di_duncan

My head hurts...

Honestly not sure if you are more:

Or:

 

Whatever the case, you need Jesus. Or maybe Prozac.

1 hour ago, Haswell said:

It is possible to use ReShade to implement a fairly seamless 3rd person zoom. This makes vehicles without native sniper view (ahem, arty) more pleasant to play, since it will be easier to hit distant targets with direct fire mode.

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:

1 hour ago, Haswell said:

Definitely has potential for good gameplay enhancements.

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). 

 

3 hours ago, LeoAegisMaximus said:

nice is this allowed under the current modding situation? alot of games tend to flag injectors as cheats.

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 ;)

11 minutes ago, knutliott said:

There's a certain type of vehicle that calls for her, but she's probably in maybe 20% of the vehicles that I use regularly.  She's a good commander in PvE, but she's far from uber or OP.

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. 

3 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

guess how boring and predictable the game now becomes. 

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].

3 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

Being a pay-to-win cash grab is "Ophelia's raison d'etre"
... the skill is just the method the pay-to-win  crowd use to fuck over the rest of us.

To be fair, she was obtainable through the Age of Rage BP...

That's how I have her.

9 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

(Oh boi this is gonna be a great LT for sure)

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.

11 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

For me the best skin remains the XM1A3 "Nightmare". Just look at this beautiful snowman:

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.

On 7/3/2020 at 6:27 PM, itzjustrick said:

Just Imagine the riots on the streets, a commander which was sold for 70 euros (and of course in expensive bundles with t10 premiums) being practically useless.

The problem in my opinion with OPhelia is that you can't balance her. Yes, you could take away here way too OP core skill, or re-balance her skill in different ways. However if that happens some people who paid (lots of) money for here in a different way will obviously pissed of. This is the same as when the CATTB got nerfed, people got pissed off as well, although it's still OP (as hell in PvP). And even if you would take all other skills and just leaver her core second chance skill or however it's called it would still make her OP. The other skills are nice to haves, but are not why she is OP. She is OP because running her you are not death even though if you would run any other commander you would be death. 

So now I see the problem that they need to decide to make the people who paid for OPhelia knowing her OP state angry by nerfing her. The other option would be not nerfing her and in this way shitting on the non-paying community by keeping such an OP and arguably p2w commander into the game. But since my.games or whatever the publisher is right now is a business, I would guess they don't want to nerf her. 

I think the best we can hope for is to get a commander which has her core skill only then tuned down in a tech tree vehicle. If we would really want this is a second question...

But hey this is just my opinion... 

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...

On 7/4/2020 at 3:45 AM, TeyKey1 said:

a manual activation of her Skill

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 ;)

On 7/3/2020 at 1:31 PM, Silentstalker said:

But we can work around it in 0.33.

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

11 hours ago, Norse_Viking said:

I mostly play tier 10 and sometimes 9

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:

On 6/6/2020 at 2:36 PM, di_duncan said:

I personally love the Chally 1 Falcon. It probably isn't as effective in a PvE environment, but is certainly a force to be reckoned with in PvP modes. 

The armor is terrible for the tier, so bots will have no issues penning you in PvE. consequently, the Falcon is relegated to a hull-down sniper/fire-support role in PvE. 

PvP is another story, since the large magazine, unmanned turret, and excellent intra-clip reload will allow the Falcon to trade damage with any opponent. Finding a hull-down position in PvP can even allow a single Falcon to hold off a decently sized enemy push in a corridor (such as the castle on Salzburg).

All in all, a very fun vehicle in PvP. A player who primarily plays PvE might find the purchase harder to justify though.

 

23 hours ago, di_duncan said:

This sounds very nice, although I'll have to see the changes in person before making any additional comments.

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.

3 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

Why did they bother changing it on Panama/Grindelwald..

I haven't seen those in about... 80 games? I was beginning to believe I just imagined them, like the fading fleeting remnants of a pleasant dream, upon waking.

you might as well adjust the MM of arty in glops.

I play those maps quite frequently though... Plus, they are among some of the more enjoyable GlOps maps IMO ;)

3 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

Actually just change it to 1 nuke that air-bursts over Narrows, and the radiation makes it uninhabitable for about, I dunno... 10,000 years? I'd pay IRL money for that.

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". 

5 minutes ago, Katsumoto said:

Sorry, but with the track record of trying to do certain things being very lacking, I have a feeling that a surprise is in order for us tomorrow when this goes live.

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.

6 hours ago, Qbicle said:

Based on your feedback, we’re introducing a number of adjustments to the recently added overhauled UI indicators, as we promised we would. Specifically:

• Fixed an issue where vehicle indicator could appear on incorrect places
• Added new font size options (small and very small)
• Reduced the indicator font boldness
• It’s now possible (via a new setting in the Settings panel) to change the color of your or the enemy team’s vehicle indicators in the game
• Dead AI opponents no longer appear with indicators
• It’s now possible to switch the health indicator between percentage and actual hitpoints
• Flyaway hitpoints logic was changed a bit so they don’t merge so much, allowing players to better identify damage from autocannons
• Many tiny changes to the appearance of these indicators

This sounds very nice, although I'll have to see the changes in person before making any additional comments.

6 hours ago, Qbicle said:

Global Operations Air Raid Changes

Changed the number of possible Air Raid wildcard spawn points in the Global Operations mode as such:

• Ghost Field: Reduced by 25%
• Roughneck: Reduced by 40% along with a small reduction of AC-130 spawns
• Panama: Reduced by 20%
• Grindelwald: Reduced by 50%
• Narrows, Desert Crossing and Barren Divide: no changes

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 ;)

6 hours ago, Qbicle said:

PL-01: Fixed an issue where this vehicle’s ADAPTIV module would not always provide the intended camouflage amount

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:

6 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

next LOSS

• 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...

20 hours ago, di_duncan said:

 

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

And it's ALL via the MM being unable to adequately balance matches, within some reasonable expectation of fairness.

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

maybe other people have some sort of 'magic account' that the matchmaker likes. I don't.

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

I will not participate in that .. "rigging". And if the people fucking-over the rest of us, via voice-commed platoons don't like it .. well sorry, i have no sympathy for that kind of exploiter-scum.

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.). 

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

*the odds of which are, by the way 1: 1024

Almost no game will be 50/50 statistically, so to use ratios and expect a 50% winrate is inaccurate at best, fallacious at worst.

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

[with apologies for drunkenly ranting at you and the world in general]

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).

 

1 hour ago, Lenticulas said:

This afternoon i keep getting frigging Alarm platoons on the opposite side.

It makes playing: Pointless. No fun. A shitty gaming experience.

1 hour ago, Lenticulas said:

AW should fix this shit, before people find other games to play.

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.

1 hour ago, Lenticulas said:

If i see them again, I'm just quitting the match. I refuse to enable what is effectively seal-clubbing by being a part of it.

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.

8 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

and I'm sure you know, but i noticed people from [совет]* are also ridiculously good, i just hope they end up on my side

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

On 6/28/2020 at 3:13 PM, Lenticulas said:

Obviously if you have a Prem, you will have an increased chance of coming higher-up the scoring list, because Premiums have a better chance of being top tier.

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.

On 6/28/2020 at 3:56 PM, Komitadjie said:

Keeping in mind that this is going to be heavily biased by progression line grinding.  Your *average* player who's grinding a progression line is going to have to go through some really bad vehicles, but will be playing them because they HAVE to for progression.  And also will very likely be playing only partially upgraded.  A premium (that people are choosing to play) is generally already at least decent, and is fully upgraded.  

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.

On 6/28/2020 at 11:50 PM, knutliott said:

You also have people like me who simply play Premium vehicles as often as possible for the extra credits.  Unless I'm grinding something, I specifically play Premiums whether or not they're better so that I can continue to build up my credit stockpile.  I happen to be above average in PvE (which doesn't affect your GLOPS stats of course, but could affect PvE stats) so me in a Premium is a significant boost to a team that has little to do with the Premium itself.

This is why I mostly play premiums as well. However, I'm not necessarily seeking additional credit income, but reputation instead. 

On 6/28/2020 at 11:50 PM, knutliott said:

In addition to what Komitadjie said, you also have to factor in "early release" vehicles that are straight-up OPAF but get nerfed later.  Object 490, CATTB, I'm lookin' at you.  People will play the crap out of those while they're OPAF but they less once they've been "balanced" which to me could distort your results.

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.

18 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

Total Prems everywhere chaos

I rest my case.

18 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

1 platoon of good players all with OP tanks (and Ophelia, FYI) and maybe voice too,  while the blue team had nothing

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.

 

16 minutes ago, Katsumoto said:

I want the pre-HUD nerf settings brought back.

Having a new monitor and being able to run at 2560 x 1440,  I have a new found respect for the higher resolutions.  These changes actually ate up a ton of the screen and make it so it feels like I'm back to the 1920 x 1080 screen settings.  The battle marker changes while understandable (I guess), the sizing of them again makes me feel like I'm playing on the lower resolutions.  it sucks.  A lot.

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. 

On 6/25/2020 at 6:15 PM, TugaAvenger said:

What I'm wondering more is if I should risk the equivalent to 3 BP levels now for a Hunter insta drop, and the ease that'd bring to the missions.

The answer is no, of course, I won't get it and the focus should be getting to lv 30, but my subconscious hates me.

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...

1 hour ago, Katsumoto said:

We'll add more font and marker size settings for you to customize it to your liking

This is good news though. More customization is always nice. 

1 hour ago, Katsumoto said:

This would be at tier 8, not an 8 of 10 score.  If you sat and made it actually do MBT stuff and MBT stuff only.  Remove some of the none MBT hardware, it would be a tier 8, maybe and I could argue for a tier 9.  Some of the other MBT's at tier 10, they do a significantly better job as an MBT.

I would have to disagree then. The Type 10 is absolutely a tier 10 MBT:

• Decent frontal armor, similar armor profile to the Leclerc T4. Arguably better frontal protection compared to the Leo 2AX and XM1A3.
• Excellent all-round gun performance
  • Great penetration (825mm)
  • Exceptional aim time (1.57 sec stock)
  • Ridiculous accuracy (0.062)
  • Very competitive DPM (6720 when stock)
• Outstanding gun depression, further improved with hydropneumatic suspension
• Remarkable mobility

It completely outperforms any/every tier 8/9 MBT in nearly all aspects. As it is right now, it is definitely a tier 10 MBT.

2 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

To my understanding, the devs do something similiar when they have to go through all this data to figure out how to fix something except they have a bit more of a broader brush and a different canvas.

Yes, I believe I've seen SS mention previously as to how they collect/monitor/manage statistics. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like they have done a decent job with balance (especially at high tiers). I am hoping 0.33 can rectify some of the long-time concerns of the community when it is released. Fingers crossed ;)