di_duncan

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.

17 minutes ago, MK_Regular said:

The Malyutka we currently have in-game at tier 3 appears to be either the AT-3A or AT-3B, meaning we could see any of the AT-3C variants (460 or 520 pen, possibly with a better modifier against ERA) or the devs could completely go off the deep end and give us AT-3D with 800mm (or more, and possibly with a tandem warhead) of HEAT pen at tier 5.

OOF

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

1 hour ago, Zemosu said:

That is more than some peoples entire rig and mentioning that it still drops to 60fps as soon as there is some action is rather disappointing.

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.

1 hour ago, Zemosu said:

On the other note maybe it's subjective

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 ;)

1 hour ago, Zemosu said:

the textures still look bad IMHO,  the vegetation is ugly and the way it "blends" in the terrain looks like axe work, actually most of the stuff don't really blend in very well, different texture clip, and various elements seem very oddly placed(buildings look bad).

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.

2 hours ago, knutliott said:

they might just be really good players who are using their abilities combined with teamwork to exploit what's otherwise a fairly small skill window.

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. 

2 hours ago, knutliott said:

Regarding the "difficulties" that you list in PvP... most of those sound like mode problems, not vehicle problems.

I thought we were comparing [overall] balance between modes in the first place? See your previous post:

6 hours ago, knutliott said:

If you think balance is bad in PvP... then yeah, you don't play enough PvE. 

 

2 hours ago, knutliott said:

In all honesty, that is what you're buying into when you play PvP so you really can't use it as a counter-example.

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'.

2 hours ago, knutliott said:

at it's core it's a problem of bad players getting themselves isolated where the MTLB or Pindad can abuse them.

2 hours ago, knutliott said:

If people stuck together and worked as a team in PvP then those vehicles wouldn't be all that great in PvP, either.

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.

2 hours ago, knutliott said:

I realize that it feels worse in PvP because you're fighting another person and that other person just beat you because of lag or whatever, but the actual advantage/disadvantage encountered has to actually be worse in PvE.

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. 

1 hour ago, itzjustrick said:

Don't most people also find it to be nerfed in the wrong way for PvP play.

1 hour ago, itzjustrick said:

meanwhile the CATTB does 1.6+ k dmg in 1 second

1 hour ago, itzjustrick said:

it is still absolute crap to fight against frontally with another mbt

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)

1 hour ago, itzjustrick said:

Like it is still extremely strong and hard to fight against unless you have really high pen heat.

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 ;)

5 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

AA gun ruling PVE and ATGM wagon ruling PVP.

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. 

36 minutes ago, knutliott said:

T-15 is/was an OPAF god-tier vehicle in PvE...

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...

36 minutes ago, knutliott said:

CATTB is wreaking havoc in PvP, so let's nuke the one thing that makes it great in PvE - its resistance to HEAT.

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.

59 minutes ago, knutliott said:

Bots aim at pixels still, though it's not as bad as it's been in the past.  If a bot decides that you need to die, you die.  Bot can be moving full speed while turning and twisting the turret while you're doing the same, but it's laser precision will nail your driver's port every single time.  Bots routinely cheat with ATGMs, firing them around corners and over hard cover.  They're tricks that in theory players can also do, but in practice no actual person can pull off.

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

1 hour ago, knutliott said:

Players have high win rates in PvE not because it's too easy, but because the bot AI is programmed to "cheat" and do things players cannot, not programmed to be smart.  Once you learn the bot cheats you can work around them, but it doesn't make it more difficult or more fun, just more frustrating.

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. 

7 hours ago, Zemosu said:

Could you provide more info regarding you rig and settings? maybe some in game screenshots.

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.

21 minutes ago, itzjustrick said:

Could this be nerfing the cattb to really only have worse PvE performance instead of actually nerfing it for PvP?

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. 

3 minutes ago, knutliott said:

which is that PvE players get shat on all the time

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?

9 minutes ago, knutliott said:

I think SilentStalker is headed in the correct direction, which is to find a way to mitigate Ophelia in PvP modes without harming her in PvE modes.

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.

 

4 hours ago, Zemosu said:

Is there any way to have a petition or any sort of way of communicating to the dev team that we need major optimization work for the game since it runs and look very bad an out of date.

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 ;)

35 minutes ago, Travlla said:

Have a feeling this is going to sux balls for PVE players, maybe its time for different tank stats for PVE and PVP/GLOPS? yeah i know wishful thinking, lets just hope this doesn't drive PVE players away, 

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.

12 hours ago, Quantum_Ranger said:

So I'm wondering about the economics of the first aid cabinet over the medical kit... seems like it only becomes worthwhile at a certain tier in PVE.

At T7 the first respawn costs 7500, so if I just go ahead and die once in each of 3 matches, I've spent 22,500 (and reloaded all my ammo and completed all repairs, too.) This is just half the cost of burning a cabinet. I hardly ever need second respawn, because usually that late in the game there's not enough opportunity to mitigate the additional cost.

At what point is the cabinet worthwhile?  And if you have a cabinet, what's the optimal threshold for breaking it open?

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.

12 hours ago, Quantum_Ranger said:

One problem is that once you buy the cabinet, you can't set it aside and just use the medical kit if you are going off to play PVE for awhile.  So do people just keep 1 vehicle prepped for PVP and a different vehicle prepped for PVE?  

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.  

12 hours ago, Quantum_Ranger said:

Thanks for a great tutorial, and for enlightening us noobs.

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).

2 minutes ago, itzjustrick said:

Maybe we shouldn't have brought discord here

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

5 minutes ago, knutliott said:

Also, saying that you can "maximze" Ophelia for both damage and spotting is something of a misnomer for PvE.  VR is tied heavily to camo, and to "optimize" Ophelia for VR you lose 8% camo.  You'd pretty much always prefer Juan Carlos over Ophelia for spotting purposes.

5 minutes ago, knutliott said:

So while that's fine if you only want to use her in MBTs, that's really the only use for her once you've done that.

Sorry, that's what I meant. Ophelia should be primarily used by MBTs anyways.

7 minutes ago, knutliott said:

Optimizing her for reload speed similarly has side effects, specifically to health.

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?

14 minutes ago, knutliott said:

Anyway the point is that people bought Ophelia because of her abilities.  I doubt anyone bought Alyssa specifically to use for PvP or GLOPS, so making her worse in PvP or GLOPS wouldn't matter to them.  I'm sure that people did buy Ophelia for PvE, though, so you can't nuke her for PvE without pissing people off.

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.

55 minutes ago, knutliott said:

Unlike vehicle balance, I wouldn't be opposed to a general buff to commanders.  Even the best ones feel no better or maybe slightly better than a single retrofit, and the bad ones basically just feel useless.  Buffing all of the commanders up to retrofit level doesn't seem like a bad thing, provided they're different enough to still feel unique compared to each other.

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.

40 minutes ago, itzjustrick said:

However I still believe that screwing paying customers over by nerfing stuff they paid for shouldn't be done in a too big extent. Ultimately this could mean less paying customers and in this way it could be detrimental to the lifespan of the game

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?

40 minutes ago, knutliott said:

I hate that tank in PvE.  God I hate that tank.  You can't see it until it's too late, and it auto-pens basically anything it shoots at.  Every 2 seconds.  And it has troll armor.

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?

33 minutes ago, itzjustrick said:

That said, I feel like t10s need something to offer which is better then the same tank at t9. I feel like the difference should be made smaller, but not how it's in your graph knutliott. Because then where is the reward after grinding your new shiny t10? I feel like a t9 should be able to deal with a t10 if the player in the t9 is more competent, but I feel like it should not be a level playing field.

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.

 

1 hour ago, knutliott said:

If you make her a one-trick pony, you've destroyed her for PvE and since PvE is the dominant game mode I have to assume it's also the dominant revenue stream.

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.  

58 minutes ago, knutliott said:

I suspect that TTK is one of the impetuses behind the re-balancing.  It's a borderline too low right now.  A very slight across-the-board nerf to TTK would go a long way toward fixing balance across classes.

I would gladly accept a comprehensive TTK increase. Just [please] don't fuck with the unique/distinctive characteristic(s) of certain vehicles. 

Please, for the love of god, don't fuck with my polan-01... Give it some love instead ;)

34 minutes ago, knutliott said:

Again, apologies for the rudimentary MS Paint skillz.

Looks pretty good to me ;)