0.33 Mini Preview Dump

[Haswell 294]

From Discord (https://discord.com/channels/301850249977266178/714881611635753051/724231994178797639)

Quote

The Enigma’s Legacy Battle Path is now active along with Update 0.32 and now is the right time to give you the taste of what’s coming next – Update 0.33. First thing, 0.33 will be still a part of the Spirithaven season, although this has no practical effect on it. As we mentioned earlier, it’s gonna be mostly a fixing patch, but it’s going to have some cool content as well. It’s scheduled for around early September, but this may change a bit. The first PTS round is planned for the second half of August, towards the end.

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

This is a pretty serious thing that can’t be explained here in detail (I’m gonna write an article about this one). The core idea is that the power progression over tiers should be smoother and more predictable. We’ll be reviewing the performance of all vehicles in order to deal with the powercreep that’s been, well, creeping in, and making existing progression or older premium vehicles more relevant.

TLDR we’ll be rebalancing both armor and firepower (esp. penetration) for all tiers to feel more natural and enjoyable, like gaps between mid-tiers do. There’s a ton more to this: shell changes, DPM changes, camo values changes and so on. It’s not Balance 2.0 extent, but it’s substantial. Last point: this is a gross oversimplification that we’ll get into later and it will all make sense, I promise. Oh yeah, and the reload system mechanics are getting overhauled too. Like, it’s a LOT.

 

Second big thing – mobility overhaul. Basically, we’ll be improving the core mechanics of controls and gameplay. Vehicles will feel much better and more natural, wheeled vehicles will feel more responsive. This is another absolutely huge thing that I can’t really get into as it involves a lot of backend tech. But you’ll like it.

Third big thing – visual models. We’ll be basically fixing a lot of stuff. Most notably the Abrams models are getting an overhaul (CITV!), you’re gonna see the fixed T-72B model and some other things. Don’t have a full list yet but it’s very exciting, the developers did a lot of stuff based on your feedback.

 

Fourth big thing – new PvP map. I think the name was Al Dabbah but it might have changed. It’s a massive relatively open desert map based on southern Sudan. There’s a large solar powerplant in the middle, looks very cool. Think Desert Crossing size, maybe even larger (unless they made it smaller, it was planned as the largest map in the game). Gradually, we’ll also be reworking older PvP maps to introduce post-apocalyptic changes (for example, an earthquake that shattered a portion of the Cold Strike map) along with gameplay improvements for the said maps.

 

And then there’s other stuff:

• New Contract mission chain with a new reward vehicle, the Belarusian 2T Stalker AFV
• Two other premiums will make an appearance later on (BVP M-80A that we announced earlier and one more high tier prem)
• Lots of shader, UI and other optimizations which should significantly improve performance
• A new Raid is going to happen and it’s gonna be a big one, I really hope the skins will be as cool as possible (because I designed the original concept, but they are probably gonna differ from that)
• Armor viewer UI should get an improvement

 

0.33 is not gonna have new PvE stuff apart from the already announced AI improvements (that are partially coming already in 0.32), that’s coming later in 0.34+

So, that’s it. I’m gonna leave this channel closed because this isn’t a Q&A and, at this moment, I don’t have much else to say.  I hope you enjoyed this first peek into 0.33 and as usual:

See you on the battlefield!

PS: localized versions will follow on the portal.

 

[TeyKey1 119]

I have high hopes in the rebalance. Let's hope this goes as intended.

Already looking forward to this new PVP map sounds very nice. I'm curious what the mobility overhaul will actually change. If tanks feel more like tanks I'm already happy. If raid really manages to have some nice skins as rewards maybe it won't be ignored by me like last time. I hope they will improve the missions aswell.

[Katsumoto 11]

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

I stopped playing right after the first balance change when the T-14 came out.  At the time players felt that the developers went a whee bit overboard on the balancing.  We have a fraction of the base as we did back then.  If the balance isn't done right, then it's done because it will cause many to walk away.

[Soren 15]

interested in this rebalance, just hope they are going to make everything good again and maybe a true balance instead of the one we have right now

 

Models overhaul is sweet, they gonna give some love to the old ones

Mobility overhaul, guess we just hope for a simple "it's easier to move and control" and not a "we gonna go faster"

for the maps... heeeehh PVP random, no more love for Globs ops and no love for PVE for now i guess

[dfnce 28]

Quote

This is a pretty serious thing that can’t be explained here in detail (I’m gonna write an article about this one). The core idea is that the power progression over tiers should be smoother and more predictable. We’ll be reviewing the performance of all vehicles in order to deal with the powercreep that’s been, well, creeping in, and making existing progression or older premium vehicles more relevant.

Developers can't do small adjustments from patch to patch based on statisics. But they have great plan how to change everything for better (and even avoid balance 3.0 oblivion experiment). Sounds right. 

Powercreep is not a problem which plagued aw in last few years imo. There are too many other broken things like randomization, spotting, infantry. Gladly they removed hard kill APS from Merkavas/Armatas.

 

[Komitadjie 13]

Yeah, my worry is generally that with their current bent toward balancing everything toward PVP randoms...  Well, most folks play PVEs, including me.  

[Qbicle 98]

It's a good thing that they are planning to address powercreep and high tier balance for some time. One concern is how they will do it. E.g. when one tank is struggling to survive well enough on the field the dev's solution will be to further increase their firepower instead, or other decisions that may deviate significantly from what players want/expected that may not end up very well.

There is no mention of balance on lower tiers, which is quite a whack too especially after the 0.27 rebalance. It feels like that part of gameplay is now left in a derelict state.

BVP M-80A making a comeback is a surprise as it was shelved for some time. Hopefully they can make it balanced right as that was a big concern when it was first teased as a reward vehicle for Age of Rage (which as we know got replaced by Ontos in the release).

[Katsumoto 11]

I do hope that as part of this whole PvE bot adjustment that they will give it time to collect data before trying to fix stuff.

Like in the Terminator replacement thread, it did good in PvE, but sucked in PvP, how do you really balance stuff like that.  Making a small adjustment to account for how something does in PvE could have a catastrophic effect on PvP balance.

I'm also wondering why they don't start at the bottom and work upwards.

 

For the UI changes, it would be nice to have some of the controls over the UI elements like we used to have before the HUD change occured.  The whole incoming and outgoing damage tabs on the screen are ones that need some ability to control the most.

[Soren 15]

55 minutes ago, Katsumoto said:

Like in the Terminator replacement thread, it did good in PvE, but sucked in PvP, how do you really balance stuff like that.  Making a small adjustment to account for how something does in PvE could have a catastrophic effect on PvP balance.

you don't, that the secret, we've been kinda yelling for some time to do different stat for each mode (like Warframe for example, they stat between PVP / PVE is different)

but heh, guess it would be too much

[di_duncan 24]

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.

[Travlla 5]

Not looking forward to this at all, hopefully it will not drive more people from the game, i will not spend another cent more on this game till i see how this plays out, not to punish AW (like they would even notice) but to save me wasting my $$$ on something i may just walk away from, in the very near future, 

[dfnce 28]

8 hours ago, Soren said:

you don't, that the secret, we've been kinda yelling for some time to do different stat for each mode (like Warframe for example, they stat between PVP / PVE is different)

but heh, guess it would be too much

The only stat which needs to be manipulated for pve is nominal damage per shoot. That directly affects major complain - some vehicles simply do too much damage. And that would affect just few vehicles which are way above average, like York, T15 or T40. 

[LeoAegisMaximus 6]

so in what context is the main balance method? penetration adjustments or armor model changes? premium vehicles more relevant yes please give me more turret ring armor for the vickers mk7 its got a 80mm turret ring that gets shredded by AI bots in pve.      

what vehicles have been pushing the power creep in game?  

Edited June 22, 2020 by LeoAegisMaximus (see edit history)

[TeyKey1 119]

58 minutes ago, LeoAegisMaximus said:

so in what context is the main balance method? penetration adjustments or armor model changes?

It's not known yet. But I think it might be a mixture of lots of stuff.

55 minutes ago, LeoAegisMaximus said:

what vehicles have been pushing the power creep in game?  

Nomerous. What comes to my mind is the entire Francine de Laroche tree, some of the new asian vehicles, like harimau or AS21. New Premiums like K21, CATTB, Type 10, T40, ...

[Katsumoto 11]

9 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

New Premiums like K21, CATTB, Type 10, T40, ...

From what I saw this weekend playing the Type 10, it is going to fall to the Terminator Syndrome.  It is a power house in PvE, but is average (maybe just a hair below average) in PvP..  I need another weekend with it to make sure.

[JintoLin 9]

A lot of the issues they list could be helped or completely fixed both both PVE and PVP if they improved match making for both players and bots. Remove all premium tanks from the bot rotation and limit some of the high end and or overpowered bot controlled tanks, ie T15 and swingfire.

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

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. AFV's should have the same mobility to LT with better optics but weaker armor and firepower to LT's. Light tanks and AFV should act as scouts only helping out any arty that might be on the field along with the MBT's.

The terminators and other similar vehicles should have slightly better mobility to MBT's  vision on par with LT's. The autocannon should be ineffective against all MBT's frontally and the only hope to hold off an MBT should be the ATGM. The ATGM's should be on part with but not vastly superior to the MBT's main gun. Terminators class should keep the AFV's and LT's away and harass the MBT's not directly engage.

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.

[di_duncan 24]

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. 

[LeoAegisMaximus 6]

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 

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? 

[TekNicTerror 5]

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 any changes to view ranges for mbt's happen, it needs to be mbt's have auto priority in spotting the enemies in their view ranges, even if that means an enemy who was spotted by another moves right into the mbt's view range, the spotting should auto switch to the mbt.

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.

[JintoLin 9]

You could try to keep all the view ranges, maybe even buff them a little for the MBT. However you would remove the global shared vision for all tanks save the LT/AFV classes. The other classes can share their vision with any allied vehicle say within 30m to 50m of your tank but you would not get to daisy chain this shared vision. This would allow the LT/AFV to scout for the entire team by using their better mobility to get into good vantage points and maybe taking shots at targets of opportunity. They could also add a spotting bonus against the vehicle shooting, more for a main cannon than ATGM. This could help eliminate some LT plinking away at a MBT from BVR. This would allow you to return fire and evade better than current way of just blind fire in the general direction. This would also help spot some the AI arty they put in the story missions.

[di_duncan 24]

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.

[TekNicTerror 5]

15 hours ago, di_duncan said:

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. 

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.

[knutliott 41]

We're almost to the point where spotting itself is useless in terms of rewards.  I routinely track targets that I want to destroy, and that immediately overrides any spotting that's taking place.  And I can track/destroy targets faster than AFVs can designate targets, so I end up with the bulk of the spotting damage in these kinds of matches.

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

I don't think that AFVs should have dramatically greater spotting range than MBTs.  Greater, sure, but not 200m greater like on the AS21.  AFVs generally don't need that much spotting range because what they have instead is camouflage.  An AFV should be able to be near a friendly MBT to provide spotting for it while remaining hidden itself.

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.

I think something like this (refined as necessary) would dramatically improve the role distinctions between the vehicle classes.

[JintoLin 9]

22 hours ago, di_duncan said:

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.

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

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.

Edited June 24, 2020 by JintoLin (see edit history)

[di_duncan 24]

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. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by di_duncan
Added comment on facehugging. (see edit history)