di_duncan

19 hours ago, TekNicTerror said:

I play EVERY tank in this game that I have; currently the only progression tank I do not have is the K2, and I do not have any Hades, QN, Shadow, and several other premium tanks. I know how to play mbt, td, arty, lt, and afv.  And most of the time afv players will not move up with mbt's (into safe places mind you, not like I am wanting them to be side by side with the mbt's), they'll sit up with the snipers and use their view ranges that'll still be more than what the mbt has even with the avf 200m or more back behind the mbt.

Great! This being the case, you should also recognize that not everyone will use a certain class of vehicle as intended or how you would prefer. 

Different players will use different vehicles differently in different circumstances. If an AFV driver is not using his/her vehicle to its full potential, it is their loss. Then again, if they can utilize their vehicle proficiently while using the least amount of effort, more power to them. Finally, regardless of how well the spotter is specced for vision, there is a hard-cap on view range (534m IIRC), therefore requiring even the most sedentary players to move [eventually].

In most of these cases, as @knutliott points out, MBTs can often push forward to spot targets for themselves. Even if the target(s) were lit up beforehand by an AFV spotter, as soon as another vehicle establishes vision, the AFV no longer receives assist damage.

So even if an AFV camps and/or stays behind, it's not a transgression or a fault of egregious magnitude. While almost certainly a detriment to them, it's often an opportunity for others. Personally, I'd rather have patient, prudent, and situationally aware SPHINX(s) on my team in GlOps instead of mindless TAGAN SPHINX rush platoons.

13 hours ago, knutliott said:

Don't get me wrong, spotting is still necessary so that you can see your targets, it's just not a valuable reward mechanism.

Absolutely agree. The mechanics and incentive(s) are truly lackluster. I've had GlOps games where I've done 15k+ damage combined with 15k+ assist in my PL-01 yet I'm still lower on the leaderboard than a T-15 rusher. Quite frustrating to say the least, yet I still love to play it... Am I a masochist? 

13 hours ago, knutliott said:

And if I'm in an MBT, I'm tough enough to move forward to where I can spot targets myself and don't need an AFV to do it for me.

Exactly. Depending on the situation, MBTs may actually be the best spotters because of their ability to tank incoming fire (especially in PvE). Hopefully with 0.33 the effectiveness of spotting and dedicated "light spotters" will be revised and improved, allowing them to play a far more significant part in AW.

13 hours ago, knutliott said:

What I'd like to see - and will probably never be done - is a rock-paper-scissors style spotting engine that gives vision roles to vehicle classes.  AFVs should be best at spotting MBTs and TDs because that's kind of their job.  LTs are supposed to counter AFVs, so they should be particularly good at spotting AFVs.  SPGs should be visible to everyone and should spot nothing - they're supposed to rely on teammates for protection and spotting.  MBTs should be better at spotting vehicles firing at them so that they can return fire.  TDs are supposed to be able to fire stealthily, so they should be able to counter/avoid the MBT ability to spot incoming fire.  Things like that.

Interesting, although I'm not a big fan of hard counters in games. There should still be enough flexibility/leeway to allow skill to come into play, enabling those who are cunning to defeat antipodal enemies to their respective vehicles. 

13 hours ago, JintoLin said:

That might be but that gap is not as large as AW has. The ring of a Leo 1 is not much taller than the diameter of the APFSDS round. With the overhang of the turret in most cases and the hull you will also pre-detonate any HEAT rounds.

Fair enough. My main point was that I find the current system for module damage perfectly adequate, I see no need to buff turret rings (IMO). I find that most of the time, turret rings are damaged as a consequence of proximate penetration/damage (an effect of resultant spalling/disintegration). Either through a turret weakspot or from a projectile with exceptional module damage capabilities (PISH, Thermo ATGMs, PELE, etc. even "normal" rounds/ATGMs fired from a vehicle with Sabrina).

13 hours ago, JintoLin said:

With AW accuracy rng,  hitting a turret ring should be less likely than winning the lottery.

Sometimes at close range, the turret ring is the only place which can be penetrated (especially while facehugging). It's not particularly hard either, even with a relatively inaccurate gun (even the most inaccurate gun can be accurate at point blank).

There is also a certain degree of randomization in AW's module damage. Since we cannot observe post-penetration effects, we often have little to no idea who, what, where, or why a module is damaged/destroyed. WIth this in mind, module damage cannot be assessed on a case by case, penetration by penetration basis. Instead we can only approximate damage with figures and/or percentages (which are not absolute).

That being said, If module damage is a major concern, there are retrofits, commanders, skills, etc. which improve component durability.

13 hours ago, JintoLin said:

Also if AW wanted to add the WT damage model most of the players would leave the game not to mention the engine does not seem to be able to support the added vehicle complexity and map size increase. I am game to one shot-ting tanks when I hit their fuel tanks or ammo racks and or shredding all but one or two of their crew from 1 mile away if you are.

I probably should not have mentioned War Thunder... I was only using it and its damage model as an example. I [personally] don't find WT enjoyable anymore.

I am not looking for a game which prioritizes simulation and realism. I wish to have fun and enjoy myself. AW is an arcade-oriented game and it should definitely stay that way. 

19 minutes ago, Travlla said:

Just out of interest, what is your ping mate?

~110-120. Probably much less than yours (assuming you are an Aussie).

Note that I primarily play GlOps ;)  

18 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

While classed as an MBT, reality is that this is a light tank with an MBT "power up", or call it an uparmored package.  If you look at it from that point of view, then it make more sense if you look at class traits that define what role a tank plays.

I agree that the Type 10 is essentially an uparmored LT (it was designed to fit said specification IRL as well), but I believe that's one of the issues with it, especially when compared to its LT contemporaries. It wields what seems like a perfect blend of multiple "class traits", which grants it an uncanny ability to adapt to nearly every single situation it encounters. This sort of unsurpassed versatility blurs (or even erases) the line between the MBT and LT classes. Since LTs are already significantly less influential on the outcome of any battle compared to an MBT counterpart, this essentially allows the Type 10 to replace LTs entirely while still enjoying the fundamental characteristics of an MBT.

18 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

At tier 10 this thing starts to make you wonder about other tanks and where they are at.

I agree. When comparing my beloved PL-01 with the Type 10, the latter is undisputedly the better vehicle in nearly all regards. Subsequently, either a nerf for the Type 10 is in order, or a revision of LTs, or perhaps even a rebalance of the entirety of the current game meta (looking at you 0.33). I would personally prefer a total reevaluation of high tier gameplay (which is what 0.33 sets out to do).

18 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

As an MBT, its an 8 if you start to look at those class traits on just armor alone.  As an LT, its at 10, but how it handles itself currently draws attention to if it needs adjustments to make in line with the MBT role.

I mostly agree with this assessment. However, there are a couple of flaws within your statement which I'd like to point out:

• A score of 8 is still quite high for an MBT. Some other MBTs like the Leo 2AX and XM1A3 would likely score less with your criteria.
• If the Type 10 can score an 8 when evaluated as a MBT while also scoring a 10 as a LT, then it can totally supersede LTs. Why would someone play LTs when the Type 10 is an uparmored LT which retains decent MBT capabilities? 
• I actually rather enjoy the Type's hybridity between classes. I see no reason for it to be adjusted to better fit the MBT meta, however, LTs should be buffed to ensure they remain competitive.

18 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

If you have 100 people and 10 are doing something far above statistical average and the other 90 are struggling, a case can be made to discount those 10 and clear out the 10 on the lower end as well and chalk it up as noise.

This would be unwise. Substitute the recently released Type for the T-15 and it would paint an uglier picture. I would say most T-15 players are average, and average T-15 performance reflects this. However, the real threat emerges when T-15s are driven by tryhard/hardcore statpadders (looking at you newly formed A1arM battalion). These players will ruin nearly every match they are queued in, especially if they are in platoons (and they usually are). The T-15 is widely acknowledged to be overpowered largely because of encounters with these highly-skilled players.

Note also that most high-level players will grind the Type, so the majority of those already playing with it are mostly likely wallet warriors who've spent money to acquire the Type. Only when most of the playerbase get the Type will the true potential of the vehicle become apparent.

 

Ultimately, I am not strictly advocating for a Type 10 nerf. I believe a more extensive approach would be for the best, such as a general rebalance (as planned for 0.33). By widening the capability gap between LTs and MBTs, both classes would have designated roles and functions (resulting from clear/distinct advantages and disadvantages), which would allow the Type 10 to flourish between MBT and LT, instead of encompassing both.

Honestly not sure if the decision to add more premium artillery is a good idea.

The current state of artillery is pitiful, especially in PvE, as most maps were never designed to have clear firing angles for artillery... 

Curious as to whether I will want to shell out some gold for it (hopefully it's the 2S35 Koalitsiya).

I hate these types of ATGM vehicles... But mainly for selfish and/or stupid reasons ;)

First gripe of mine are the incoming ATGM indicators (especially at high tiers). They give me mild anxiety, as I can only guess at the type of projectile which has been fired (MGM god rod? T-15 double tap?), plus sometimes they appear even when the missile is not intended for me...

Second of all, as an NA player, I hate using ATGMs as they seem to have a mutual hatred for me... In reality, it's mostly my awful ping, but it's definitely annoying to try to control ATGMs with poor responsiveness, especially slow missiles like the SPHINX's MLP and AFT10's RA-10.

Finally, without an alternative weapon type, as @TeyKey1 has mentioned:

9 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

you can be quite screwed in some close combat situations

I'm envious of fellow European players (like my good friend Shrek) who are exceptionally skilled with ATGMs, seemingly on any vehicle, at any range, against any target... 

BTW, has anyone noticed an increase in how long they remain spotted? It seems to occur when a grey "spotted" indicator is visible, meaning you are still spotted but no longer within LoS (according to SS IIRC).

Might be caused by an increase in the spotted to unspotted "decay" time; or perhaps it a new spotting mechanic altogether? Can anyone confirm if this is intended? 

Apologies if this has already been discovered/discussed/confirmed previously, if so, could you kindly redirect me to where I can find the answer?

1 hour ago, Katsumoto said:

This is where a problem lays that I'm trying to make sure I understand because of how the armor works.  The Type 10 is immune to MOST HEAT warheads would be a more accurate statement.

After revisiting the Type 10 armor viewer, I can see what you mean. Regardless, the Type 10 is undoubtedly a better brawler (against any vehicle really) compared to the PL.

1 hour ago, Katsumoto said:

The one thing that the PL01 has over the Type 10 in spades is relocation ability.  It's more mobile so while you're reloading you can pick a new spot if it gets too hot.  It might not seem like a lot or that big of a deal, but when it comes time to bug out, the PL01 with its ability to move and to disappear has the upper hand.

While the PL certainly has a top speed advantage, relocation is not a focus of the PL, as its camouflage while moving is quite pitiful (for a LT). The PL specializes as a burst damage passive spotter/sniper, as players should try to take advantage of its ADAPTIV "portable bush" system and its excellent magazine damage output. However, there is no doubt the PL is a better vehicle for running away ;)

Additionally, there is practically no downtime on the Type 10, as it can perform partial reloads whenever and wherever. Fire off one round to eliminate a low health target? Reload. Dump all your shells into a Merkava? Reload. Put two into a camping Wilk before he is utter obliterated by the remainder of the team? Reload.

This is a luxury that PL players have wet dreams to. Instead, the PL forces a full reload of the magazine regardless of the number of shells remaining... Timing these reloads is vital, and I often curse my poor decision making after pressing "R" either too early, or too late.

1 hour ago, Katsumoto said:

I wish they changed the model to make the gun the 55 caliber that is a proposed upgrade to the Type 10.  This would make the modeling match what this gun is doing.  This would bring it more in line with performance of the 2A6 which is where my baseline for comparison of the Type 10's gun is.

While the devil can definitely be in the details, changing/renaming the gun would not help address power creep. The spectacular combination of capabilities and versatility still makes the Type 10 an objectively better vehicle.

1 hour ago, Katsumoto said:

The HEAT rounds from this are picky as hell.  Even with Cortez at pretty much 100% max damage, I can not get back to back to back shots to correlate with the max damage base line even at point blank range on something.  I should get about 3500 per clip with HEAT, but reality being it is more about 3000.  RNG also plays a lot with them in terms of module damage.  On Watch Dog, I set fire to about 5 vehicles without even trying, and those were the first fires I had set all night.  Then turn around about 6 matches later and I get another rash of fires caused by HEAT.  This past weekend was the first time I was not able to dispose of a Bradley with 4 rounds because of the rolls.

I can't comment too much on this as I don't play PvE very often and I therefore rarely use HEAT on my LTs (I only have one clip of HEAT on my PL). However, based on numbers alone, the HEAT on the Type 10 is also superior to the HEAT used on both the PL and the K21 XC8 (850mm pen vs 800mm, increased damage per round).

1 hour ago, Katsumoto said:

The AP rounds are very similar to the DM series with the 2A5 and 2A6.  They cut through everything, but combine that with their accuracy it adds to the insanity.  I parked 3 out of 4 rounds in the weak spot under the gun on an XM1A3 at 600 meters and it didn't bother me doing it one bit.

This is scary. This all-round excellent gun performance is why I question whether it is necessary. 

1 hour ago, Katsumoto said:

The HUGE downside is that this thing runs out of ammo all the time.  It's not uncommon for me to put down range 90+ rounds in PvE right now.  In PvP, that means even if you  survive long enough you run out of ammo during the match.  In randoms this is going to be a huge issue.  In GLOPS not so much because of the repair/rearm points.

Interesting. Although the Type's MBT characteristics (and subsequent versatility) still allow it to be more competitive compared to LTs, as LTs simply cannot carry in practically any mode.

 

Perhaps I can summarize my grips with this MBT/LT hybrid with the following:

• The Type 10 is a very decent MBT which can perform well in an MBT role/environment.
• The Type 10 is a very decent MBT which can also perform equally well (if not better) in an LT role/environment [when compared to current LTs].

While being able to serve two roles in combat is not necessarily a characteristic which automatically deems a vehicle to be overpowered, the issue arises when that vehicle is highly efficient at both roles. 

As an MBT player, I think I would really enjoy this tank. However, as an LT main (mostly Polandball), this thing makes me green with envy. Let me elaborate: 

On 6/8/2020 at 1:25 PM, Katsumoto said:

This thing is a light tank that is classed as an MBT.  It's almost as if the K2 and the Harimau had a bastard half-child.

IMHO, it's akin to a disgusting armored mutation between the mobility of notable hybrids (Altay, CATTB), the armor of lighter, gun-centric MBTs (Leo 2AX, Leclerc T4), the magazine loading of the PL, and the insane gun handling of the K21 XC8. The current Type 10 is a 40 ton all-you-can-eat buffet of armored versatility. 

On 6/8/2020 at 1:25 PM, Katsumoto said:

Great gun handling.  For those of you that know me and how I feel about the Leopards in general, the gun handling is better than the Leopards.  Min spread is at 0.060 with an aim time of 1.38 seconds.  Shot placement at distance in PvP is not a problem as long as you can pen it.

Better spread and aim time than both the K21 XC8 and PL-01 when stock. Better gun depression without even using hydropneumatic suspension. Same turret rotation speed as PL-01 (which is better than the K21 XC8) when stock. Sounds about right...

On 6/8/2020 at 1:25 PM, Katsumoto said:

4 round autoloader: You can get off 4 rounds in about 5.3 seconds.  AP is about 2250 and HEAT is about 2700 in burst damage.  In PVE you will run out of ammo.  Even with Alisa I still run out.  My PvE match damage output is 24k with a high of 35k but you have to drive it like you stole it.  Time between shots is 1.78 seconds with a full reload of the autoloader at 11.8 seconds (or 12.44 second at the default) with a sustained DPM as listed in the game specs of over 8000 per minute.  My hate for Bradley's not withstanding, this thing will eat T-15 bots with ease.  With Cortez and HEAT, Bradley's go away in 2 shots.

The PL and K21 XC8 both have one respective advantage over the Type 10 in this department:

• PL-01 magazine: 6 rounds (full reload: 14.22 sec) vs. Type 10 magazine: 4 rounds (full reload: 11.8 sec)
• K21 XC8 DPM: 9,464 vs. Type 10 DPM: >8000

However, that's where the music stops for the light tanks.

 

Against the PL, the Type 10 has:

• Better penetration
  • PL: 780mm (with a L/47)
  • Type 10: 825mm (¿ with a L/44 ?)
• Better damage (Yet both are 120mm...)
  • PL: 530 (AP)
  • Type 10: 560 (AP)
• Better intra-clip reload
  • PL: ~1.9 sec
  • Type 10: 1.78 sec
• Same (if not better) DPM
  • PL: 8,035
  • Type 10: >8000
• Partial reload

 

Against the K21 XC8, the Type 10 has:

• Better penetration
  • PL: 800mm (with a L/50)
  • Type 10: 825mm (¿ with a L/44 ?)
• Better damage (Yet both are 120mm...)
  • PL: 530 (AP)
  • Type 10: 560 (AP)
• Better burst damage (obviously)
  • Magazine vs Standard loading

On 6/8/2020 at 1:25 PM, Katsumoto said:

With the augmented optics v2 vision is out to 518 meters.  Right now I'm using Douglas to train him up and he's just a lowely 2nd LT right now.

So LT level vision as well eh? Interesting...

On 6/8/2020 at 1:25 PM, Katsumoto said:

Best in class camo for an MBT.

Which is not much worse than the PL's (non-ADAPTIV) camo... Cool.

On 6/8/2020 at 1:25 PM, Katsumoto said:

3000 HP starting off.  It'll for the most part shrug off hits from anything in the beginning but it gets squishy afterwards once the NERA gets worn out.  Protection wise it is okay, still trying to work out the kinks in the armor mechanics for this thing and learning when to shift between MBT and LT modes with it as far as shot avoidance.

More hitpoints and better armor compared to LTs is expected. However, the Type is also essentially immune to HEAT warheads from the front, which means it can brawl with T-15s no problem (as mentioned previously), whereas even the PL will have trouble. 

The combination of these traits effectively make tier 10 LTs obsolete (especially my polandball...) and is a massive indication/representation of AW's power creep.

As for a solution... I would agree with @TeyKey1:

On 6/9/2020 at 4:21 AM, TeyKey1 said:

increase the salvo reload a bit, prohibit partial reload and add a penalty for the ammo insta swap and reduce its camo

But with the recent announcement of 0.33's rebalance, I would suggest looking into increasing LTs effectiveness instead, since this is not a one-off scenario, but a systematic capability gap between classes.

Having a unique MBT like the Type 10 is nice, but when it intrudes upon and [potentially] replaces other vehicles, then we have a problem.

7 hours ago, LeoAegisMaximus said:

Just some thoughts we should definitely do a view range Nerf on MBT's.

AFV's should have the best view range mixed with their scouting kits for target identification. - Emphasis on passive with mixed active spotting 

Agreed.

7 hours ago, LeoAegisMaximus said:

My big question is about TDs and light tanks should they have the self spotting capabilities that can match an afv or should their view range be less than AFVs but better than MBTs? For the TD line with the terminators due to their MBT chassis should have MBT view range? 

I would say most (if not all) TDs should have less spotting than AFVs and LTs. Adjusting most of them to have spotting roughly equivalent to MBT level (post 0.33) seems to be a decent compromise. At the end of the day, they should not be able to spot and shoot at targets [while camping ofc] simultaneously. 

6 hours ago, TekNicTerror said:

They do a view range nerf on mbt's, people will not play their mbt's in the fronts anymore mostly. Why would anyone in a mbt (chally/490 or anything) take a beating if their not gunna get any support damage off of what is shooting them when there are cowards in the back spotting the ones shooting at the mbt?

If the active and passive spotting capabilities of LTs and AFVs are augmented (and MBTs nerfed in this regard), they should be able to supplement teams with their improved vision. LTs and AFVs "camping" behind MBTs is merely a symptom of their uncompetitiveness. The current meta sees many MBT drivers regularly surpass LT and AFV players in assist damage within all gamemodes, when it should be the other way around.

Additionally, if an MBT is being shot at by an enemy vehicle in AW's current state, more often than not, the MBT also has visual on that target. This means the "cowards in the back spotting" are no longer the "active" (or exclusive) spotter and are therefore no longer accruing assisting damage from damaging hit on the target vehicle.

While some of this can be attributed to overperforming MBTs, the weird spotting system is also at fault. Why must assist damage be calculated solely on enemies lit up exclusively by a single player...? While I often get initial vision on targets, when MBTs push up, they cancel out my assist damage in the process, as they visually acquire my lit targets as well. I have two proposals for this issue, but I'll probably elaborate in another post. 

That being said, calling "light vehicle" spotters cowards is ignorant of the weaknesses of LTs and AFVs, namely: terrible armor, fewer hitpoints, lower penetration, etc. Try playing some more with them, perhaps you can better understand the challenges when you are in the drivers seat. 

6 hours ago, TekNicTerror said:

MBT's need buffs, not nerfs. The mbt's shouldn't be so easily damaged from the front. Turret rings also shouldn't be able to be knocked out so easily either (for all, not just mbt's, but a mbt's ring should also be the hardest one to knock out). I don't think mbt's need any buffs to damage/reload/view (wont complain if it happens thou), just armor/defense.

I disagree here. Leclerc T4, CATTB, T-14, Obj 490, etc. are the last vehicles I think of when making a list of underperforming vehicles. While there are some legacy MBTs which could use some love (*cough* Abrams line), the majority of underperforming vehicles fall under other classes.

MBT's should have clear frontal weakspots. I refuse to pixel-hunt for "green" in a similar fashion to AW prior to "Balance 2.0". Furthermore, turret rings are some of the most vulnerable systems in tanks IRL. Due to their size and complexity, the armor adjacent to many vehicle turret rings are often thinner, resulting in less protection. While I hate to reference this game, War Thunder's damage model is much more "fleshed-out" compared to AW's, and a very viable tactic is to target the weaponry of opponents (the gun and gun mantlet is supposed to be much weaker than than the rest of the turret), which often takes out the turret ring in the process.

3 hours ago, Komitadjie said:

Keeping in mind that most other games (look at WoT for an example there) have other servers as well, and pricing more typically follows server.  You won't have somebody pay RU server prices, to play on the NA server, for example. 

2 minutes ago, Zemosu said:

this

1.Games sold at different prices for different regions are not activate able outside their region. 

2. Games with different region pricing don;t share the same server.

While this is now often the case, most "cheap game key" sites (G2A, Kinguin, etc.) used to profit immensely from "global" keys purchased from Russia. While region locks, secure account-based activations, and even more stringent [converted] prices are becoming more and more common, there is still a large and very profitable grey-market for game keys (primarily stolen physical copies and/or keys derived primarily from South American sources). 

Furthermore, there are more than a few games which share servers (or at least server infrastructure) but who also see regional price variation. Take CS:GO for example. There is a reason why many EU players complain about awful/toxic/unsportsmanlike Russians. The game is incredibly popular in both Eastern and Western Europe, but players are queued together regardless of differences in nationality, ethnicity, linguistics, price payed, etc.   

The survival of AW can largely be attributed to the RU region. The unequal pricing is a side effect of the server merge, which served a major part in stabilizing player populations. Don't get me wrong, if AW offered the same RU pricing here in NA, I wouldn't complain (I'd probably rejoice). However, in the current state of the game, I'm fine with being charged more, simply because I would like to support this game for as long as possible and because I can largely afford it (Of course I cannot say the same for others).

While I can understand your grievances in this respect, it's already been mentioned by SS that there is nothing stopping you from creating a RU account and enjoying lower prices. So if this is a deal/game-breaking issue for you, there is a [legal] loophole which you are free to exploit. 

15 hours ago, Zemosu said:

You are just doing a knee jerk generalization of the issue without having even read the points I raised. This is just a post counter fodder.

I've read your previous posts and gripes. My response was an objective explanation as to why prices vary across the globe. Most of your grievances are addressed under the pricing strategy of price discrimination. It would be wise of you to research and/or study said phenomena and its examples first before disregarding my point(s) entirely. My response was not a "knee jerk generalization", nor is it "post counter fodder" (whatever that means :P); it is merely an aspect within microeconomics.

On 6/22/2020 at 1:21 AM, dfnce said:

When it comes to pay Western prices in countries like Poland, obviously everything is fair.

15 hours ago, Zemosu said:

They treat the whole European Union as a single economy and then they have the nerve to tell me I don't know much about economy. The ignorance and hypocrisy these days is off the chart.

They don't (or at least shouldn't) treat the European Union (EU) as a single economy, but they do recognize it uses a single currency. Price discrimination is especially difficult when applied to [obviously] unequal nations using a common (multinational) currency. Of course, I would never defend price discrimination (or any pricing strategy for that matter) to be perfect, but where it's applicable, it's likely the best we have (in a similar sense to Churchill's thoughts on democracy or even the economic/political policy of capitalism).

Unfortunately, it is not fair. But this is a common trait among different games (and products). WoT premiums are sold for different prices across the world as well (with inter-EU prices remaining the same between countries no less). 

9 hours ago, JintoLin said:

Also the MBT's should remain the center point of the game. They should dominate every battlefield in the game.

I respectfully disagree. The current game meta already revolves mainly around MBTs (and some other specific vehicles) as @TeyKey1 has already pointed out in his OP vehicle list. Sure, while MBTs should be and usually are the spearhead of any armoured corps/regiment, AW should not and does not abide by the same regulations and/or standards of proper military.

I've also mentioned in a previous post that other vehicle classes thoroughly lack sheer combat effectiveness (in all modes) compared to MBTs. Ultimately, this is why LTs and other vehicle types simply cannot carry. Therefore, it is no coincidence that many tryhard/hardcore/stat-padding players (looking at you Flavio) only platoon with CATTBs, T-15, T40s, etc. and why teams with fewer MBTs (or "armored threats" if including some notable outliers) usually lose in GlOps. 

This is also likely the primary reason as to why every single T10 Battle Path reward vehicle [so far] has been a MBT. To appeal to the widest audience, the devs offer a vehicle which is powerful, unique and ultimately accessible. MBTs are objectively the easiest class of vehicle to play; as all AW players should be able to play a MBT, whereas I would seriously doubt my own ability with AFVs... 

9 hours ago, JintoLin said:

Light tanks should excel in mobility only. To this end the armor is very weak and their firepower should be sub par compared to MBT's. Their vision should be the same or a little better.

To implement such a concept for LTs would make them even less competitive. They currently only hold a mobility, camo, DPM, and slight viewrange advantage over MBTs, so your last proposal is already technically fulfilled. By further reducing their firepower, LTs would be next to useless. 

The current AW meta already discourages active spotting and even flanking in LTs, an unfortunate side effect of traditional LT weaknesses (weak armor, low HP) in our modern  setting (much better all-round weapon handling, decent overall mobility) and extremely quick TTKs. So what purpose would/does mobility serve anyways? Even with ~9.5K DPM, a K21 XC8 rushing any similar tier MBT would be completely outclassed.

I currently personally believe LTs to be the vehicle class with the least defined role and/or "personality". They are an inconvenient hybrid between the sheer damage output of traditional gun TDs and the stealth and spotting abilities of AFVs. In my honest opinion, the best solution to this dilemma would be to nerf the spotting ranges of MBTs while adjusting the stealth characteristics of certain AFVs as well. This would hopefully carve out a niche for LTs as high-DPM support vehicles with passive spotting capabilities.

9 hours ago, JintoLin said:

AFV's should have the same mobility to LT with better optics but weaker armor and firepower to LT's.

While I mostly agree with the second half of your thoughts here, AFVs should be absolutely superior in camo and/or spotting ability while retaining their mobility advantage over other classes. AFV should be the eyes of the team, with weaponry designed for harassment and/or hit-and-run bursts of damage. Of course, an AFV taken to this extreme is also not healthy for balance, as we can observe with the Shadow (in PvP environments).   

9 hours ago, JintoLin said:

Light tanks and AFV should act as scouts only helping out any arty that might be on the field along with the MBT's.

To suggest artillery would make up for the lost damage output of other classes is quite naive. Even with the relatively recent GlOps arty rebalance and playtest, artillery are clearly resigned to a support role, as their sustained damage is pitiful. While LTs and AFVs can (and probably should) serve a support role for other vehicle classes, that does not mean they should be relegated to the sidelines when it comes to their roles/specializations.

9 hours ago, JintoLin said:

The MBT should be the epitome of the armored triangle of Firepower, Protection, and Mobility in every tier/match. Every other vehicle class should shit their pants every time a MBT's crests a hill or rounds a corner.

To conclude with my point of view, MBTs should be the best protected vehicles, period. As downsides, their firepower and mobility must be mediocre, decent at best. While other classes should certainly fear MBTs "cresting a hill" or "rounding a corner", MBTs should be equally afraid of AFV spotting/harassment, LT sniping and flanking, TD DPM, etc. TL;DR: Each class should have their own respective advantages and weaknesses.

To further widen the capability/versatility gap would be foolish. Of course, this spiel was merely my own thoughts and opinions on the matter, so I would love to hear from the rest of the community as well. Hopefully the admins/developers can take our discussion to heart. 

15 hours ago, Haswell said:

So the big thing about this patch is gonna be the major vehicle rebalance for Tiers 7 to 10.

Unfortunately, with the hindsight and precedent of prior efforts of balancing and adjustments, I'd have to agree with @Katsumoto:

14 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

There is a part of me that hopes for the best.  The other part of me will start planning for the worst.

My two cents (if anyone is listening):

Diversify gameplay. Speaking with Flavio, he's always been teasing me about my vehicle choices, as I like to main light tanks (primarily my beloved Polandball). Unfortunately, both of us fully understand/realize that LTs (and most vehicles which are not MBTs) simply. cannot. carry. In pure combat effectiveness, MBTs are unsurpassed and continue to dominate (at least in usage) in every single gamemode. The traditional "vehicle roles" in AW have largely been ignored or relegated in favour of supporting MBTs.

Of course, there are many factors to consider when looking at how to make vehicles more distinct/unique. Many have already been mentioned by SS in his post. Ultimately, the simplest "solution" would involve a sweeping nerf to MBTs while buffing other vehicle classes, obviously with some exceptions (looking at you HIV shovel and baguette rusher). Of course, such a simplistic balancing act would be utterly foolish, so it would be prudent to closely observe, analyze, identify, and address issues on a case by case, vehicle by vehicle basis.

I'd have to agree with @Silentstalker here.

The RU market, especially for digital goods/services, has always seen a lower price for nearly everything. The simple reason as to why is because the average Russian income is significantly less than those of Western (and even many Asian) countries. Consequently, game developers/publishers often sell their games at lower prices to encourage greater sales. This is a common microeconomic principle called price discrimination. 

I won't explain the concept in detail, but look at it this way:

Cyberpunk 2077 will release with a price tag of $59.99 (USD) at launch. Median american household income is ~$61,937 per year (2018), while median Russian household income is ~$17831 per year. Therefor should CD Projekt Red decide to sell the game at this same price in both countries, it would constitute ~1.16% of an American family's monthly budget whereas in Russia it would be ~4.04%. This massive difference in relative cost would result in significantly fewer sales in Russia should this be the case. Ultimately, game (and many other product) price(s) are lower across the board on nearly every single launcher, storefront and/or marketplace in poorer/less developed countries (check steamdb) in order to increase sales and subsequently cultivating fanfare/fanbase. 

I hope this addresses your grievances as to why:

On 6/18/2020 at 9:44 AM, Zemosu said:

the price tag is not the same for everybody

TL;DR: The price tag isn't the same for everybody. It never was and it never will. Inequality exists, sometimes for a reason.

^

Yep, that's seems about right...

Most of my rolls were shit, but I've gotten a tier 8 before, which I picked up despite it being a duplicate. Tis the life of a tank collector turned gold hoarder...

But on a serious note, WoT premium prices cannot compare to AW's despite the shitty practice of loot crates.

1 hour ago, knutliott said:

The Terminator line* needs an autocannon damage nerf across the board.  For some inexplicable reason that is clearly not Russian bias all of the Terminator series ACs do roughly double the amount of damage per shell that they should be doing.  They need to go back to when damage was (allegedly) standardized by caliber and tier, and then balance using rate of fire, penetration, and only minor tweaks to damage.  And while they're at it, they should bump the 2017 to Tier 9 where it should have been in the first place.

Agreed 100%. I have no clue why the devs thought it was a good idea to also buff the penetration of RU autocannons across the board with the introduction of the American Dream season:

[3UBR10 168mm -> 185mm] [3UBR11 186mm -> 205mm]

These are not insignificant buffs either... When the weaker autocannon ammunition is buffed to equal the previous penetration of the top-performing round (a delta of +17mm) and the top AC round receives a +19mm buff to its penetration, that is a massive improvement across the board in lethality/combat effectiveness to an already over-performing vehicle.

Coincidentally (or maybe not so coincidentally), the improved penetration of the 3UBR11 has allowed T-15s to punch through PL-01 (my favourite vehicle btw) UFPs like a hot knife through butter. My beautiful polandball, once a steadfast counter to the Armata HIFV terror, has now also fallen to the threat of magic all-penetrating Russian 30mm lawn darts.

The T40 and T-15 are the bane of my GlOps games. These need a rebalance.

While T40s are usually driven by braindead rushers, the T40 can overcome any vehicle's armor by simply tracking (repeatedly if necessary) with the insanely powerful 35mm "SPHINX+" autocannon and flanking around to exploit weaker side/rear armor. Note however, a solution for this vehicle is not as simple as it seems...

The armor levels for the T40 are similar to its Leclerc brethen, strong UFP with a decently large and weak UFP. What the T40 lacks is a strong MBT-level turret, as its turret can be consistently penetrated by most large caliber guns. Consequently, nerfing its armor would not be an optimal fix. Instead, look at reducing the effectiveness of the autocannon armament and perhaps reducing the vehicle's hitpoints. Decreasing damage, rate of fire, penetration, module damage (or a combination of these) would be complementary to a hitpoint reduction, limiting the overall effectiveness of autocannon rushes. 

The T-15 is another story altogether. As previously mentioned, it has everything. Excellent armor combined with insane firepower makes this the most powerful shovel conceived by man. In the hands of a skilled and experienced player, the T-15 can (and usually does) shred anything it meets. What is completely mind boggling is why this vehicle get both an exceptionally powerful autocannon and some of the best ATGMs available in-game. I can accept being slapped in the face with a Kornet double-tap; I'm also fine being melted by a magic Russian 30mm autocannon with 200+mm pen. But when you combine both of these ridiculously powerful weapon systems into a single vehicle, it's too much. My proposed solution: nerf either the ATGMs or the autocannon on the T-15. Considering the Kornet's availability on the Kornet-EM, it's more likely autocannon performance would be adjusted.  

@Lt_Don_Shaljian 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.

22 hours ago, erca001 said:

The camo everyone wanted: Ahegao

Replaces Chaos BP Camo

Link: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/372689331577552896/714558967845617764/camo_camo_battlepass_s03_01.dds (cuz Forum is so much better than discord Kappa)

FUCKING WHY

7 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

bat thing per se

monkaHmm

For me, it seems to be the opposite. Some GlOps players who I play with think I am not aggressive enough.

Then again, I do play my LTs quite often.

On 5/4/2020 at 6:10 PM, di_duncan said:

What's going to happen with the current BMPT "Proto" then?

feelsweirdman

I guess my question was answered then ;)

I actually appreciate this move by the devs. If there is too much repetition and overlap, it is best to change/replace some stuff so the entire line can feel "distinct" and "unique". 

What's going to happen with the current BMPT "Proto" then?

feelsweirdman

That Type 10... NUTTTTTTT

Still wish it was a LT tho, instead of a "MBT/LT hybrid".

In PvE the Griffin is utterly ridiculous. In a tier 8 (or even tier 9) game, the Griffin 50 will mostly likely do the most amount of damage if driven by any somewhat competent player. If there is no other autocannon vehicles in the match, it's almost guaranteed to achieve the greatest amount of damage. 

On 4/26/2020 at 4:39 AM, BumbaX said:

About the Hellfire, as is the Tank unlocked playing the Griffin, I would say that is a very fun and interesting tank, very capable in all the modes. My main problem with it is only about the AGTM Targeting System: it gives a very fast burst as you can spam up to 8 missiles in a very short time, and in PvP it is awesome as you can punish hard every enemy error, but also makes the reload 17% slower, that in PvE maybe is less then optimal.

I wouldn't know how it performs in PvE, but the Hellfire is such a cancerous foe to face in PvP. The aforementioned missile burst is disgusting. I genuinely think the Hellfire should be moved up to tier 10. Ripple fired 1300mm pen missiles travelling at 550m/s is considerably more effective than the T10 AFT-10's 1400mm pen HJ-10s.