di_duncan

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. 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.

I would like to add my two cents to this discussion, from the perspective of someone who primarily plays GlOps. You may have already seen my previous post on this topic on the thread for the April 23 Update Notes, but I'll attempt to delve into greater detail with this post. In the environment of PvE, the most recent changes to the 99A2's armor are largely beneficial. The buffed turret armor is especially helpful as AI tend to fire at weakspots around the turret. Consequently, the nerfed LFP bears little to no change to the effectiveness of the vehicle in PvE. Unfortunately, the nerfed LFP has ruined the viability of the tank in PvP modes. Whereas AI HEAT threats are the primary concern for players in PvE, the most common rounds fired in PvP are APFSDS. Following improvements to their reload times and ammunition characteristics, the Type 99A2 (and its up-gunned brother, the Type 99A2-140) were balanced vehicles in PvP, with a signature/standout feature: their consistent frontal armor. Similar to the LFP of the XM1A3, the LFP armor values of the pre-"buff" Type 99A vehicles allowed them to bounce lower pen rounds/guns. This was the only area in which the high-tier Chinese MBTs excelled at apart from mobility, which provides few tangible benefits in PvP (which I will elaborate on further). In addition, the side armor on the Chinese MBTs were (and are still) practically non-existent. In other aspects, the Types were mostly average. [Average] HP: 3550 [Average] DPM: 6662 [Average] Penetration: 800mm (with APFSDS) [Average] Gun Depression: -7° [Average] Spread: 0.095° (without retros) [Average] Aim Time: 1.67 sec The consequence was an effective mobile frontline brawler which could hold its own when trading/baiting shots. Unfortunately, with the most recent changes, its capabilities have been reduced significantly. While retaining the same average stats, the LFP can now be consistently penetrated by almost every single large-caliber gun from T8 to T10. While 99As still have great mobility, they now lack a defined PvP role. Great, they are able to rush forward quickly, but upon arrival and/or encountering enemies, questionable survivability means they are no longer proficient as brawlers. A quicker death translates into less damage downrange, less time on the cap, fewer chances to spot/track, and more time + point/tickets to respawn. Although it was frustrating to deal with frontally, the previous armor weak spots meant players had to be dynamic and adapt, like (as @Norse_Viking mentions) switching to HE or HEAT-MP and shooting the turret weakpoints, which would usually destroy several modules as well as dealing damage. Or... By using its Achilles heel: PISH/PELE. PISH was able to penetrate the UFP prior to the "buff", now it can also go through the LFP. PELE on the other hand, wasn't able to penetrate the Type frontally before it was "buffed", but PELE mechanics meant it could still deal point and module damage without penetrating. This meant I could often ammo rack the Type from the front using a Wilk. With the current nerfed LFP, Wilks can now penetrate and deal full hitpoint damage while also causing massive internal damage. Of course, there's always the option of exploiting its paper sides to immobilize and flank it (which was the most common counter to the Type anyways). I'm expecting winrates and other performance statistics will continue to stagnate or decrease in PvP modes, while the number of players queuing in the high-tier Chinese MBTs will fall drastically. I myself will refuse to play these vehicles until these concerns are properly addressed. Thanks for reading my great wall of rant. I hope some of you can better understand my perspective of the recent changes.

The Chonker which SS was alluding to is the AS21, since the the Hunter and the AS have similar characteristics and playstyle(s).

Would you be interested in establishing friendly relations with Y33T? We honor the superior siege engine and are committed to continue flinging 90kg projectiles over 300 meters for years to come.

As a player who enjoys his light tanks, here is my tier list of GlOps maps currently featured in the game: Grindelwald An obvious choice really. An expansive map, with many angles and positions (cover, foliage) to spot and fire from with decent verticality as well. Unique wildcards and capture point locations result in quite a bit of fun (assuming team composition and competence is roughly equal). Barren Divide Another "proper" GlOps map. Huge, with impressive verticality. Allows for many different LT playstyles while emphasizing spotting and flanking (two very important roles LT fill). Only gripe are the northwest and southeast cap points, as they are very distant from each other and are also relatively congested, which isn't particularly great for LTs. Ghostfield Quite a surprisingly fun GlOps map to play, despite not being a "purpose-built" GlOps map. Cap locations encourage movement, while snipers and spotters can utilize the interesting geography to counter pushes. Unfortunately, it feels slightly unbalanced (to me at least), as the southeastern spawn seems to have a slight advantage which I believe can be traced back to elevation. Roughneck Some people hate this map in GlOps, which is totally understandable as the southeastern spawn is significant disadvantaged. However, with LTs, the map is relatively open and offers quite a diverse selection of positions and opportunities to spot, snipe and even flank. It is also a map which encourages LTs to cap, which is nice for a change. Waterway Another interesting map, which doesn't seem to lend itself well to LTs, but somehow feels pretty great. Honestly not sure why I'm not upset by this map, but the hybridity between urban and open warfare might be the cause. Desert Crossing The only GlOps particular map which I dislike. Despite its large size, the cap placements and stubborn terrain result in a map heavily favoring armored pushes. The carrier in the center is massive, occupying a large section of the map which is left mostly unused after the first phase. The capture points for the final phase are also heavily slanted towards the spawns of respective team, resulting in futile attempts to capture them. Narrows FUCK. THIS. MAP. Apart from some sniping positions during the first phase and some hull down positions for specific LTs with unmanned turrets (PL, Anders), LTs and most other lightly armored vehicles are at a significant disadvantage compared to MBTs and other armored vehicles. Both phases revolve around funneling teams to one side of the map where they are expected to trade shots and progressively push onto cap(s). LTs ain't about that tho... Oh yeah, and it's also the only GlOps map which has two phases instead of three. I hope some of you have similar opinions of the GlOps maps... They certainly aren't perfect. However, GlOps remains the most enjoyable mode in AW for me, and it's the only one in which I can even claim to be playing at a competitive level.

@Haswell Do you know if gun sounds can be modded in? Perhaps we could be able to incorporate some other sounds found in projects such as Epic Thunder into AW instead?

Issue has been resolved with the most recent update (April 23, 2020) @Haswell perhaps consider archiving this thread?

To be completely honest, there is little feedback we can provide without some gameplay from your end. It's very difficult to diagnose a condition when there are no symptoms to reference. If you can record some matches and/or upload replay(s), it would be quite a bit easier for us to suggest next steps and potential areas of improvement. Don't give up though. While it may certainly be difficult to improve, surrounding yourself with the right community, listening to feedback, and playing more in general will undoubtedly improve your performance.

TL;DR: The PLZ-05 (with the 4 shot cannon) is the best artillery at the present moment. It was overwhelmingly popular in GlOps and still is the go-to arty piece (when chosen) in Heroics. Regarding lower tier artillery, I would use reputation to skip through them if anyone is limited to grind with them in PvE. The current PvE meta and map pool make grinding artillery in PvE tedious and painful.

This update has uttered destroyed the effectiveness of the high tier (9-10) Chinese MBTs in PvP. The armor "buff" has taken away the one distinguishing feature of the high-tier Chinese MBTs, their frontal armor. Prior to the update, their LFPs were trollish (especially the LFP of the Type 99A2-140) as their armor values were relatively consistent across the front. This meant that the MBTs were good for brawling, as sometimes RNG would cause lower penetration rounds (800-820mm) to bounce off the LFP (even on the progression Type 99A and 99A2). This is especially helpful against the current CATTB meta, as its nerfed 140mm rounds cannot reliably penetrate the Type's lower plates. Did this decent frontal armor make the Type 99A and Type 99A2 overpowered? No, au contraire (in fact, this "buff" was only implemented because the Chinese MBT line was significantly underperforming). You see, the Type's frontal armor was it's only distinguishing feature, it's saving grace for some players in PvP. The rest of the vehicle's characteristics were mostly mediocre: Decent DPM Low Penetration Good Mobility Horrendous Side Armor Now that the LFP has been "buffed", I am expecting a sharp decline in the number of T9-10 Chinese MBTs being played in PvP modes. Their winrates will also likely remain stagnant or decrease even further. To restate what I've already written on the official Discord, I would rather play a vehicle with "minor/inconsistently penned" turret weakspots than one with "guaranteed/consistently penned" LFP weakspots. I'm sure my opinion is a unpopular one (especially within the English speaking community), as these changes are largely positive for PvE, but I believe I must state my case nonetheless. On the other hand, the lower tier (T8 and under) Chinese MBTs have been buffed significantly. As @Haswell has noted on the Discord, while still retaining their best-in-class DPMs, the armor profiles on the 9910 and Type 99 have been buffed significantly, effectively crowning them as the MBT kings of their respective tier ranges. I hope these changes will be revised and/or reversed. This is not how you "buff" underperforming and underplayed MBTs.

Gimme. I want ;)

While a trading system would certainly benefit the playerbase, My.com would be losing out. They still need to have a source of income, and premium vehicles (parts included) seem to be the most lucrative. A trading system would cut into their margins. This is also a gripe of mine, so I can understand your frustration. Who knows what the future holds though. For some vehicles for which I have many parts for, I find it better just to purchase enough crates to get the remainder. In some cases, the resulting gold from the completed vehicle may be more cost effective than just purchasing gold outright.

Forcing players to purchase more parts. Simple as that.

@Haswell is credit to team. Love you Haswell, you beautiful being.

Nonono, there is a difference between trading and a marketplace. Lootdog is a managed marketplace where players can list, sell and/or buy from each other with commission to My.com. Think of the Steam Marketplace for CS:GO for example, it too allows buying and selling between players, but Valve takes a small commission from each transaction. What an inventory trading system implies is players giving and receiving items between each other without direct monetary transactions or direct involvement with My.com. Such a system would be entirely disadvantageous for My.com, as they cannot act as a middleman and are thus unable to benefit from trades. I too would like a in-game economy with Lootdog, but EU restrictions are preventing it to be rolled out to players outside RU (or so they claim).

I know it's a translation, but yikes ;)

^

NUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT Tier 10? Premium? Or are these details still sekrit dokuments?

Can you give us an approximate timeframe? I'm assuming next year most likely?

@Silentstalker Can we expect some high-tier light tanks with some armor in the future? I love my PL-01 to death and I would really like an alternative (preferably premium) equivalent at tier 10... All of the BPs so far have had T10 MBTs as final rewards; and while I understand the rationale behind only adding T10 MBTs (easier to play, more popular overall, etc.), it would be nice to play a premium T10 LT with armor (the ability to hull-down and occasionally bounce large-calibre shells is very appealing to me ;). May I suggest the CV90120-T Ghost as a possible candidate?

The CATTB in its present form cannot reliably withstand ATGMs in PVE, but the progression XM1A3 faces the same dilemma. It's UFP is paper against ATGMs as well, yet it can perform just as well if not better than other tier 10 MBTs. Again, weakspots and armor vulnerability can be mitigated if players play smart/cautious. There will always be MBT snipers in the game. It's a fact of nature. Even if the tank's stats are not suitable for such a role, uninformed MBT players will still camp and snipe. While it is certainly annoying, claiming they are leaching damage from others is not particularly relevant, as many TDs, AFVs and/or LTs are even worse in this regard (ever try to outdamage a Griffin in a MBT?). Which is why I proposed to compensate the nerfed aimtime with: Plus the CATTB's penetration has already been nerfed to 800mm with the most recent update (as previously mentioned). This wouldn't help in most scenarios: Plus the gun is a two-round "fastdraw" ready rack. It shares the near-instant intra-clip reload of the "fastdraw" 120mm on the XM1A3.

Hmm... After today's patch, I'm starting to think that this forum is a great idea ;) To be completely honest though, I think nerfing pen to 800mm is slightly overkill, now the 140mm APFSDS on the XM1A3 has better pen than the CATTB. Can't we just meet in the middle at 825mm?

^ There has always been a delay, and there are upgrades available for some vehicles to reduce the "spotted" delay (eg: Merk 4M) No, modern vehicles only have sensors allowing them to recognize when they are being actively targeted and/or fired upon. AW is not Steel Beasts, if we based all gameplay elements on reality, third generation thermal imagers found on all modern MBTs would vastly outrange and outperform the smaller, less capable optics on the "light tanks" we see in-game. Would this make MBT performance more realistic? Yes. Would this also make scouts and spotting entirely irrelevant? Yes. ^ @hellheat make the distraction between being spotted and being designated. The equivalent of being lasered in AW is being designated, which has no delay and which involves audio/visual feedback.

^ I prefer GlOps over Random Battle myself as well. The game is much more enjoyable with respawns and an actual objective imo.

Based on what I've seen of CCs and "supertesters" playing it, it looks great imo. The armor is more than solid, but suffers when dealing with PISH, PELE and/or HEAT (akin to CATTB). And while the gun DPM is not stellar statistically, it can really shine when it is able to employ it's massive potential burst damage. It seems properly balanced at the moment, which is good to hear after experiencing the "chad phase" of the CATTB. It's only shortcoming is probably the lack of alternative ammunition types, which doesn't help when being rushed by Ophelia'd little wheeled shitheads in GlOps... Note however that I am basing my opinion from a PvP and GlOps perspective, it's possible it may not be equally effective in PvE...