di_duncan

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

@Jamzs3-AU Thank you for your input.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I haven't played the Magach's myself, so I can't really provide a educated opinion regarding this split; however, sticking with the Merk line would likely resulted in a smoother/effortless transition to the Baz (and succeeding Merk variants). Some common traits between them: Front-mounted engine Relatively large HP pool(s) Relatively poor gun depression Decent gun handling/performance Ready rack Good protection levels against HEAT

The new XM1 model looks quite good if I say so myself. Surfaces and textures look far more realistic compared to the "flat" Obsidian-era XM1. The darker paint scheme is also appreciated. Now only to wait and see the revised XM1's performance post-0.33. Yay, coax MG! Finally ;)

These are some fantastic renders @tahax. Excellent work my friend ;) Same here. Always loved the arrowhead turret on the 2A5 (and onwards). However, I may be biased, as Canada also happens to field 2A6M CANs... As for the rest of the ArmoredLabs community, what are your favorite tank/armoured vehicle(s)?

OK Boomer.

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

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.

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...

@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.

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.