di_duncan

This is what usually happens regardless. Ophelia pops, people keep shooting till it's dead. The issue arises when considering the extra ordinance (2 shells at minimum) spent on a target which is already supposed to be dead. The target-rich environment of GlOps requires efficient target prioritization, so two shells fired to secure the kill on a vehicle with Ophelia may ultimately be the difference between winning or losing a capture point (especially if those rounds are fired by vehicles with poor DPM/reloads). I'd have to disagree here. While MTLB and Pindad rushes are certainly the most well known/stereotypical users of Ophelia (notably in GlOps), at high tiers, Ophelia is primarily used by CATTB and/or T40 drivers. Although T40 drivers are also aforementioned "burst damage rush" vehicles, CATTBs are certainly not. The "second chance" afforded to vehicles with Ophelia isn't always exploited with the goal of additional kills/damage; in the case of vehicles such as the CATTB, surviving a killing shot may be especially advantageous considering their excellent overall strength/performance. A CATTB at 1 HP will remain an equally effective MBT as a CATTB at full health. It can still [and most likely will] resist AP frontally, double-tap, facehug, push/defend caps, etc. All while Ophelia continues to provide additional buffs to reload, view range, etc. In summary, Ophelia's ability allows overperforming vehicles to survive even longer, affording them additional time/opportunities (to deal damage, cap points, spot targets, etc.) as they remain on the battlefield. Considering many players with Ophelia have obtained her through the Age of Rage BP, I would definitely exclude Ophelia from the P2W moniker. Most players who exploit her are the average seal-clubbers who cannot use her in a vehicle other than the Pindad/MTLB and who fail to utilize her to her full potential. Overperforming? Yes, for sure. Strictly P2W? Not exactly. Her effectiveness is particularly apparent in GlOps, but she continues to be an effective commander in all modes as a consequence of her other abilities/buffs. By nerfing burst damage on the Strela/Pindad, kamikaze rushes would certainly be far less feasible. However, Ophelia's effectiveness on other vehicles (such as the aforementioned CATTB) would remain/continue. As she is right now, Ophelia is an excellent commander even without her basic skill. As long as she is able to provide major buffs alongside her primary shield, players will continue to abuse her capabilities, regardless of vehicle, regardless of mode. I don't see any easy solution to this. But I can confirm that Strelas and Pindads often perform little to no capping in GlOps games. If all they do is suicide rush, a competent team focused and efficient on caps can quite often overcome an onslaught of rocket spam. I would have to maintain my position and predict that they will nerf her other skills/abilities. Such a revision would make her very situational, only suitable for a small number of burst/spam vehicles in GlOps, instead of her current universal utility/meta.

My head hurts... Honestly not sure if you are more: Or: Whatever the case, you need Jesus. Or maybe Prozac.

This is certainly interesting and I can understand the appeal for such a feature. In fact, this would be rather useful with vehicles such as the Swingfire and/or AGDS with non-LoS missile guidance/targeting capability. However, like you mentioned: It is certainly an enhancement, but I'm ultimately doubtful that it can provide a significant/consistent advantage in AW, especially in PvP. I personally never play SPGs, so the PvE application isn't particularly appealing, at least to me. For the purposes of aiming ATGMs without LoS, the reticle and overall sight picture is still blurry, so I'm not sure if it would ultimately garner better results. ATGMs in general are all quite finicky, as their use is largely affected by external factors such as performance, ping, and packet loss. Furthermore, I'm curious as to how the increased zoom would affect control/sensitivity. The center picture would become magnified, but sensitivity would remain constant. I greatly appreciate similar well-executed "PIP" FOVs in FPS games with emphasis on realism, but most games of this genre implement adaptive sensitivities to compensate for different scope magnifications. While AW seems to cover this base with their native zoom/sniper view, I'm not sure if this zoomed third-person would cause difficulties in aiming/guiding. All in all, I just don't think ReShade for AW is worth my time. While ReShade is generally light on resources, running an additional instance on top of an already [relatively] unstable game is an undesirable risk for me. @Haswell's concept definitely has potential though. Those brave souls slogging through SPGs in PvE will most certainly find such an option rather useful. As for ATGMs, perhaps others with greater skill and/or better connections can evaluate this in practical use? I'll be waiting for a first-party implementation (which will never come).

ReShade is not exactly an injector, it merely modifies appearances/graphics. Nvidia Freestyle is based off the same concept. Shouldn't be an issue really, even most anti-cheats whitelist ReShade. Although I fail to see any potential advantage in using ReShade in AW TBH... An arcade game such as AW already presents friendlies, enemies and even objectives on a silver platter to players with numerous indicators and a minimap. This is far from a tactical shooter/simulator requiring rapid split-second visual identification and IFF for every target (eg: Tarkov), so I doubt such visual modifications can offer a gameplay advantage. I can understand the appeal for those seeking better colors, visuals and other cosmetic/aesthetic details for screenshots, content creation or simple enjoyment; but personally I would only find it distracting or even nauseating (in AW that is). Decent guide nonetheless @Sebastian_Grimm ;)

Speaking of this topic, yet another factor contributing to her [mostly PvP] popularity are her superior reload speed and view range buffs. Without sacrificing any HP, Ophelia can improve reload speed by 6.1% when she is spotted (which is a condition easily and often fulfilled by most MBTs and other well-armored vehicles), far more than legacy MBT commanders such as Phillip and even rivaling Rachel's CQB reload bonus. Furthermore, she can drastically increase view range as well, granting heavier frontline MBTs and brawlers additional capabilities to spot snipers and spotters whilst only sacrificing camo in exchange (which is useless to MBTs and heavier-armored threats in the first place). If these massive advantages can be removed/significantly reduced/tweaked, I believe it may dissuade many current Ophelia users from retaining her, especially when Vincent can provide a much better potential reload buff while also providing additional HP and other MBT-centric skills/abilities.

While I'm certainly not going to defend Ophelia's absurd ability, winning against Ophelia rush platoons (especially lower tiered) is certainly feasible, especially if friendly/team priorities are straight and if collective DPM is focused and accurate. CATTB Ophelia platoons are another story though, but that involves factors outside of just Ophelia [and her ability]. To be fair, she was obtainable through the Age of Rage BP... That's how I have her.

TBCH, the PL-01 isn't as competitive as I make it out to be. As much as I laud it, you may be sorely disappointed if you start playing it with high expectations. In a strictly LT role, the K21 XC8 is the better vehicle. Better gun handling/performance, better sustained DPM, better [overall] camo (ADAPTIV is somewhat gimmicky), etc. It just so happens that I enjoy the PL more for it's unique traits; its armor in particular. What's worse is the fact that the tier 9 Anders is arguably a better vehicle (even for my preferences) when compared to the PL. While both have rather similar characteristics (magazine, unmanned turret, decent armor, etc.), the Anders also possesses: Higher DPM, stemming from; Faster reload Faster intra-clip reload Same alpha damage Greater [frontal] resistance against autocannons Better camo Ultimately, the Anders does have some disadvantages when compared to the PL: Worse gun handling/performance (expected) Poor HEAT protection Less viewrange Less gun depression But the Anders' significant advantages outweigh these [relatively] minor liabilities. As a whole, the LT class needs a buff. I've already put my thoughts forward regarding the current class meta and power creep (especially with newer vehicles like the Type 10) in several previous posts/replies, so I assume you can understand my perspective on the overall limitations of LTs as a whole. Apologies for inserting yet another one of my diatribes in this thread. That looks pretty dope! Love the "carrot" accent on the gun barrel. When, where and/or how was this skin obtainable? Imagine how the XM would look with a USA "countryball" theme/skin on the front of it :P Flag plastered all over the front, one shade on each turret cheek, 🆃🅷🅸🅲🅲 and ｗｉｄｅ... (applicable considering the sheer girth of the XM1A3 and it's ERA) Freedom, 'Murica, obesity... You get the gist. But please buff the Abrams line before you make such a skin available ;) Please @Silentstalker, I would purchase these countryball skins en masse if you can introduce more of them.

Well said. I couldn't have phrased it better. It is certainly a challenge to balance something which has been widely exploited (for quite some time may I add) and monetized. Most established game communities hate change, so changing a long-term meta commander like Ophelia would send many within AW into uproar... I would embrace this with open arms. Instead of making her skill an automatic activation, change her ability in a similar fashion to the [formerly automatic] super hard-kill APS on the Merkava and T-14/15. Such a change would change her to become a situational commander, instead of her current meta commander status. Pubbies, think of it as a quick time event ;) I really wish you could elaborate here, but I understand some things are still NDA/hush-hush. Hoping for the best though. Godspeed, 0.33.

Didn't have time to post this reply earlier, but well fucking done @MK_Regular. Kudos ;) I don't play too much PvE, so I can't say I the information you've presented was intended for me, but I'm sure many a PvE player would find your detailed analysis and guide/advice particularly useful/helpful. @Haswell, can we get this archived/pinned/reposted separately (perhaps as a read-only topic?) so it can serve as an easily accessible reference for all?

In general, I would have to say my preferred tier is 8. The tier features numerous compelling and fun vehicle options which are fun and enjoyable to play, a compromise between the cancerous yet powerful tier 10 meta and the lackluster performance of vehicles of tier 6 and below. Balance is favourable, as the capability gap(s) between different vehicles/classes are not too broad nor too limited/overlapping. The variety and diversity of vehicles is decent as well. All in all, a tier which sees dynamic gameplay and interesting (sometimes surprising even,) synergy. However I primarily play tier 9-10 GlOps (especially during BP) simply because there are more players and consequently more matches/quicker queues. Tier 10 also contains the polandball, which happens to be my favourite vehicle (also the best skin in the game, fight me). Polan can into space

Same here, and I seem to get all of the maps from the GlOps pool. Interesting to see that Roughneck, Ghostfield, and Narrows are more common for some... Perhaps the matchmaker adapts/adjusts map selection accounting for network and server variables? I'm sure the larger dedicated GlOps maps require more server resources and may even tax their networking infrastructure more as well. Now that I think about it, many of the games I've played on Desert Crossing, Grindelwald or Barren Divide take place as PvP queues are dying down.

I'm pretty sure it can still manage, even in PvE. LT players can't brawl in PvE either, so they are forced to snipe. Thus, if a vehicle no longer becomes viable in a defined role; Improvise. Adapt. Overcome. Play safe, be cautious, try to remain hull down or even use your excellent burst damage to eliminate enemies before they can do significant damage to you. The Challenger 1 Falcon is still a decent vehicle, albeit less durable in PvE. Note that the Falcon was never really a PvE-centric vehicle to begin with, instead favouring PvP environments. There will always be supporters and detractors of any vehicle really, depending on individual playstyle and class preferences. So I'm sure there will still be players who enjoy the Falcon, despite all of its flaws. YMMV OFC I'll refer the curious back to my original assessment of the vehicle, as all of it still remains valid:

After playing a number of games today, I can confidently say the new UI indicators are a step in the right direction. While I personally found many of the new options to be unnecessary/superfluous, customizing size and color is certainly a welcome option. I've found that setting enemy indicators to "small" and team/friendly indicators to "smallest" is perfectly adequate for my use. Although there certainly have been improvements made to the new indicators, there is definitely still room from improvement. In my humble opinion, these are settings/areas of improvement which I would like to see in future updates: Allow different font sizes for player names and respective vehicle information within indicators (player names are sometimes still irksome) Give an option to remove vehicle tier (number) and type (symbol) elements individually (as mentioned previously, experienced players can often recognize a vehicle's tier immediately. Some may even find vehicle tier to be entirely redundant) Modify/allow customization of indicator "dimming" behaviour (when spotted vehicles are no longer spotted, their indicators dim/dull before they become fully unspotted) I have also noticed a particular rendering issue where distant enemy vehicles were spotted with the appropriate indicators above them, but their actual vehicle(s) and "outline(s)" were not visible/rendered. I could shoot, penetrate and deal damage to them, but I was unable to visibly see their vehicle(s). Has anyone else experienced identical/similar phenomena? Of course, these are merely my thoughts, experiences and preferences. I would also love to hear the opinions of others from our ArmoredLabs community. I play those maps quite frequently though... Plus, they are among some of the more enjoyable GlOps maps IMO ;) While I once shared a similar resentment for Narrows, I've warmed up to it over time. Both my friend Shrek and I agree that it's definitely too small for full phat 15 vs. 15 GlOps matches though... It should definitely be restricted to 10 vs. 10 exclusively. Unfortunately, I have developed a newfound hatred for Roughneck and Desert Crossing instead. Roughneck is imbalanced in GlOps, while Desert Crossing essentially funnels teams into "channels/corridors" (which is far from ideal for AFVs and LTs); not to mention there is so much random garbage to get stuck on within these respective "corridors".

Since this change mainly affects PvE and is intended to make AI opponents less "perfect", I believe the worst case scenario would simply make PvE hardcore (and perhaps heroic/spec ops as well) much easier for players. While there will likely be issues upon initial release, hopefully their design(s)/vision(s) can become better fleshed-out as patches are rolled out.

This sounds very nice, although I'll have to see the changes in person before making any additional comments. THANK FUCKING GOD. I hate how teams/players have become so reliant on bombing runs, to the point where many would rather prioritize the bomber over capturing objectives. I also tend to miss/ignore bomber caps myself. So more pew pew shooty shoot damage for me ;) Didn't they "fix" this in a previous patch? How is the portable bush still bugged/broken? On another note, buff LTs (especially the PL) in 0.33 please... EDIT: They did! Spirithaven season (Update 0.31) patchnotes: PL-01 Hard-kill APS LEDS-150 changed into LEDS Next Gen Prototype, increasing its charges from 6 to 8 and reducing its minimum range from 20m to 15m Fixed the issue where the ADAPTIV camouflage system would provide lower than intended bonus to camouflage

While I am sympathetic to your situation, sometimes shit happens. There are days where I cannot seem to lose, despite performing below my usual expectations/potential. However, there are just as many instances where I also find myself in a prolonged losing streak, even though I've been playing out of my mind during most of my matches. You can't expect to blame the matchmaker, the platoons, or even yourself sometimes. There are usually a plethora of different aspects to a game which can both positively and/or negatively affect the final outcome. Even your post-battle screens are indicative of a wide range of varied contextual, circumstantial and even personal/individual factors: Flavio, ivand, and a player from A1arM in a platoon This should be a significant advantage, yet it was still a loss Despite the two platoons on the opposing team, their team composition is objectively weaker Seven tier 10s and three tier 9s vs. Six tier 10s, three tier 9s, and one tier 8 Inconsistent performances within the two enemy platoons May imply better overall teamwork/cohesion All of your tier 10s performed better than your tier 9s Quite uncommon, ranking and statistics suggests tier 9s were less efficient skill-/ability-wise Considerably more damage done by your team Unfortunately, your opponents were dominant in capping Especially the XM1A3, which may indicate the inability/reluctance of your team to reset cap(s) All of the enemy premiums near the bottom of the scoreboard Indicative of how premiums ≠ performance Ultimately, an unfortunate loss. Despite your team having a clear advantage with regards to composition, skill ceiling, and even damage, even Flavio and his "seal-clubbing" platoon could not rescue the game. Reminds me of a game I played recently... With regards to your grievances surrounding the matchmaker, I believe you hold the assumption that MM will create teams based not only on an even vehicular playing field, but also achieving a parity of skill. Regrettably, this is not the case. SBMM was attempted quite some time ago, and it was almost universally lambasted. While an SBMM system functions well in an ELO/rating system environment (such as Counter Strike), when a game is team- and objective-based 15 vs. 15 and only classifies skill based on winrates, such a matchmaker would inevitably result in horribly lopsided games (even the most skilled player can only do so much). While it certainly still has its flaws, I find the current matchmaker to be decent enough. Just look at your aforementioned game (with Flavio and co.); without consideration for any factors of skill, your team was granted an additional tier 10 in an attempt to compensate for the additional platoon on the other team. Without the benefit of hindsight, I would say such a compromise is acceptable. Platoons themselves are not exploits, nor should they be considered rigging. While playing against skilled platoons is often certainly a challenge, I would not advise anyone queuing in GlOps (or any PvP mode for that matter) expecting/anticipating victory. Sometimes it's better to play the game for your enjoyment, even if it hampers your grind, lowers your winrate, or hampers your BP progress (...etc.). Almost no game will be 50/50 statistically, so to use ratios and expect a 50% winrate is inaccurate at best, fallacious at worst. No apology necessary/expected ;) Having these forums is perfect for discussions, no matter the topic, attitude, agreeance, etc.

I believe they do. However, these increased XP multipliers will only apply to your first win of the day in each mode. For example, whereas the normal first win multiplier is 200%, some events may increase that to 300%. Consequently, the most efficient [daily] grind would involve decent wins in PvE (hardcore obviously), PvP (random battles), and Global Operations. Unfortunately, most in-game promotions they run during "regular" periods only involve crew or commander XP. Previous event bonuses have been far too generous, allowing grinds to be shortened significantly. This wasn't particularly healthy for the game, as many players had already renowned most/all of their vehicles and eventually became tired of the game. This has also led to the creation of overprogression abilities, modules, and even entire vehicle lines (which has been a point of controversy to say the least).

While I certainly agree that roflstomp platoons are not fun to play against, it's an inevitable part of the game. AW has it, so does WoT and WT. Nothing can or should be done to reduce platoon sizes, but we can hope for better overall vehicle and gameplay balance (0.33?). However, I have found that playing solo usually greatly reduces your chances of facing 3 man platoons. If worst comes to worst though, it might be better to play another tier/mode altogether. Don't do this. It's toxic and unproductive. At least finish the game, and log off for the day. As @TeyKey1 has mentioned, while the chance of a comeback may be slim, there is still certainly a possibility. Some of my most exhilarating games have come from such comebacks against what seemed like impossibly long odds. It would be extremely frustrating if other players were to abandon you, so don't abandon others.

Based on his contribution(s) alone, I believe @TeyKey1 would be a fitting and appropriate choice to become a Moderator. Of course, he has final say over whether he would like to accept the nomination.

I've personally found COBET to be less coordinated and potentially less skilled than A1arM and NASTY players. I usually don't find them platooned and/or seal clubbing in OP vehicles, as counter-intuitive as it sounds. Overall, COBET hasn't been too bad in my experience with and against them. However, I know for a fact that Falcrum is an exceptional player. Opponents should be weary of him regardless if he is platooned or not. A battalion which isn't quite as common (at least at top tiers, where I usually play) but either extremely annoying or often useless (depending on which team you are on) is TAGAN. These mind numbing platoons usually queue with three SPHINXs and YOLO rush immediately. While certainly skilled, they will often have average damage numbers, but will likely make up the majority of their team's assisting damage. Sometimes their spotting is useful to snipers on their team, but their vision is often counterproductive, as the rest of their team usually ignores the objective only to stops in their tracks to attempt to do some initial damage. Their playstyle is arguably worse for opponents, as they are forced onto their toes to actively spot, target and [hopefully] eliminate these awful speedy croissants before they drive deep into enemy lines spotting everything and forcing the vanguard to turn their weapons around. They are perhaps the purest manifestation of a chaotic neutral force in GlOps.

I don't think there can really be a direct correlation between the premiums and winrate. Even if there are statistical connection(s) between premium vehicles and performance, I doubt anyone would be able to find causation to definitively indicate that premiums improve the odds of victory. While I understand the OP does not claim premium vehicles are P2W, a generalization of said degree can be easily disproven with a battle such as this: Two premiums (Type 10s) vs no premiums. Even though our team were against a skilled heavyweight platoon led by Flavio's Type 10 and despite my grievances with the current Type 10 (which you can read about in the "far east fighter" thread), we managed to pull of a miraculous victory. Premiums ≠ Victory Can I get a reference for this claim? I seriously doubt premium vehicles have preferential matchmaking, especially considering how [relatively] small the current playerbase is. Overall, my matchups have been fairly diverse. While tier 10 premiums must be top tier, most of my tier 9 games have been uptiers. The games I've played from tier 8 to tier 5 have been a mixed bag, with approximately a 50/50 chance of either an uptier or a downtier. I personally haven't noticed any matchmaker preference between queuing in premium vs. non-premium vehicles. While I agree that progression vehicles are more likely to suffer from poor performance as a consequence of their grinds, I believe the general trend for victories follows team composition, vehicle combat effectiveness (capabilities/potential) and player skill above all else. In view of these considerations, occasionally I can correctly predict the outcome of a match before it even begins. Unfortunately, singling out individual players/vehicles may be unproductive when discussing the likelihood of victory in a team-based game. This is especially relevant in GlOps, where failure and success hinges on a teams ability to PTFO; in this case, capping objectives. Team composition is often a significant factor in deciding the outcome of a battle. As I've mentioned previously in one of my previous posts, MBTs (and some other vehicles of note) are currently the most valuable class, as they are resilient, versatile and adaptable; as such, they can consistently carry. Meanwhile, vehicles such as the Wilk and MGM are tragically one-dimensional. Without armor or flexibility, these snipers are often extremely frustrating to play against, but usually contribute little to nothing when it comes to objective play. It's often no surprise then, when such mismatches result in a loss: Note the number of T-15s and MGMs. Surprisingly, this specific match ended with a double-digit difference in tickets between teams. We lost because a MGM failed (or refused) to reset the middle cap during the final phase. While essentially a secondary evaluation whilst reviewing team composition, [combined] vehicle combat effectiveness is yet another significant aspect to consider before a match commences. First, a general assessment of the utility and aptitudes of various vehicles is required to formulate a comparison between the vehicles on either side. Some appraisals can be obvious (eg: T-15, CATTB, etc.), while others will require some deliberation (eg: ADTU vs 2AX). I shall use this battle as an example, addressing only the MBTs and valuable well-armored vehicles (therefor, that excludes me): Note how our team has an additional T-15, this likely improved our chance of winning, as the T-15 is overperforming and has the capacity to counter nearly any foe. While our opponents have one additional MBT, their advantage was likely mitigated by the weaknesses/mediocrity of the vehicle in question (Type 99A2). Our MBTs: One XM1A3 (weaker frontally, excellent DPM, trollish side armor) One T-14 (good overall) One Leclerc T4 (highest MBT DPM, powerful main gun) One Type 99A2 (mediocre, recent frontal armor nerf and extremely thin sides) Opponents wielded: Two Type 99A2 One XM1A3 One K2 (decent burst damage, strong against AP, weak against HEAT) One Object 490 (excellent frontal armor, poor DPM) Ultimately, I would have predicted the opponents seizing victory, as their armored assets outnumbered ours. But alas, such a comparison fails to account for individual player performance/ability (to be discussed next). Consequently, it can and should only be used as a vague, preliminary judgement of the battle ahead. Finally, there are battles where the skill/ability of opponent(s) can be recognized prior to engagement. While most players encountered are often random/unknown, there are some cases where you may be able to identify skilled players by battalion tag, platoon and/or name. Take this interesting battle for example: Here we see a trifecta of skilled players (all platooned). DONETSK and Deca from the newly formed A1arM battalion (who are all relatively proficient) These two in particular are known for their aggressive (and often dominant) play, often in CATTBs or T-15s Flavio, ivand, and dranddad; with the former two from NASTY, a veteran (but less active) battalion with experienced players While Flavio is sometimes less predictable (playing the CATTB and T40 among other strong vehicles), most of these players excel with the T-15 Shrek and I representing Y33T, by far the best battalion in AW a silly little battalion for shits and giggles Shrek can shred with basically any vehicle, but both of us usually play less competitive, yet "fun" vehicles which we enjoy (PL for me) In such a situation, most of these aforementioned players would recognize each other (and most likely a number of randoms would as well) and prioritize/focus-fire on opposing members (except for me, none of them would likely deem me as a threat). If any player encounters some of these particularly skilled adversaries, it may be wise to focus on them as well, since their presence on the battlefield can be the difference between securing a flank (and/or point(s)) and being pushed back into spawn. Unfortunately, encountering one of these tryhard/hardcore platoons usually forecasts a loss, regardless of personal effort/performance. That's not to say you should quit, go AFK, grief, etc. though... (𝑫𝒐𝒏'𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒂 𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒅) Fight on and hope for the best in the next battle. This is why I mostly play premiums as well. However, I'm not necessarily seeking additional credit income, but reputation instead. I believe this elaborates on overall vehicle combat effectiveness. Unfortunately, this phenomena has been exacerbated during this BP, as the new mission terms require vehicles from the current BP for completion. This has flooded many games [at their respective tiers] with Type 74s, SG915s, and Pindads... I hope the next BP reverts these changes. Additionally, I (and many others) would argue that the CATTB is still overperforming, especially in PvP modes. As shown previously, it is a common sight among hardcore/tryhard players/platoons. I rest my case. Yep... Three man tier 10 A1arM platoon in a downtiered game. Recipe for disaster. Defeat is almost assured. Can't blame anyone really...

Do moderators have to be active on both the ArmoredLabs Discord and forums? Or are you planning to recruit one for each? I enjoy perusing through our current forums, but I often don't have the time to read all messages sent on Discord.

I personally see nothing wrong with the new indicators, at least visually. In fact, I'd have to say that these new indicators are better formatted compared to the previous ones. They clearly and cleanly provide necessary information (which is something I still cannot fully claim regarding the new HUD) with few distractions and/or excess elements. Things I like: Vehicle names are clearer, allowing for better target ID and prioritization Vehicle tier and class are now adjacent to vehicle name (previously underneath HP values, adding unnecessary height) Most experienced players will immediately recognize respective tier(s)/class upon identifying vehicle(s) anyways. Some players ignore tier/class altogether (and there's already [enough] customization to remove it) Hitpoint value(s) and bar are bolder/clearer, which is a massive plus (especially when trying to assess situations based on opponents' remaining HP) The changes have certainly seemed to delivered what has been claimed: better performance and optimization (at least in my experience) More consistency regarding smokes (and their subsequent effects) and spotted/unspotted delay(s) Enhanced immediacy when targets become spotted However, I completely agree that they are far too large. Player names in particular are a nuisance. Luckily, as mentioned before, there will be changes to the new indicators, with addition customization options to boot. At least they are listening... We can only hope the upcoming changes will be for the better.

Holy shit! Is that the real TugaAvenger? Wait, TugaAvenger plays AW? Nice to meet you mate ;) Love the AC content. Regarding the Hunter, while it may aid with the criteria for mission completion, the missions themselves provide little in the way of BC (especially when compared to the amount of effort required). All in all, not a great early BC investment. However, the crates can provide one valuable thing (aside from Hunter parts): BC boosts. They are a guaranteed drop from special BP crates. EDIT: It seems like BC boosts are no longer a guaranteed drop from special Enigma crates. I received 5000 BC coupons for the next BP.

I actually don't hate the style of the new indicators, but they are definitely too large for my liking... This is good news though. More customization is always nice.