di_duncan

Nice to know that it's in the works. Thanks again for your time, your labour, and your resources. Hopefully we'll be able to make use of it sooner than later ;) Regarding forum hosting/expenses, I'm curious as to what the monthly costs amounts to. I may be interested in subsidizing running costs (should you be so inclined). Perhaps you can PM me about it? Either here or through Discord (same username) is fine.

I know it's somewhat of a cliche by now, but I was wondering if we could have an optional dark theme for our forums here. My monitor is rather bright and when I try to use the forums at night, the page(s) can be blinding. Does/have anyone else have/had similar experiences? Not sure if there are extra charges/hurdles with Invision, but even if there are, as long as it is reasonable, I would even be willing to contribute (monthly, bi-yearly, annually) to cover the costs.

OOF I hope they're sensible enough to do the right thing.

Definitely not as well optimized as I'd like. However, some factors of note: I haven't updated my GPU drivers in over a year (laziness, I guess)... I'm sure I could squeeze some more FPS out of this if I did. CryEngine is a rather taxing engine to begin with. Considering it's infamous use on the Crysis games, I'm not sure how much more optimized AW can become. Oh it's subjective for sure. I think it looks fine because I'm not looking for graphics or realism, I just want decent performance and to have fun ;) Definitely not as visually appealing compared to more modern/updated titles. The terrain (rocks, ground, etc.) is particularly rough/jagged, but I believe this is due to my settings. As for the inconsistent asset design language, IIRC many resources are simply stock/modified CryEngine assets. Since my settings are all over the place (although mostly low/minimum), I'm confident my game can look better, I just prefer performance over visuals.

Most platoons can be considered this, but only some platoons can consistently perform well and/or win games. The one consistency with tryhard platoons or battalions is their vehicle selection, so we can trace the cause to this common denominator. As for the PvP "skill window", it varies between tiers, classes, vehicles, commanders, etc.; so you cannot use a blanket statement to presume it is consistently small. The T-15 for example, is an easy vehicle to play, but one that is quite difficult to master. Most average or below average players in T-15s cannot perform nearly as well as their more skilled/experienced counterparts. This is due to a number of factors (tactics, damage efficiency, ATGM aim, etc.) but it is true nonetheless. I thought we were comparing [overall] balance between modes in the first place? See your previous post: If we are only comparing vehicle effectiveness in respective modes, then your case here as well as your previous argument about AI cheating becomes invalid (since that too is a "mode problem"). In fact, I can use this same line of reasoning to dismiss the AI cheating, because 'that's what you're buying into when your play PvE'. I'm curious if you've ever been on the receiving end of one of these HEAT-MP/HE barrages... Assuming you've only played PvE, then you are very lucky not to have. To be honest, the MTLB and Pindad don't seem to be very popular in PvP mainly due to their inflexibility. As such, they are not objectively good per se (for PvP), but it's the principle behind these vehicles which is so frustrating. It's not at all dependent on player skill, whether that be the player(s) driving the MTLB/Pindad or the players matched against these vehicles, because the vehicles are designed to maximize damage with minimum effort/skill. In most cases, it doesn't matter how many friendly vehicles can/will fire upon these vehicles, their [high explosive] burst damage and magazine size(s) ensure that they will take at least one friendly vehicle with them. If I just so happened to be one of the unlucky recipients of these rockets, I don't think I would blame my team, but I'd definitely curse the launch platform. Of course, it's far worse in GlOps (where these vehicle are most common), since players can respawn and the objective(s) force MTLBs/Pindads to come to you or force you/your team to go to them. Agreed. But PvE's [relative] leniency (Against AI, FRK, respawn(s), etc.) is also worthy of note. The stakes are much higher when there is no amnesty for mistakes.

Of course. I'm some of my discussions both on this forum and privately with friends, I've brainstormed some potential changes: Reduce LFP effectiveness against AP or Nerf gun handling to 490 levels Increase delay between shots to ~XM1A3 level (for consistency) Model hull armor layout to be more similar to XM1A3 (also to be more consistent) Especially against HEAT Larger/more prominent UFP/turret ring weakness Removing its hydropneumatic suspension may also be preferable Decrease side armor effectiveness Extremely trollish side armor atm But... Buff penetration to at least ~XM1A3 140mm levels (bigger gun should have some advantages) Definitely, but I believe the main issue with the CATTB's armor scheme is its layout/position. I can pen the small sliver of weaker LFP even with a PL, but it's very inconsistent and often requires your vehicle to be at a lower elevation compared to the CATTB. This is mainly a consequence of the hydropneumatic suspension, which angles the already strong armor even further. This is a fundamental factor as to why the CATTB is such a formidable brawler and face-hugger. When fighting in CQB, the CATTB is virtually immune to frontal fire. All the driver needs to do is face-hug an opponent (blocking other enemy vehicles from firing into his LFP) and wait for his reload. The facehugged opponent (even a 2AX) will also find it extremely difficult to penetrate the CATTB, since the UFP and turret ring is still quite strong. TBH, I think we all got a bit sidetracked here... This thread should be discussion about Ophelia, not comparing PvP vs PvE or complaining about CATTB ;)

I'm not sure about the capabilities of the autocannon AA turret configuration, but at least the tank hunter turret will be armed with shitty tier 3 (equivalent) Malyutka ATGMs: Look at that velocity.

And it's not in PvP? A1arM and numerous other tryhard/stat-padding battalions/platoons would like to have a word with you regarding their lord and saviour... So it's less effective/more difficult to use in PvE, which I agree is disproportionate. However, simply its existence is far worse for PvP balance, as even in it's current state, the CATTB is disproportionately better than most (if not all) other MBTs. Sure, many players (often tryharding) enjoy it since they are playing with it, but ask anyone how it feels to play against one (or many for that matter) and it's an entirely different story. This has been a recurring complaint for PvE players for quite some time and I totally understand/sympathize. It's definitely frustrating, especially since a human opponent cannot expect to make similar shots. While there is no flip side of this in PvP (few bots after all), there are numerous other "difficulties" (to put it lightly) that do not involve cheating or superhuman accuracy. MTLB and now Pindad spam/rushes Often with Ophelia Shitty team/teammates (that cannot be carried) Teamkilling Accidental kills = instant game forfeit Intentional/planned kills = unpunished Wilk PELE Aforementioned hardcore platoons/battalions Infantry proliferation Mortars especially Overperforming vehicles (which you play against) See @TeyKey1's list Spotting and camo system and reciprocity (eg: MBTs having too much VR) Network/connection issues (far less of a concern in PvE) Ping Hitreg Desync Again, I agree that bots can and should be smarter and/or more "organic". But I could also technically apply the same statement to PvP: Many players have/can achieve high win rates if they exploit many of the PvP-centric issues I've already discussed, and it is certainly not fun for their opponents.

Hardware: i7-6700K GTX 1080ti SATA SSD Settings: "2K" (2560x1440) G-sync Monitor All minimum/low settings are for performance and/or personal preference For example, Post-Process is minimum because motion blur sucks mega ass No DSR because I want consistently crisp visuals FPS limit(s) because of G-Sync That being said, I usually get >100 fps in-game, although that can drop as low as ~60 fps on in some hectic situations/larger GlOps maps. Screenshots: All taken on Grindelwald, apologies if they aren't particularly well framed... (I'm not a photographer) I hope all of this is satisfactory.

Possibly, I suppose? The nerf certainly made it far less protected in PvE, but I would consider that a side-effect of their attempt to artificially create a rock-paper-scissors dynamic in an effort to make ATGMs viable in PvP once again (Of course, in hindsight, it was a massive mistake). However, I'd argue the CATTB is still a capable PvE vehicle in the right hands, especially with the recent AI ATGM nerf. IMO it's rather similar to the XM1A3, as both feature a glaring weakness against HEAT projectiles (ATGMs). But considering the CATTB's advantages (hydropneumatic suspension, 140mm fastdraw doubletap, better AP protection, etc.), it should at least be equally as effective (if not more effective) as the XM.

^ @Haswell is usually very punctual in creating new topics regarding official article(s) as they are posted to the game's portal.

An interesting sentiment for sure. In my experience playing all gamemodes, PvE has been the least frustrating by far. So I'm genuinely curious, what are some of your grievances with/in PvE? Personally, I can't really remember or think of any off the top of my head... Perhaps it's because I don't play enough PvE? While I certainly hope such a solution is feasible, I am seriously doubtful such a compromise can be realistic. Worst case scenario (which could very well be possible), may see the introduction of changes/additions which are ultimately unsatisfactory for everyone. In conclusion, considering Ophelia is an outlier (overperforming) among commanders, it would be much safer to lower her effectiveness (instead of buffing all other commanders). Done properly, this would transform her from being "P2W" to simply "unique" and would level the playing field amongst players in both PvP and PvE.

While I agree that the game doesn't run as well as it should, I have no issues with the current graphics/visuals. IMHO it looks rather good TBH ;)

If the overall concern is TTK and it is appropriately and efficiently addressed, I don't think PvE should become any more or less fustrating to play. Yes, enemies would take longer to kill; but they would also deal less damage to players.

This is certainly true. In fact, I would even claim that the cabinet is unnecessary for PvE at any tier. With the respawn mechanic, there is little incentive to choose the cabinet. However, there is one scenario where a cabinet always trumps the single-use kit: When a vehicle is still healthy and combat-ready, but has already suffered from a dead crew member. In this case, intentionally taking enough damage to die only to respawn away from the fight is inefficient and wasteful. On the other hand, continuing to play with an injured crew member may also be rather frustrating, especially if it's a commander or loader. While such occurrences are quite rare, this is where the cabinet's 3 uses proves valuable, even if running the consumable isn't particularly cost-effective. TL;DR: The cabinet allows PvE players to ensure crew survival throughout a single lifespan and/or without relying on respawning. As for when a medpack should be applied, it's entirely dependent on the tolerence level of the individual player. Someone could technically complete a game without healing an injured loader, but I'm sure most rational/reasonable players would immediately restore their loader(s) to full combat effectiveness. An injured commander or loader should be an immediate med. It's very annoying/fustrating to play with a global debuff or a terrible reload. Gunners are also crucial, as AW transforms into WoT when they are injured, so healing them is also usually advised. Finally, I would say drivers are the least urgent/serious, since mobility is not vital to perform well. As for me, I heal any injured crew member regardless of role. I detest anything and everything which degrades my vehicle's overall capability. As players become more advanced and/or experienced in AW, they will eventually begin accumulating credits (earning more than they spend). Wealthier players (with excess/disposable income) may simply ignore consumable or even retrofit costs, equipping their vehicles however they like. PvP players (GlOps players especially) usually spare no expense in outfitting their vehicles either, since their respective gamemode(s) require them to overcome diverse and distinct challenges. It also helps that PvP modes offer better relative credit (and XP) income. You're welcome :) I hope you found it helpful/useful.

Welcome. I'm happy that you're happy to be here ;) It was a similar story for me, except my stint in WoT was even shorter. I only reached tier 4, where I started my grind of the "douche wagon". Encountering the usual WoT suspects (arty, gold rounds, RNG, etc.), I became quickly frustrated and fatigued with the game. Long story short, I hated playing the thing so much I quit altogether (although I still consume WoT content from time to time, mainly for the personalities, but not for the game itself).

FUCKING NORMIES! Tendies

Wait, @Flavio93Zena? I didn't know you joined the forums... Well, now that you're here, fak yuo and suk mi dik ;) PS: Pineapple on pizza is delicious. Anyone who disagrees probably fists food blenders.

Thanks for the nomination @TeyKey1. I'll consider my time and options first before making a final decision. In the meantime, I would like to accept the nomination provisionally.

Since up-to-date guides for Armored Warfare are few and far between, I’ve decided to contribute a comprehensive crew overview/guide (in spite of how much of the crew system is already common knowledge). Since I will be writing it, the content presented may come off as long-winded and/or excessive. A side effect of university papers perhaps… Apologies in advance if this is the case. On the other hand, if the community here enjoys my transcribed thoughts and opinions, I may decide to create more of these posts/topics. I think the ArmoredLabs forum is an excellent platform and initiative, where perspectives, information, and discussion pertaining to AW can be shared between and archived for players, experienced or not. Note that some elements of my writing will be influenced by personal opinion, so please do not take everything here as gospel. Much of it can be classified as suggestion instead of fact. Any suggestions and/or constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated. Please notify me of any errors and/or discrepancies, edits will be made if necessary. I will strive to keep my posts up-to-date. With that out of the way, here is my AW crew guide: Crew Vehicles in AW (all currently manned) require a [healthy] crew complement to support and sustain combat capability during battle(s). The bulk of the material within this overview is not applicable to commanders. Although commanders are also technically crew members, they employ a skill and leveling system far more complex while also boasting significant/substantial distinct abilities and mechanics; therefore requiring a dedicated guide of their own. When a new vehicle is purchased/acquired, it is assigned crew members automatically, each with specific roles/duties to fulfill in their respective vehicles. Crews will also have skills and attributes related to their position. Skills: Crew skills are selectable performance improvements available to individual crew members. Different crew roles will each have their own respective sets of [unique] skills relevant to their position. Two skills can be chosen for each crew member, with the first skill slot unlocked upon reaching level 2 and the second slot upon reaching level 4. Attributes: Predetermined set of intrinsic competencies relevant to the specific crew member’s function within the vehicle. Designed to reflect a crew’s mastery of the vehicle, its percentage/potency increases alongside a crew’s level of proficiency. Attributes are maxed once a crew attains level 5. Crew Progression: Unlike commanders, which can be moved and/or shared between different vehicles, the other crew members of a vehicle must remain with their respective vehicle. Crew members gain crew experience tied to the amount of base experience (based on performance) gained from battle(s). Consequently, crew experience can be augmented by winning (in PvP), completing [primary and secondary] objectives (in PvE), first win of the day multipliers, and premium account. However, crew experience income can be further increased with certain boosts, applicable insignias, and special event bonuses as well. As a vehicle’s crew accrues experience, their proficiency level will gradually increase. Higher levels will progressively increase their [passive] attributes while reaching levels 2 and 4 will unlock a skill slot respectively. Proficiency is maxed upon reaching level 5. Crew experience required for level up: Level 1 → Level 2: 3,000 Level 2 → Level 3: 17,000 Level 3 → Level 4: 70,000 Level 4 → Level 5: 110,000 Players are also presented with an option to immediately “promote” the crew to level 3 (with credits) or to level 5 (with gold). But this is generally unadvised, as the crew grind is rather seamless and quick, occurring in parallel to the corresponding vehicle grind. Some premium vehicles come with a level 5 crew as standard: Crew in Combat: Similar to internal vehicle modules/components, crew members are modeled with a hitpoint pool and located at their respective positions within their vehicle. A penetrating shot in or around these particular area(s) may injure crew member(s). Whereas modules are [eventually] repaired automatically, injured crew cannot recover without the use of a medical kit or first aid cabinet. Crew Consumables: The three consumables relevant to crew are: Medical Kit: Heals all injured crew members in your vehicle (single use) First Aid Cabinet: Heals all injured crew members in your vehicle (3 uses, 90 second cooldown) Both medpacks feature a passive 15% bonus to crew resilience (crew “durability”). There is no reason not to equip the first aid cabinet over the medical kit (especially if you play GlOps), unless you are particularly low on credits. Energy Drink: Increases crew stats (attributes) by an additional 5% for a single battle Energy drink (and some commander skills) buff crew stats, but this only improves crew attributes, not crew skills. Therefore, vehicles with a manual loader should be equipped with energy drink. A vehicle with a level 5 loader trained with Rapid Fire combined with energy drink would see a considerable 10% increase to its rate of fire (without factoring in any additional crew stat buffs) Crew Configuration: The number of crew a vehicle seats may vary from vehicle to vehicle, from a minimum of 2 (Wiesel) to a maximum of 5 (Some SPGs, AFT-10, etc.). All vehicles require two crew members minimum, specifically: Commander Leader of the vehicle. Guides, instructs and directs crewmen during operation of the vehicle under his/her control. Responsibilities encompass communications, navigation, target acquisition, operating weaponry, etc. A commander injury disables any commander abilities and results in a sweeping debuff to vehicle characteristics, such as mobility, targeting, and firepower, even if the crew member corresponding to that function is still alive/unharmed. Driver Drivers are responsible for mobility; specifically driving and/or manoeuvring a vehicle. They steer and control the hull movement of vehicles, namely forward/reverse movement and turning/rotation. An injured driver will have significant negative effects to speed, acceleration, hull traverse, etc. Attributes: Traverse Speed (+5% max, +1% per level) Self explanatory, the rate at which a vehicle rotates its hull. Expressed in degrees (°) per second. Terrain Resistance (+10% max, +2% each level) How evenly a vehicle distributes its weight to the ground. Better terrain resistance effectively improves vehicle acceleration off-road. Skills: Smooth Ride: Overall accuracy while moving is improved by 10% Use/Function: Better accuracy while firing on-the-move Classes: MBT, LT, AFV (particularly LTs and AFVs) Vehicles: Most LTs, AFVs which are able to fire on-the-move (eg: SPHINX) Battering Ram: Ramming damage increased by 50% Use/Function: Increased outgoing ramming damage Classes: MBT Vehicles: M1A1 Storm, T-80U, Obj 640 Off-Road Driving: Acceleration on off-road terrain increased by 20% Use/Function: Better off-road mobility Classes: All Vehicles: Any vehicle which feels sluggish off-road (eg: Challengers) Spin to Win: Hull traverse speed improved by 5% Use/Function: Improving turn rate Classes: All Vehicles: Vehicles with poor hull traverse/large turning circles (eg: Merkavas) Field Repair: Track and wheel repair rate improved by 25% Use/Function: Decreasing track/wheel repair times Classes: MBT Vehicles: Brawlers and/or vehicles frequently receiving fire The vast majority of vehicles will also feature a gunner. Gunner Gunners operate vehicle weapon systems and it is their task to aim and fire upon targets. Vehicle turrets and/or weapons are manipulated by the gunner. When the gunner is injured, a vehicle’s accuracy and turret traverse speed will decrease drastically, while aim time will increase considerably as well. Attributes: Aim Speed (+10% max, +2% per level) Self explanatory, the time required for a vehicle to minimize its aim circle. Turret Traverse Speed (+5% max, +1% per level) Self explanatory, the rate at which a vehicle rotates its turret. Expressed in degrees (°) per second. ATGM Accuracy (+10% max, +2% per level) The missile guidance stability of a vehicle. Skills: Do the Twist: Turret traverse speed improved by 8% Use/Function: Improving turret rotation rate and target engagement Classes: All Vehicles: 490, MGM, ADTU, etc. Quick Draw: Aim speed improved by 5% Use/Function: Improved gun handling/targeting Classes: All Vehicles: Any vehicle with longer than desired aim time Sharpshooter: Max spread is improved by 5% Use/Function: Improves maximum (best) accuracy. Classes: All Vehicles: Any vehicle which has less accuracy than desired Preventative Maintenance: Cannon hitpoints are increased by 50% Use/Function: Making disabling weapon(s) more difficult Classes: MBT Vehicles: MBTs with easily disabled guns (XM1A3, 490, etc.) Accuracy: Accuracy decay rate while firing is improved by 25% Use/Function: Decreasing weapon bloom after firing Classes: Some MBTs, LTs, and TDs Vehicles: CATTB Some vehicles will also retain a loader, until higher tiers (especially tier 10) where they are largely replaced by autoloaders. Loader Loaders are mostly self-explanatory. Vehicles without an autoloader must rely on a human loader to manually replenish (reload) their armament. When loaders sustain an injury, both vehicle reload speed and weapon/ammunition swap time increases substantially. Hence, loaders are both potential liabilities and/or beneficial assets. An injured loader can effectively disable a vehicle’s weaponry, although (or conversely) loader effectiveness can be buffed with energy drink. Attributes: Rate of Fire (2.5% max, 0.5% per level) Self explanatory, the rate at which a vehicle is able to fire its weapons. Applies to reload times on single fire weapons, both reload and intra-clip reload times on weapons with ready-rack/magazine and the RPM of autocannons. Skills: Rapid Fire: Rate of fire increased by 2.5% Use/Function: Increasing DPM Classes: All Vehicles: All Preparation: Ammo swap speed improved by 50% (Bonus is higher on clip-style autoloaders and large magazine autocannons. Activates only if the number of shells are full.) Use/Function: Improved weapons and ammunition flexibility Classes: MBT, LT Vehicles: Vehicles with longer reloads but decent gun/ammunition Explosive Shells: Module damage increased by 10% Use/Function: Greater module damage Classes: All Vehicles: Any vehicle set up for module damage (eg: Cent 120 w/ Sabrina) Secured Ammunition: Reload speed not reduced when ammo rack and/or breech are hit Use/Function: Eliminating reload penalties for damaged/disabled ammo rack/cannon breech Classes: MBT Vehicles: Any MBT with easily damaged/disabled ammo rack and/or cannon breech (eg: Leopards) Vehicle Expertise: Repair speed increased by 10% Use/Function: Improved module repair speed Classes: MBT, some LTs Vehicles: Vehicles with modules that are consistently/routinely destroyed Safety: Chance of explosion during a fire reduced 22.6% Use/Function: Chance to preventing additional damage from ammo rack explosion Classes: MBT Vehicles: MBTs with vulnerable ammo racks (Leopards, Ariete, etc.) Notable vehicles/lines without a loader: [Most] Russian MBTs [Most] Chinese MBTs AFVs Autocannon [exclusive] vehicles [Most] Missile [exclusive] vehicles Note: Some vehicles may have a crew member assigned as both a gunner and a loader. In this case, the crew member will serve as both roles simultaneously and will have attributes and skills available from both positions. Accordingly, dual-role crew members should benefit from loader skills (trained in Rapid Fire) while their vehicles should also be equipped with energy drink. Interesting fact: Crew members can be customized in AW. First and last names can be chosen from an extensive list of different names originating from various languages and/or nationalities. Crew portraits can also be changed; another likeness can be selected from yet another expansive list of appearances of varying race, ethnicity, gender, and attire. Fin

Sorry, that's what I meant. Ophelia should be primarily used by MBTs anyways. Even without dipping into the reload skills which sacrifice HP, Ophelia currently has the highest consistent reload bonus of any commander. To have this advantage while also benefiting from her extremely powerful basic skill is rather unfair, wouldn't you say? Any changes will have its opposition. Considering PvE is against AI/bots while PvP is played against human opponents, I would argue that the disruption Ophelia causes in GlOps is a far more prominent/pressing matter than her performance in PvE. The consequence of nerfing Ophelia in PvE is minimal (less damage or assisting perhaps) Mainly cooperative and not competitive Can still be enjoyable without Ophelia Nerfing Ophelia in PvP would result in a more equal playing field for all Would simultaneously decrease the effectiveness of several overperforming vehicles MTLB Pindad Marder 2 If any change to her is global and all-inclusive, the resulting backlash would likely be minimized, especially given her atrocious reputation and how many players obtained Ophelia through the BP. PvE players can continue to enjoy the same gaming experience (albeit with a different commander), while PvP should become far less toxic, frustrating, and/or imbalanced. Any solution will involve compromise, the best option must provide the greatest benefit with the fewest downsides. This is a slippery slope. altering commanders in PvE is certainly no big deal, but PvP modes would be greatly affected. Imagine random battles and/or GlOps matches with all commanders performing on par with Ophelia: Extensive crew and/or module damage upon every penetrating hit. Gun handling characteristics (accuracy, aim time) would become irrelevant. Tracks would repair in a couple of seconds DPM would increase dramatically HP pools would balloon, but asymmetrically Camouflage and foliage would lose most, if not all, utility Doesn't seem fun to me.

I would like to nominate @Silentstalker to be a mod then.

I understand your concerns and I'm sympathetic to the [numerous] challenges/compromises. I'm fully aware of the potential repercussions, and I am also trying to take cashflow and upkeep into consideration (see my response to a topic regarding revamped sounds). Unfortunately, Ophelia's current state could also very well be driving players away from this game as we speak. I'm hoping (and rather confident) that the AW playerbase will accept such a nerf to Ophelia if the changes are universally applied (nerfing Ophelia for all). I think the majority of the AW community can agree that something has to be done. The question here is what. Perhaps @Silentstalker can put this dilemma to a poll?

Believe me, I hate the PL in PvE just as much as the next guy ;) But I don't think nerfing the vehicle is the proper solution for this issue, as the frustration is isolated to AI-controlled PL-01s in PvE. Perhaps a nerf to AI PLs or even a wide-ranging AI accuracy nerf (for all weapons, not just missiles) could suffice? Agreed. The problematic Abrams line has some of the worst vehicles ATM (apart from the XM1A3). Consequently, the "gap" between the M1A2C and the XM1A3 is massive. This is an obvious example of the "power creep" that this community (and the article) have discussed. However, some newer vehicles, such as the Leclerc or the T40, are more comparable to tier 10s than their tier 9s counterparts. They are among the first power creep "poster child vehicles" to come to my mind. Meanwhile, the PL (at least in PvP/GlOps) is largely overshadowed by it's cousin, the Anders. As I've explained here, the Anders possesses some significant advantages over the PL despite being a tier lower. And although the two do not share a vehicle line (even though they definitely should), there should definitely be some parity/consistency between tiers.

Based on her strengths and the capabilities of the current roster of commanders, Ophelia should not be optimized (or commonly used for that matter) for PvE play. If PvE players are looking for a commander that increases DPM output, Vincent or even Cortez are arguably better options. However, because Ophelia is able to provide significant buffs to both reload speed and view range (both being rather important in PvE), any player can simply use her to maximize both damage and assist (spotting) damage. Furthermore, if she is a meta commander in all vehicles, modes, and tiers (even without her primary ability), something must be awry with the overall commander balance as well. If she does not receive a nerf, then can we expect a sweeping buff to the other, less viable commanders (as @itzjustrick has mentioned)? When all is said and done, I would rather nuke her for PvE than keep her in her current state for GlOps. Her overall viability in one mode should not overrule the quality of life of another. I mean Alisa was never (and still isn't) a decent commander for PvP or GlOps, but I have no complaints in that regard.