consistently punish lightly armored campers/snipers while bouncing off (the fronts of) better armored (and/or angled) opponents at longer ranges. Agreed 100%. Or just give people free reign to TK camping MBTs... Of course, one solution is far more reasonable than the other. I find most of this reasonable. However, I share the same concerns as @TeyKey1 regarding the ammunition of TDs. While I agree that gun TDs should be powerful at range, I don't believe their weaponry should surpass those of MBTs. Instead, more interesting/dynamic ammunition types and pre-/post-penetration effects should be explored. Personally, I think PELE is in a great place right now. Far from its previous manifestation with ridiculous spalling and internal damage, it currently rewards accurate fire and intelligent targeting of modules, crew members and weakspots. My proposal for an improved iteration of the current gun TDs would involve a new mechanic, where TD rounds impacting within a certain [relatively small] radius of a previous round (from the same gun TD) would encounter decreased effective armor thickness and/or cause additional internal damage; resulting in a higher chance to penetrate and/or cause module/crew damage respectively. Such a design would emphasize and encourage the effective use of gun TD accuracy. While the penetration of the gun/ammunition would not change, skilled TD players would be able to target and deal damage to even well armored opponents (MBTs), especially those who are camping/immobile. Of course, such a mechanic would need to be implemented, and who knows if the dev team and/or the engine would be capable of such a task/feat. I also mostly find this to be reasonable. However, I'm concerned with several vehicles who are already armed with some of the best missile systems in the game, but who are also armed with some incredibly effective alternative weapon systems (*ahem* T-15 *cough*). These outliers will definitely need some form of compromise to properly balance their potential effectiveness. As for LTs, I can only hope that they do not extensively nerf their current capabilities. Of course I'm biased (as I main the PL), but I genuinely believe LTs are properly enjoyable to play in their current form. The current dynamic(s) between and playstyle(s) of the LTs from tier 7 - 10 are rather distinct and diverse, which definitely satisfies me. Let's consider tier 10: K21 XC8 Greater [sustained] DPM Better [overall] gun performance Significantly more camo Slightly better mobility PL-01 Better protection Greater [burst] damage Slightly better view range Infantry (sniper) Here we see two different LTs, one suited for active mobile sniping, while the other is more of a sedentary passive scout/fire support. Allowing for choice and/or player preference results in both vehicles having their supports/detractors. Ultimately, LTs are in a decent place as they are right now. Perhaps I would slightly buff the M8s, reclassify the Sprut-SD as a LT and buff the PL's DPM to at least compete with the Anders (and/or Type 10). I also agree with @TeyKey1 in this regard. AFVs are already very capable in their current forms, but many players are unable to extract all of the potential from this specific class of vehicles. As I've mentioned before, AFVs should emphasize vision control and mobility while also being equipped with weaponry suitable for hit-and-run attacks dealing sizable amounts of damage (in bursts). Many of the AFVs currently in AW can already claim to serve this function, although some excelling in certain areas more than others (of course). Instead of developing additional mechanics for an already complex class to play, I would suggest overhauling the assist damage system and it's subsequent rewards. If vision control becomes a viable (or encouraged) role/playstyle, players will naturally gravitate towards the class(es) which benefits from it most. This is perhaps the most perplexing and difficult dilemma to resolve. There are numerous outliers within a predefined "class" whose abilities and/or playstyle are either distinct or a hybrid between two (or more) classes. The classification of these vehicles are certainly a challenge, and I am interested to see what sort of solution/compromise the team can reach. Personally, I'm fine with the Terminators being classified as TDs, since their weaponry is perfectly adequate in an anti-armor role. They just so happen to feature autocannons which are rather effective against thinly-armored targets as well. However, to better balance/classify these vehicles as TDs, I would suggest decreasing the DPM of their autocannons, perhaps equipping one gun with the AP belt while HE belt for the other (as IRL)? An exception to this rule would be the T-15. Aside from its ridiculous over-performance, the T-15 is also technically an AFV, as it features infantry. Consequently, should the T-15 retain its infantry, it would most likely fit a hybrid TD/AFV classification. As for the Leopard 1s, I don't see any better solution apart from classifying them as a LT or perhaps a hybrid LT/MBT. Perhaps such a change may be accompanied with a couple of adjustments to the vehicles themselves (to better suit their "new" class)?
  11. That's the PvE meta atm. Since bots are incredibly sharp and inhumanly accurate, "squishy" spotters are often destroyed within seconds of being spotted by AI (unless they smoke up and/or relocate immediately). The maps and enemy spawns are also to blame, since mission objectives and/or routes often force vehicles to enter/follow corridors regardless of class (and armor). This has largely pushed traditional "PvP spotters" (mainly AFVs, LTs) to become snipers and/or flankers, as the "squishies" primarily benefit from a combination of high DPM (or burst), good mobility, decent gun/weapon handling, and greater camouflage. Regardless of mode, the gun breech retro is essentially a no-brainer (especially for vehicles with long grinds and/or those you expect to continue playing after reaching "renowned"). Vision is emphasized in PvE, so optics are highly recommended. However, It's a whole 'nother story for PvP modes. With randoms? Good luck. If you are platooned, it's helpful to organize yourselves before beginning. Either through the platoon text box or VoIP programs is fine, although the latter is preferred. Agreed. But MBTs would need a nerf to their vision (0.33) for such a mechanic to become viable, as MBTs already dominate most of their matches (whether PvE or PvP). Since MBTs already perform the majority of the spotting (especially in PvE), I believe only such a compromise would encourage more diverse class-based gameplay.
  12. I mean sure, but it also probably has the worst grind of any game that has ever existed, so... :P
  13. They probably use an external VoIP program for voice chat, either Discord or TS most likely. AW does not support VoIP natively, so you'll have to hop on an external application (as mentioned above) with other players to communicate vocally. The ArmoredLabs Discord already has text channels you can use to help find a platoon and voice channels which you can use to platoon with. Battalions require a dedicated channel for their organization as well as communication between members. Discord fulfills that need with both text and VoIP functionality, so both text-based discussion/socialization and voice-based platoons are feasible through one convenient (and easily accessible) program.
  14. Not sure about PvE, but GlOps is definitely not stuttering. Instead the issue seems to be severe packet loss/rubberbanding resulting from excessive server load. Apparently it might be a hardware issue, but if so, I doubt we can expect a proper fix soon.
  • Create New...