di_duncan

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 ;) Looks pretty good to me ;)

Same here. I think her main selling point lies with her basic ability, so I they will make any changes to it. However my qualms lie with her additional skills, which by themselves are very powerful. My suggestion would be for them to adjust/remove these supplementary skills, essentially converting Ophelia into a one-trick-pony.

They've confirmed an overhaul of the entire Abrams line, including the AIM. The Abrams will also be remodeled, as their current models are far from accurate (which is actually a factor in their poor armor profiles for some reason).

Being in a position to guess, I'd be inclined to agree with such a prediction, but that match was surprisingly a loss. While both teams performed similarly during the first phase, the enemy team were able to quickly seize cap 3 (in the east) and take defensive positions. Our team's repeated attempts to capture the point were of no avail. I output a sizable amount of my total damage during the first phase, as MBTs crossed the river dividing the caps in the west. During the second (final) phase, considering how the opposition were "dug in"/hull down, I positioned myself to create a crossfire as enemy vehicles crossed. This was rather successful, as I did most of my damage from this position. I vividly recollect farming a poor Merkava who could not spot me. He desperately tried blind-firing at me, but most of his shells (HEAT-MP) missed, with the couple that hit doing minimal damage (hitting my turret/not penetrating my hull). Eventually he tried hiding from me, but his Merkava was too tall and I finished him off with a HEAT-MP salvo of my own. Ultimately, inconsistent skill/effort from a number of our MBTs/T-15s meant that we could not recapture point. Eventually the ticket different became insurmountable, and the game ended in a loss. Ignoring the final combined stats of each team but considering the three-man platoon on the enemy team, how few of your teammates actually have capture points and the fact that both teams have tier 8s at the top of the scoresheet, I'm inclined to believe this match was similar to my previous match (we also began in the south). The cap situation was likely equal until the second phase, when your opponents also seized control of point 3. Despite the PANZR player performing out of his league, your team also suffered from inconsistency and incoordination. Although your team dealt more damage and secured more kills, the cap/ticket disadvantage resulted in a loss.

@Yxlouvia I believe @Soren already mentioned it previously:

Thank you @TeyKey1 for so concisely summarizing the mechanics and advantages of Ophelia's basic skill. Puts my poor disorganized and confused attempts at explaining her to shame :P I'd also like to emphasize that this comparison doesn't even address her aforementioned passive skills buffing reload time and view range. Needless to say, she is definitely overperforming in her current state and in desperate need of a 0.33 rework. The question remains as to what will be and/or how it will be done...

Interesting to see/hear from the perspective of PvE. Unfortunately, this would cause havoc/uproar among PvP players. Should many preferred/favourited vehicles (especially at tier 10) face a massive nerf bat, I'm confident the majority of PvP players would stop playing altogether.

At later/higher tiers I would agree, but 3 million credits is nothing to scoff at, especially for newer players. Purchasing V2 retros (especially gun breech) on a vehicle which you don't plan on playing again is simply a waste. Great point(s). Although he may already be aware of and/or using your advice ;)

OK, I'll post one more (censoring the experience this time around): Solo Q GlOps game on Narrows. One three-man platoon on each team, both performing rather poorly (surprisingly). Similar team comp, although they have a 490 and a Type 10, while we have a Wilk, a K2, and an additional T-15. As for notable players, we have Falcrum (COBET) and Vyserk (ex-HYPE, now NASTY) while they have a player from Ardor (str-1). Perhaps @Norse_Viking and/or @Lenticulas can provide some of their matches for us to guess/discuss? Remember, we aren't judging the outcome, gamemode and/or performance; it's a learning experience, so everything's fair game.

While I agree that WoT is definitely arcade, I cannot say the same for War Thunder. There is a reason why WT's player retention is so poor. Of course, the overwhelming grind is a major factor, but the realistic damage model and relatively complex game mechanics do not lend themselves to a game which is easy to learn or enjoy. Even in "arcade" players will be hull broken and/or one shot in GBs while aircraft are shot down just as easily in ABs (now especially, due to the proliferation of missiles). I know exactly how much potential AW has. But with a dev team of only ~30 people, they can only do so much. Believe me, I'd rather postpone the addition of any new vehicles or even delay the launch of a BP if it meant we could get a sound redesign/update. Unfortunately, the majority of the developers working on this game are likely modelers and/or visual designers. Creating new content such as vehicles/lines or a raid/BP ensures a stable playerbase while also potentially attracting/drawing back new/old players alike. This maintains their bottom line and keeps the game afloat. A sound update would either require a significant period of development or additional training/contract work, while the final result would have little to no additional content or effect on gameplay. I would much rather the team focus their efforts on update 0.33, as it is crucial for balance and consequently the health of the game as a whole. Of course, if Allods has some additional cash/resources to spare, I would love to see them update the sound design of AW. As much as I'd like to be as optimistic as you are, I'm a realist. Armored Warfare's chance at widespread acclaim and popularity has come and gone. Better sounds effects will likely be welcomed by the existing community, but such an update would fly under the radar of everyone else, much like any other AW update, big or small. It's rather unfortunate, but it's unfortunately true. While your claim should be valid, at least in principle, then AW should already fall under your umbrella of "realistic or close to realistic sound effects" (even in its current state). CS:GO's default weapon sounds are far from realistic, yet they are adequate. In fact, CS sounds are so recognizable not because they are faithful to their original(s), but because they are distinct and different. Other games such as CoD, Battlefield, R6S and even Arma (which is meant to be an "authentic military sandbox" mind you) follow this same trend. If AW's current sounds are unrealistic, then your criticism should extend to these [very respectable] games/franchises as well. Hell, even WoT's stock sounds are quite lackluster, with many tanks and cannons sharing the same sounds. There's a reason why there are so many soundmods (RIP Gnomefather's)... Note that the WT sound showcase video was also demonstrating revised sounds from the Epic Thunder modpack. That being said, I'm pretty sure there is nothing stopping the AW community from adding their own preferred sounds into the game, especially with the unofficial modding capabilities we now possess. However, with the AW community being this small, who knows if someone has the time and/or technical prowess to create a soundpack for AW...

Considering he's willfully playing (grinding) the M1A1, I would assume the latter. I doubt someone playing that garbage fire of a tank/line would be looking to improve personal stats ;) I'm hoping no one would want to voluntarily play mid-tier Abrams MBTs after they've finished grinding through them. Anyone who does is either a masochist or a sociopath.

OOF. Starting your grind with the Abr0ms line (in its current state) isn't particularly fun. Hopefully when 0.33 hits it'll be all worth it ;) Low tier 120mm guns all seem to have this rather pitiful trait. Sucks. But then again, 0.33 might change that as well... Fingers crossed. While Rachel's potential reload buff is high, her skills only trigger when in CQB. A rather annoying condition and also quite risky. Gun Breech V2 is worth it for vehicles you intend to play even after they're "renowned" (100%). For newer players however, it might be wise to save the credits for future use, since higher tier vehicles and upgrades will become quite expensive. Improve crew stats. Specifically loader attributes. By leveling up your loader and training them in the Rapid Fire skill, you can achieve up to a +5% RoF increase (for free). This can be increased by another +5% by equipping energy drink as a vehicle consumable. Some commanders may also feature skills which increase crew stats. Philipp for example offers two skills increasing crew (and infantry) stats by 0.9%. Acquiring both (and equipping him as commander) would result in a +1.8% RoF increase. Note that this method only increases reload speed on vehicles which seat a manual [crew] loader. Although this should not be a concern for your current grind, as all Wolfli MBTs tier 9 and under feature loaders. Consequently, vehicles without autoloaders cannot benefit (to the same degree) from crew stat enhancements. If you wish to learn more, I plan on posting a rather in-depth and extensive crew overview tomorrow. Good luck.

My bad, I probably haven't seen it then. However, your test results (despite the relatively large sample size) are not equivalent to your previous generalization: Which implies that everyone will have similar results, overlooking numerous variables (and therefore potential sources of predisposition) which may differ between each and every game. To devise a quick scenario, let's change the only reliable constant in your test, which happens to be you (as a player). If someone else, let's say my battalion-mate Shrek (who is particularly good at PvP), were to record his results, it's quite possible he would arrive at a different percentage. But even then, his performance is a variable in and of itself, as no one can be perfectly consistent in their play. Ultimately, there are far too many variables (vehicles, platoons, map, etc.) to make a precise and/or specific generalization; so an [intentionally] vague or imprecise statement should be used instead. Good: In PvP, the team which can eliminate a vehicle first will usually win. Better: The side to destroy a vehicle first in PvP will often win. Best: Based on my observations, a team that gets the first kill will most likely win. Sorry if this sounded like a lecture, my philosophy course's exam prep kicked in :P

Although her "shield" can be considered as merely additional HP, it doesn't matter if a Draco's 76mm gun or a Obj 490's 152mm cannon depletes her shield, because she will still have 1 hp left regardless. See my previous comment: It will always require at least two additional penetrating hits (unless you wait for her shield to expire) to finish off a vehicle with Ophelia. This guarantees any vehicle with Ophelia to survive longer, while also absorbing ordnance irrespective of caliber/damage (and therefore reload/DPM as well).

No idea where you pulled this statistic from, but it certainly doesn't seem valid. Regardless, Lanchester's law(s) cannot be applied to AW. Devised during a period of human wave attacks across no-mans-land, its formulae were applicable to medieval formations and linear (or line) infantry exchanges. It does not account for equipment, training, and/or tactics, nor does it consider asymmetric warfare. It's safe to say that it is not appropriate nor pertinent to Armored Warfare, an online game revolving around modern tank combat. Random battles are far more dependent on individual skill and/or smarts. Because there are no respawns/repairs, there's a far greater chance for upsets and comebacks. To have a correlation between losing the first vehicle and losing the match is absurd. Say I rush to my death in all of my random battles. Even so, I seriously doubt that I would have a 30% winrate in the end. Ultimately, it is far easier for skilled players to carry in PvP, since victory is primarily decided by eliminations (which can be controlled by a single/handful of players), whereas victory in GlOps is decided in tickets (requiring collective team effort). If Ophelia + MTLB suicide rushes in PvP regularly result in victory, there would be far more MTLBs (in platoons as well) in PvP. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

Surprising result to say the least. Some clarity in terms of the [behind the scenes] calculations and statistics of AW would definitely be helpful. I would partially blame the obscured aforementioned mechanics/incentives. No one fully understands how or what the game rewards players for. Because damage and assistance are recorded in dossiers and presented in post-game stat sheets, many players selfishly pursue those figures instead of helping their teams. Ehhh, I've had worse ;(

As much as I appreciate immersive audio design, I don't think Armored Warfare (as an arcade-style game) needs to offer a captivating aural experience. I don't even think it has to be visually stunning. Games such as Tarkov require excellent sound design as their gameplay is extensively intertwined with and even dependent on hearing and listening. There is no gameplay advantage to be gained in AW through audio. IMO, stability and optimization take precedence, especially in a game which has a smaller population. In both of these regards, I cannot say that I am entirely impressed. So there is still a ways to go. The AW team does appear to have their priorities set straight though. 0.33 should overhaul vehicle, commander, and map balance, although there will also be aesthetic (vehicle model) changes as well. Who knows if sounds will also be addressed in the future? If sounds are to be redesigned, I would love to hear some improved engine notes, as the current sounds are rather dull. Since the majority of driving in AW is done with the third-person camera, the engine is almost always audible to players. While it is easy to distinguish between diesel, hybrid, and gas turbine engines, it would be nice to hear some character and diversity between engines of the same type (such as a turbo whistle). Cannon and other firing sounds are of secondary importance in my eyes (or is it ears?), since they are usually muffled when aiming (in first-person/"sniper mode"). There is also a potential informal avenue of respite: modding. Although I am not particularly saavy regarding the technical aspect(s) of AW, perhaps it's possible to replace/substitute sound files?

I'm quite sure you are joking, but I find that most GlOps players can and do (or at least try to) PTFO, especially those in MBTs. Snipers are another story, but many of those vehicles cannot be expected to brawl/CQB. If they are: Accurate (hitting shots, dealing damage) Efficient (positioned well, conscious of objectives/surroundings) Adaptive (capping, resetting or even brawling when required, even if they die in the process) Then I have no issues with their play. My gripes are with players sniping in vehicles which should not be sniping and/or snipers which are selfish and ignorant of their team's situation. By all accounts, this appears to be a rather convincing victory (unless someone from your team pulled off another stupid bomber). Significantly more kills by your team Far more damage done and assist damage by friendlies More capture points Considering this is Ghostfield, it looks as if both teams were able to capture one point respectively during the first two phases, but the enemy team suffered more casualties in the process. Your teams [slight] capture point advantage should have come during the final phase, where both caps were secured by friendlies before the enemy could react. Ultimately, much of the outgoing damage may have been fired during this final phase, as the enemy team were rushing/scrambling to retake cap 5/6. I commend you for playing the SPHINX smartly and not bum-rushing into your opponents. You are a shining example for many other SPHINX players to follow.

Assuming AW has a server reticle, ping spikes, packet loss, and even poor/inconsistent upload speeds can result in these ghost shells. In most cases, hitreg issues are client-side, but considering the relatively recent server issues, AW might also face desync. My understanding of it is in line with yours. With this fix, a ghost shell should pass through the target vehicle and may hit the ground (or whatever is) behind. I don't see any benefits either, but perhaps it can at least indicate some form of network error/malfunction to the player? I think they are trying to erase the "ghost" from "ghost shell" (allowing the shell to impact something at minimum), but I doubt these changes will make these occurrences any less frustrating. On another note, I'm rather impressed with their most recent PvP video guide. Animation, production and voice-over quality appears to have be significantly improved. Kudos to the team.

As for @TeyKey1's game, I can somewhat instinctively tell that this is a loss simply by looking at your post-game stats. I find that many defeats feature players who aren't leading the team in damage at the top of their team. There seem to be far fewer occurrences of this on winning teams. Considering this match was on Narrows, am I correct in assuming your opponents were able to capture and hold point 3 (easternmost cap) during the second (and final) phase of the game? Respective team composition(s) combined with the disparity in damage and kills seems to suggest the opposition was likely better equipped (for Narrows at least) and more skilled, resulting in them steamrolling your friendlies, who remained out of action (waiting to respawn) far too long to mount an effective counterattack. Somewhat confused by your team's massive capture point advantage though...

That's pretty decent. I have even fewer battles, lol (although I joined in 2015 as well). Interesting approach to the grind. Would you mind giving me a walkthrough of the different dealers/lines you progressed down and why? Curious. When I started, I began grinding through [nearly] all the MBT lines, especially since MBTs were even more OP at the time (eg: unreasonably mobile) and were by far the best class of vehicle. As new trees and lines were added, I began grinding through them as well (even if I don't particularly enjoy playing some of them). I'll admit I've used reputation to skip more than a couple of vehicles which I found annoying/tedious. I can't emphasize your last point enough. Sometimes practical experience is far better than simple theoretical knowledge. I still remember when I was foolishly attempting to penetrate the XM1A3's LFP when I could've easily aimed, fired and penetrated under the gun or even the UFP. Congrats! You are now the proud owner of the most powerful cardboard and wood AFV mockup designed by man. I hope you enjoy it ;) Quick tip: If you'd rather have enhanced firepower instead of a sniper, equip the Rapid Fire ability and use it when you want to reload your magazine quicker. Remember to toggle it off as soon as the reload is complete.

Overlooked that... Crap :( Smart of you to reference experience gained though. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner. Have an upvote ;) Although both of your interpretations are technically true, I would argue that they are too simplistic. Capping and damage dealt are certainly important in GlOps, but unfortunately they do not reveal the whole picture. I'll try to provide some insight from my perspective: Game 1: Ignoring post-match stats and the final result, if we compare the teams based on the criteria I've elaborated on here, team composition, vehicle combat effectiveness, and player skill all seem to be in favour of our team. Team Composition: 4 T-15s against none on the opposing team Only 5 MBTs against us, while we have 6 Vehicle Combat Effectiveness: T-15s are extremely versatile and capable. Overperforming Obj 490 is extremely tough to eliminate, can push and contest caps. Excellent offensive MBT capability with the K2 (great frontal armor + burst damage), Leclerc T4 (DPM) and even the Type 99A2 (speedy) vs Similar MBT capabilities 2 Wilks = significant module damage (PELE) Several Kornet ATGM snipers, with double-tap missiles. Player Skill: Few players of note on both teams, but we have Shrek (who consistently performs well in any vehicle) Despite these advantages on paper, this game was a disaster due to the following: We had the southeast spawn, which was naturally a disadvantage T-15s were rather lackluster, performing poorly and not carrying their weight MBTs were evicerated by the Wilks firing PELE, and could not attack or even properly defend caps Many friendly MBTs were also below [expected] standards Eventual disregard for caps as the team faltered in the latter stages of the match Our team's poor showing suggests yet another phenomenon in AW, the skill/effort gap. As I've outlined in this post, T-15s in particular seem to be inconsistent and/or unpredictable; some being exceeding dominant while many are incompetent, ineffective or just simply average. Perhaps this shines a light on why the T-15 is even in it's current overperforming state. As a vehicle, it seems to be simple to get into and play, but quite difficult to master. Considering its popularity, the average majority of T-15 players have likely "diluted" the vehicle's statistics, which may have influenced the balance changes that have led to the T-15's current overpowered state. Of course, skill gap(s) exist for any and every vehicle; with the main difference being the scale of the gap itself. Vehicles which are tough to master (such as the T-15) will obviously feature a greater range of players with varying levels of ability, mastery, and competence. Idiot-proof vehicles then (like the 490), will subsequently have a smaller/narrower range for individual skill. As for effort, it's an extraneous factor which is unfortunately nigh impossible to determine, much less control. However, the post-game stat sheet clearly indicates a disparity between the opposition's effort and the effort put in by our team. Perhaps most notable is the distribution of and the difference between capture points. Whereas even their Wilks and Kornets have assisted in capturing, nearly two thirds of our team have zero capture points. Game 2: This was an exhilarating battle to say the least. We started from the south, which I generally prefer (at least for LTs). One of my best games with regards to assist damage, despite not using any wildcards. However, as much as I'd like to boast about my personal performance, this game stands out as the single most organized and coordinated team effort I've witnessed in AW. All without any "cheese" vehicles (T-15, T40, CATTB, etc.) on our team. Not quite. While I can understand why you would think this to be the case, the enemy team's capture point advantage was most likely a consequence of their early pushes to capture point 2 and 3 (two adjacent eastern caps during the first phase) and point 8 (single eastern capture point during the final phase). Because the majority of our team were focused on point 1 at the start of the match, our opponents were able to blitzkrieg forward to capture points 2 and 3 with little opposition. Although prioritizing point 1 is often a mistake, point 1 also happens to be the easiest point to hold/defend. Our team was able to secure point 1, albeit with losses. However, as if on cue, those who died capturing point 1 collectively respawned in the east, pushing the enemy out of point 2 and subsequently capturing it as well. During the final phase, the enemy team largely ignored the west, allowing friendlies to capture point 9 while I capped point 10 uncontested. With the vast majority of the opposition occupied on point 8, opponents attempting to capture points in the west were easily reset and eliminated. While our TDs/snipers certainly did not help much with capturing points, I must commend them on their ruthless accuracy and efficiency. I am generally critical of snipers regardless of which team they end up on, but our snipers played a pivotal role during this match. Most (if not all) of them prioritized their targets, resetting efficiently while also remaining situationally aware of distant target(s) lit up by scouts/spotters. Ultimately, without our snipers, both Shrek and I would've had significantly less assisting damage.

I'm rather surprised that someone of your wisdom hasn't already played the majority of (if not all) vehicles in AW already... All of your posts/replies suggest that you have significant experience in nearly (if not all) aspects of AW (including vehicles). No offense intended.

I'm assuming you haven't done Heroics before then? Wait till you encounter a Defender variant, that'll knock your socks off :P

Hello. Instead of my usual over-analysis, I'll be posting something [hopefully] amusing today. I present to you, two GlOps games I've played recently: Game 1 (Roughneck) Game 2 (Grindelwald) I am platooned with my friend Shrek. Both of us are playing vehicles which we enjoy, despite their objective uncompetitiveness (at least for GlOps). Games were back to back. Game 1 was on Roughneck, while Game 2 was played on Grindelwald. One resulted in a resounding victory, while the other was an appalling loss. I challenge this community to guess the final outcome of these games based solely upon their final scoreboards. First one to guess correctly get a free upvote from me :P I would also like to invite anyone and everyone to post similarly intriguing/frustrating/ridiculous (etc.) games regardless of outcome, gamemode and/or performance. I'm very interesting in hearing the stories/contexts behind the many distinct and diverse experiences of everyone in AW. PS: Cheers to @dark_demigod from LABS (if you're here) and @Zemosu for their participation in these battles ;)