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.