di_duncan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

I mean sure, but it also probably has the worst grind of any game that has ever existed, so... :P

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.

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.

I can sympathize, but it's the burst which is utter ridiculous for the PLZ. I can respect arty shotgunners, but to have 4 rounds of indirect fire launched nearly simultaneously against me is not enjoyable in the slightest. Increase the intra-clip reload to reasonable levels and I'll be satisfied.

Basically the current PLZ with the stock gun... On a similar note, nerf the burst damage on the PLZ please.

Something else of note: The Marder only really excels in CQB due to the nature of its armament. It may be more difficult to reliably deal damage to enemies at longer ranges, especially if they are well-armored. PELE is a means to deal massive damage (especially to lightly-armored targets), but players must be accurate and target weakspots in order to ensure damage output, especially from a frontal aspect.

Platinum crates used to be amazing. But that was years ago, Obsidian-era IIRC. I believe they used to drop permanent versions of premium vehicles tier 6 and under. Obviously, this wasn't particularly wise from a business perspective, so the rewards were toned down significantly. Same here ;) I've always kept at least 10 gold crates and 20 platinum crates, all of them earned since I've started playing. I think of them as a memento of the many years I've spent playing AW. Considering I've amassed countless insignias, boosts, premium time, premium vehicles, etc. already, crates aren't particularly useful to me, even if they still offered permanent premiums. A common drop. Quite welcome in my eyes, since they provide 125 gold [upon activation] if you already own the vehicle in question. I happen to be a collector anyways, so you should get the gist ;) I would suggest saving them. If you happen to acquire the vehicle in the future, you can activate all of its rentals for EZ gold. With how contract crates function nowadays, players can basically get free premiums anyways. However, rentals also provide players with an opportunity to try out premiums they're interested in before purchase, so I'd say it's worth activating a single rental if you are interested in a vehicle and/or enjoy it on the testing range. Yeah they generally suck. Definitely not worth the money. Probably the best reward(s) you can get out of them are the aforementioned rental vehicles (125 gold), large amounts of credits/reputation, and premium time. Never. I often get insignias or boosts, which are utterly useless considering I already have thousands and hundreds of them respectively. However, I'm pretty happy with receiving reputation or premium time. The best reward I've ever opened from "regular" crates has to be 30 days of premium time, which I received from a gold crate no less ;) I don't think anyone has listed the best possible rewards from the current iteration of crates, but the AW wiki has an article regarding the previous crate system and rewards (which shouldn't be too dissimilar).

For any one person? Unfortunately yes. As @Haswell explains in his conclusion: I might be a feasible community project/effort, but it could be rather difficult to organize considering the many different variables involved.

The Marder's ridiculous DPM combined with PELE ammunition means that it can effectively do damage to anything, anywhere. Even the fronts of well-armored opponents can be "spalled" with PELE. It's rather slow for an AFV, but it makes up for what it lacks in mobility with decent armor and an infantry complement. Its armor is rather resilient against autocannon fire, but vulnerable against large-caliber APFSDS and especially against ATGMs. Not designed to be a frontline brawler for sure, but it can get out of tough situations with "double-smoke" and/or sheer DPM. An excellent support vehicle if you can effectively use friendlies (preferably MBTs ;) as cover. TL;DR: Good in PvP, great in PVE, and ludicrous in GlOps.

I guess this is what @Silentstalker meant ;) I was hoping for a tier 10, 120mm-armed vehicle, but this was rather unexpected ngl. The "Type 15" was one of the few high-tier LT candidates I've considered, but considering the export VT-5 variant is already available, I excluded it as a possibility almost immediately. Genuinely interested as to how the ZTQ will differ from the existing VT-5. Simply based on their armament, I'm assuming both will be tier 9. Curiously, based on first appearances, the two vary in armor layout. The VT-5 has additional ERA and cage armor on the sides of its hull and turret, whereas the ZTQ does not; however the front of the VT-5's turret only presents the base armor configuration, as it does not feature the additional ERA/applique armor on the front of the ZTQ's turret. In PLA service, there seems to be two different add-on armor kits for the ZTQ, one utilizing composite/NERA and one composed of what seems to be ERA. Considering the smaller segmented armor blocks/panels as well as the distinctive "cutout" for the LWR, I'm assuming the ZTQ shown off by @Silentstalker is equipped with ERA. Perhaps players will be able to choose between the different armor types as "protection" modification(s)/option(s)? Furthermore, some RF/EW antennae are present at the rear of the ZTQ's turret, I'm assuming this would function as soft-kill APS in-game. Again, the VT-5 lacks this detail and a soft-kill system. Finally, after comparing the respective weaponry of the two Chinese LTs, the ZTQ's gun definitely appears to be a longer calibre compared to the 105mm on the VT5... The greater velocity afforded by a longer barrel combined with better ammunition could result in greater penetration values for the ZTQ over the VT-5. Now that we know the ZTQ's expected release date (assuming early September alongside 0.33), I'm curious as to how it will be monetized. Will this be another vehicle sold through loot boxes and/or the My.Games store? Or will it be another tier 9 premium vehicle available for purchase (with gold) in-game? Whatever the case, I will be looking forward to acquiring this beaut' for my ever-growing collection ;) IMO, it looks quite a bit better than the VT-5, so my previous comment still applies:

I can't agree to your sentiments here. Artillery in its current form is intended to provide fire support, not damage output. In this sense, their weaponry is not meant to do massive amounts of damage, but designed to punish [often well-armored] immobile targets. Firing at the front of MBTs in the test range, I can consistently do ~300-500 damage with every shell I fire, which is rather impressive in my books. Hitting less armoured targets such as LTs and TDs, the damage increases to ~700-900 damage per round and causes additional module damage/destruction. Penetrating the engine deck of an MBT, I can easily deal over 1000 damage while also destroying the engine. Ever since the nerf to MBT acceleration/mobility, they have become far easier to hit on the move, so even with the low muzzle velocity of artillery HE shells, I can foresee artillery hitting MBTs by appropriately leading their shots. However, if HERA was still an optional ammo type for artillery, incoming artillery would be much harder to avoid, with little time to react. There would be little incentive to fire HE over HERA, support the team instead of farming damage, or even relocate in artillery. Moving targets would also be far easier to hit and if the vehicle in motion on the receiving end of fire was a lightly armored AFV or LT, I doubt their games would be particularly enjoyable. As for the "direct-fire TD" claim, I can understand where you are coming from (especially regarding the trajectory of shells); but there are still distinct differences between the two classes. I'll spare everyone from my elaboration, but both classes will each have their advantages and disadvantages. You can certainly still blind fire them, but campers (and most vehicles for that matter) in AW generally have ridiculously high penetration, module damage, and/or DPM (or a combination of these traits). When a firing line of snipers in AW concentrates fire on a single target, they will generally evaporate (which was (and still is) a major consideration for the 0.33 rebalance).

Surprisingly, I'm actually rather enthusiastic about their return. Most of my experiences during the previous test were actually positive, during which I never even played the artillery... While incoming shells were annoying, friendly artillery helped tremendously in numerous occasions, lighting up campers/snipers, deploying smoke on objective and/or wildcard caps, and even occasionally resetting some points (when they had LoS/LoF). I think many players have become accustomed to mortar infantry already, so many of them already understand the importance of repositioning and cover. Consequently, the incorporation of artillery back into the game should be quite smooth and straightforward. In addition, because artillery isn't nearly as dependent on ping, artillery in GlOps may be a win-win opportunity, as players will no longer be required to slog through PvE to grind their artillery; which may subsequently result in GlOps becoming more accessible to a wider range of players (potentially shorter queue times). Well, since you asked, I may as well take a swing at it ;) While artillery is definitely not as effective as an active/passive spotter vehicle (such as an AFV or even LT), their white phosphorus rounds allow them to target areas which scouts cannot realistically reach and/or reach in time. Using only the southwestern quarter of Grindelwald (a larger GlOps map) as an example, there are many common camping/sniping spots frequented by MGMs, Hellfires, Wilks, and even some retarded LTs: The aforementioned passive or even active spotters (of the northern (blue) team) will have a tough time driving to and spotting at these locations. While safety/security is certainly a primary concern when deciding to spot, efficiency (or risk/reward) is also a significant element which should be considered. Therefore a SPHINX (for example) which drives recklessly towards enemy positions will not only most likely perish, but their assisting damage is far from guaranteed; as the presence of campers/snipers in the area they decide to rush is not assured, while their team may also have difficulties firing at/hitting (never mind killing) spotted enemies (due to distance, oblique angles, smoke, moving, the SPHINX dying, etc.). Furthermore, the amount of time required to drive the distance to these marked areas and respawn must also be accounted for. Although yolo rush spotting can be effective, in most scenarios, the potential benefit from the tactic (if you can call it that) is simply not worth the time and/or effort put in. This is where artillery can come in. Since shells travel much farther and faster than vehicles, artillery can observe tracer/missile trails and launch WP at [annoying-ass] snipers sitting at the rear or near spawn. Although assisting damage in this case is also not a guarantee, there are far fewer risks, but similar (if not equal) potential rewards. However, I still agree that their description of WP shells being used primarily to spot snipers/campers is not the greatest promotion/expected use of artillery. If that was the case, the illumination rounds would be retained and/or the cooldown and ammunition count for WP shells should be reduced and increased respectively. I don't think they mentioned artillery were designed to destroy or cause significant damage to campers. Arty (in their current state) is largely a support class, which is where their smoke and WP shells come into play. IMO, WP is most useful for lighting up enemies capturing objectives (whether that be a wildcard or point). I'll use Roughneck (a rather unbalanced GlOps map) as an example here: Apologies for the unmarked map, I was too lazy to boot up the game to take another screenshot, so I stole this image from the AW wiki. Assume we are the southeastern team (major disadvantage). One of the very few strategies which can create an early lead (and a greater chance for victory) for us is capturing point 1 across the river (and holding it for as long as possible). Currently, this strategy is far more viable if a couple of vehicles (at least one spotter) position themselves west of the refinery (as marked in green) to spot and fire into the flanks of enemies attempting to capture the point initially. However, with artillery WP shells, a flanking element is no longer a necessity (for spotting). This frees up more vehicles (preferably MBTs) to push, capture, and [hopefully] hold the point. Similarly, the same WP shells can also help the [southeastern] team with other objectives, such as point 4 and 7, as well as the gunship zone(s). I did the same, except I only skipped through the previous arty to get to the PLZ. I plan to grind the PLZ myself ;) Agreed. A decent artillery player can be very helpful and a certain bonus to GlOps QoL, however, a bad one can be annoying at best, ban-worthy at worst.

This is a personal gripe of mine. AW doesn't have many experienced/polished content creators, plus the replay system has always been rather lackluster. I would love to watch some modern/up-to-date AW videos, but there isn't much out there. However, the Russian community has a few streamers which are actually quite good. Despite not understanding a single word, I can tell they are skilled and knowledgeable. Plus, they put out the majority of PvP content (which I prefer).

My Abrams Storm is licking its [metaphorical] lips. This made me remember WoT's current EBR/French wheeled LT meta. I mean most EBR players are braindead bots already, so AW's can't be that bad right? Do you like my car? EZ Profit.

I can see what you mean. Considering many lower tiered vehicles also have manual loaders, promoting their crews may also make the initial low tier grinds much more tolerable as well. That being said, I personally skip over low tiers entirely by advancing them to renowned with reputation (sometimes without even purchasing the vehicle). But this is definitely a privilege, as I'm only willing to do this because I already have a decent stockpile of reputation and vehicles (premiums included); plus, I don't really like low tiers. This is expected, since XP gain (in general) is considerably less at lower tiers compared to at higher tiers. This is also likely why lower tiered vehicles often achieve renowned before their crews reach level 4. Glad to know my work is useful/helpful to others ;)

I believe I have an idea as to why you have encountered an issue here. The Merkava has a wide variety of different ammunition variants/types. Because of this, the ammo selection screen will have a scroll bar to accommodate: By scrolling down on the ammunition selection prompt for the 120mm cannon, you should then be able to find and remove the DM43A1 shells from your vehicle: As @Lenticulas has mentioned, each crew member can be trained in two (2) skills. For further insight/information on the topic, you're welcome to read my crew overview ;) Shameless plug

After visiting the list of games using CryEngine, I can now somewhat understand the causes behind the better visuals/performance of the games you've mentioned. Kingdom Come Deliverance was developed by Warhorse Studios, a Czech game development company with >100 employees, which is over 3 times the number compared to Allods (the team currently working on AW). Furthermore, it was released in 2018, so it also likely took advantage of an improved, refined version of CryEngine. Hunt Showdown is expected to look and perform better, since it's Crytek themselves who developed it. Plus, they are using CryEngine V (the most modern iteration of the engine), so the excellent visual fidelity is no big surprise really.

Crytek still maintains and updates their engine, with the latest release arriving in September of last year. Of course, newer versions of the engine will provide developers with additional features, tools, and options to enhance their titles (including more efficient/streamlined optimization). However, IIRC, Armored Warfare's CryEngine has never been updated, which (based on development and release dates) suggests it's still using a version of CryEngine 3 or 4. This is probably a key factor as to why the game looks rather dated/appears similar to it's open beta state. EDIT: Under the Wikipedia list of CryEngine games, AW is noted to be using a version from 3.6 - 4. I've also played a couple of Sniper: Ghost Warrior titles, and while they looked somewhat better than AW, all of them were rather resource intensive.

Well, since I’m in the running, I may as well introduce myself. I’ve been playing Armored Warfare since day one of open beta. So I’ve been witness to the ups, the downs, and the stagnations throughout AWs existence. I’ve spent a significant amount of time, effort, and even money on AW (more than I’d like to admit) because this game was (and still is) the most enjoyable within the tank/armor combat genre (IMO). Although I primarily play GlOps nowadays, I have experience in [nearly] every gamemode (apart from Ranked Battles). Consequently, I’d like to believe I tend to stand at and hold a rather neutral and objective position in discussions. To preface my CV, I would first like to address my faults. Most forum users may recognize me as that annoying long-winded or excessive user who constantly posts his views and/or beliefs that no one cares about. Unfortunately, this seems to have become somewhat of a habit after numerous university papers, so apologies to all who must read/suffer through my ramblings (this included). As for my involvement with ArmoredLabs, I’ll be the first to admit my presence and activity on the Discord has been limited, to say the least. Don’t get me wrong, I love Discord; only I primarily use it as a VoIP and message client. Most of the platoons I’ve played with have used Discord to communicate in-game. I just simply do not have the time or patience to read through and/or interact with numerous channels and servers throughout the day. Although I joined the ArmoredLabs server when it was still named “AW Mission Support Group”, I find the format and organization of Discord to be inconvenient and/or unproductive when trying to conduct proper discussion and debate. However, that’s not to say I am inexperienced with Discord. I registered during their [open] beta period in early 2016, so I’ve come to know the program inside and out. Since then, I’ve also set up several servers with channels, roles, and bots, including a prospective server for AW (although work on it ceased after the launch of these forums). Elected or not, I believe there is room for improvement on the Discord side. That being said, I would like to present my list of potential improvements/optimizations (many being imported from my experience with my “experimental” AW server) for the current ArmoredLabs Discord server: More refined welcome and rules channel(s) Possibly including user-verification Reaction roles More specific/granular roles for various classifications News/update channel for articles posted on the main AW portal A channel for suggestions (possibly with a voting system) Member and moderation logs (public or private) Unfortunately, many of these suggestions are not default options/additions, but may require other bots with more functionality and/or flexibility than Nadeko (which is currently used). Of course, the final decision over whether to incorporate these options or not is ultimately at @Haswell's discretion. In the meantime though, I’ve been very active here on our ArmoredLabs forum. I joined on March 4th (when email verification was still a thing), which IIRC was the 6th day after the site was launched. Currently, I’m ranked third and fourth respectively with regards to reputation and content, which is something I guess? I haven’t started many threads, perhaps the most noteworthy of which being my recent crew overview. The majority of my content tends to be constructive replies to and discussions regarding topics which I am passionate about and/or invested in. I will often speak my mind within many of these topics which draw my attention, regardless if I agree with or object to them. I admit I am fairly opinionated, and I will sometimes express my thoughts/perspectives in a brutally straightforward and occasionally explicit manner. However, I don’t believe I am a stubborn or unreasonable person, as I am able and willing to recognize good points or a compelling argument. Since I have far less technical know-how and/or experience establishing/managing a forum, I cannot claim to have many suggestions or recommendations on how to improve or refine the forums as they are right now. However, I do want to present a couple of QoL proposals: Consolidate and/or streamline subforums Remove Tape Study (since older replays become defunct and obsolete after every new patch/update) Moving Mentor Meet-up to go under People, Platoons and Pwning Create a pinned or easily accessible Q&A section/topic (so that quick questions can be asked without needing to create a new topic) Having said all of this, I realize it is very unlikely for me to be selected as a moderator, so I would like to take the time to endorse a fellow candidate, namely @TeyKey1. Those active and/or familiar with the forums most likely already recognize him, but for those of you who do not, let me justify my nomination and support for him. Apart from being an active participant on both the ArmoredLabs forum and Discord, TeyKey also runs AWTactics, a German community site which hosts news, guides, and reviews for Armored Warfare. Despite a language barrier (as English is a second language to him), his forum interactions are consistently insightful and articulate. His content count and reputation are largely indicative of his participation and contribution(s). Translating and transferring his experience from German to English, he’s created numerous helpful topics and guides. He’s offered sound advice, contributed to discussions, and reasoned through debates; while also submitting remarks, correction(s), and critiques with respect to the game’s mechanics, direction, and overall playability. He’s demonstrated that he is extremely knowledgeable and a fitting, respectful personality who deserves to be moderator.