Jump to content
Haswell

Tiers 7-10 Rebalance Plans

Recommended Posts

On 7/11/2020 at 1:23 PM, itzjustrick said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume you are a PvE player (since you're talking about heat). In pve the bracket ends at t6 this means that t6 has to fight way weaker bots than t7s which means that relatively weak t6s is no problem. In pvp t6 however fights t7, so there this difference is not really noticable.

I assume so as well.  Experiences in PvE are weird because while what SilentStalker said is very true, the fact that Tier 7 gets thrown in with Tier 10 makes all of the Tier 7 vehicles seem super-weak.  They're actually not - they're a huge improvement over Tier 6 - but because of the matchmaker buckets you never actually get to experience that improvement in PvE.

I'd love to see them sync up the matchmaker buckets, too.  Meaning, make the PvE buckets the same as the Spec Ops buckets.  Tier 8 is a more natural break point for PvE matches, which shows in Spec Ops.  It works really well there.  So why not use the same breakpoint for PvE?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, knutliott said:

I'd love to see them sync up the matchmaker buckets, too.  Meaning, make the PvE buckets the same as the Spec Ops buckets.  Tier 8 is a more natural break point for PvE matches, which shows in Spec Ops.  It works really well there.  So why not use the same breakpoint for PvE?

This could be a good suggestion, however another option would be to make it more seemless. That is that there are different vehicles that every tier can face. Now it feels a bit too much like a barrier. And it is of course total bullshit that a tier 7 can face a t-15. What can you do against a t-15 while driving a m1a1 for example. 

How I would see this is that a t7 for example can face ramkas, t8 can face termi 2s, t9s can face t-15s and t10s can face uptiered t-15s, as an example. This would hopefully fix the problem with balancing the t6-7 gap, because now I feel this gap is too big in PvP based modes. Because while t7s face totally different vehicles than t6ses in PvE, they can face eachother in PvP. 

This feels a bit wrongly worded, but I hope you get what I mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly double-tap guns and missiles need to be nerfed as well. They were balanced via lower damage per shot at first, but now they got their own form of power creep, hitting for 1k per shot. Getting instantly hit for 2-3k HEAT is enough to delete non-MBT vehicles and is most assuredly not fun. The worst offender is again the CATTB. Insane armor + speed + sight + 2-3k instant burst in one package? Ugh.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part two of the Five Year Plan published: https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/tier-7-10-rebalance-part-2-class-roles

Quote

In the last article, we talked about power creep and what we would like to do with power levels in the game in general. In today’s article, we’ll tell you more about what we would like the vehicle class balance to be like, which, we believe, is very important so that the changes that we’ll be talking about later on make sense.

 

But, before we begin, we’d like to write a few words about these articles in general to make some things clear. These articles do not represent the final product. They represent a vision that we have. There will be changes along the way, that’s something we can guarantee because it’s an evolving process. For example, the last article didn’t mention some topics clearly, such as the Tier 6 and Tier 7 interaction, which we want to make smoother. So, please read the following lines with open minds and remember that it’s all still work in progress.

With that being said, let’s get to it.

Before we started considering the impact of each separate class, we’ve decided on a couple of goals for the whole project:

  • Reducing the results of power creep, as described in the already mentioned article
  • Make all types of shells useful
  • Make the gameplay more dynamic

The last point is closely tied to the success of the 2018-2019 plans to improve low-Tier gameplay in order to make it more dynamic. Since the plan had been positively accepted, we started to introduce some quite dynamic vehicles over the last two years, all of which were more or less received. We’d like to achieve the same fun gameplay on higher Tiers.

Here’s how this plan translates to specific classes:

One of the top problems of today’s balance of top Tiers is the performance of all Main Battle Tanks. Simply put, the MBT class is pretty much the best at everything. It not only has the thickest armor by far, but also a lot of firepower, good mobility and, most importantly, excellent spotting abilities. The last point is especially important because while the Tank Destroyer class is somewhat “safe” with its excellent damage output, the MBTs have been pushing Light Tanks and other scouts “out of business” because the gap between the scouting abilities of dedicated scouts and MBTs became too narrow for the scouts to really have their own niche.

The same goes, to a smaller extent, for the MBT damage output, speed and, in some cases, maneuverability. As you can imagine, this is not really intended and has to be addressed in order to make the role of each class more prominent.

As the most popular class in the game, the Main Battle Tank class will form the baseline of the upcoming balance changes, so let’s discuss that one first.

Long story short, we want the Main Battle Tanks to be the real frontline fighters of Armored Warfare. They should always find themselves first in the fight with their specialty being close-to-mid-range combat. Of all the vehicles in the game, they should have the highest protection levels, as befits this role – and not just their armor, but also other systems such as soft-kill and hard-kill APS, ERA, NERA, the best smoke grenade launchers, the most hitpoints and so on, but without resorting to what’s commonly known amongst the players of Armored Warfare as “pixel hunting.”

“Pixel hunting” is a mechanic where heavily armored targets have only very small (and often illogically placed) weakspots, which means that you have to carefully “scan” the front of the target to aim at those few tiny pixels where your reticle turns green. This is extremely frustrating and offers poor gameplay – in fact, one of the main reasons behind Update 0.19 so long ago was the removal of this effect and we definitely will not return to it. Instead, we’ll be changing the ERA mechanics significantly for them to favor the MBT class more while generally making ERA more useful for everyone.

Firepower-wise, we’ll be aiming at making the MBTs effective at short to medium ranges. The obvious question here is, however, what should we do with the long ranges? The equally obvious answer to this question would be to reduce the MBT accuracy significantly – and that’s exactly what we don’t want to do.

Some other games do this to artificially keep the “heavies” fighting at short ranges, but in reality, the MBTs are remarkably stable and accurate platforms. So, instead, we’ll make (or keep) the MBTs very accurate, even while moving, because that’s what you love about them. Please note that some smaller tweaks may happen in the context of the general rebalance since pretty much everything else will change a bit as well.

 

At this point, however, realism will have to offer some concessions to gameplay because, like we stated before, we definitely do not want to have one class dominate all others. That is why we’re considering making some adjustments that do not exactly match the world we live in, such as:

  • 1) MBT kinetic shells (APFSDS and others) will become noticeably less effective at longer ranges by means of penetration loss. The penetration loss over distance mechanism for kinetic shells is already in place, we’ll just tweak it to become more prominent
  • 2) MBTs will gain the ability to switch ammunition types faster, allowing you to always have the option to decide what ammunition suits your targets the best (this will affect Ready Racks and Clip magazines as well)

We’ll also be rebalancing the gun-launched ATGMs and some kinetic MBT shells will even be buffed to fit their new roles. Very roughly speaking, at close ranges, MBT APFSDS shells will be effective MBT killers while at longer ranges, they will lose their efficiency and we will be encouraging players to carefully consider their selected ammunition type.

That way, the MBTs will remain extremely deadly at close ranges without completely surpassing everyone else and all that without resorting to “pixel hunting”. When two MBTs start fighting each other, the gameplay will shift from looking for weakspots to which tank can penetrate the other at longer distances.

Another thing we truly need to do is tweak mobility, stealth and viewrange values – emphasis on tweaking, not nerfing them to the ground (some slower players seem to like to use these interchangeably). The MBT class will not be incredibly slow, nor will it be totally blind. Each such change will be very carefully considered and fine-tuned.

In summation, what we’ll have is a class that’s very effective up close – in fact, any head to head combat between a MBT and another class of the same Tier will very likely end in MBT’s favor – you shouldn’t be able to trade damage with an MBT in a LT and expect a victory. The MBT class will be very accurate, well protected and adequately mobile at the cost of some spotting abilities and stealth, the way they should have been all along. Last but not least, the changes described above definitely do not mean that all MBTs will play the same. There will still be a lot of diversity within the class itself (especially when it comes to armor values), but, to be clear:

  • “Marksman” MBTs will not outsnipe dedicated snipers (TDs)
  • “Fast” MBTs will not outrun dedicated flankers (LTs)
  • “Armored” MBTs... yeah, those will be a seriously tough nut to crack

And so on. Having the baseline established, let us move to other classes.

Tank Destroyers will be, as they should, the nemesis of Main Battle Tanks. Their intended role won’t change much – they will be the snipers of Armored Warfare:

  • At longer ranges they will be absolutely without equal
  • Amazing accuracy when standing still, surpassing every other class
  • Poor at firing on the move
  • Average to good speed but mediocre agility, these are not supposed to be run-and-gun vehicles
  • Poor protection levels

What this means that, especially at close ranges, they will lose to everyone else. On the other side, at long ranges, they will reign supreme because (and this is new):

  • Unlike the MBTs, their kinetic shells will not lose much (or any) penetration over distance
  • Gun Tank Destroyers will always feature better ammunition than the MBTs of the same Tier (providing both use the same gun caliber)
  • Gun Tank Destroyers will not have very high damage per minute values at longer distances in order not to make them surpass other classes such as Light Tanks

Missile Tank Destroyers will also carry the best missiles available in the game.

Light Tanks will be the flankers and second line support vehicles of Armored Warfare. What this means is:

  • Worse armored but considerably more mobile than MBTs
  • Can spot enemies better than MBTs but worse than AFVs
  • Firepower consists of bursts with extremely high damage per minute values
  • Stealthier than MBTs but less so than TDs or AFVs

So, again, the class will (intention-wise) remain roughly the same as it is now.

And, finally, the Armored Fighting Vehicles will also stay the same with their intention being spotting or fire support (especially via Mechanized Infantry). In short, these will be the fastest, most agile and stealthiest class, but also the most vulnerable one (much like Tank Destroyers, only without the long-range capabilities). We are generally aiming towards improving their usefulness for the entire team by the means of possible new mechanics that we are currently considering.

 

As you can already see, the abovementioned class definitions don’t really fit all vehicles in the game. The Leopard 1 MBT is more like a Light Tank, the Terminators are not unarmored and effectively represent a class of the own. We’re still considering how to address these discrepancies. Internally, we had an idea for multi-classes (MBT/LT for example) and some vehicles may switch to a different class, but this all is something that we’re still thinking about.

Now, with all that being said, there’s one more thing that needs to be made clear. Like we explained in the previous Developer Diary, our goal is to make the gameplay fair and to address power creep. To that end, some weaker vehicles will be buffed, but some overperforming vehicles will be directly nerfed (as opposed to an indirect nerf, where you simply buff everything else) due to the fact that, as we also mentioned, we are already reaching the engine limits in some cases. That is how things are – without this step, we will never be able to achieve the balanced and enjoyable gameplay state that we all desire.

What is important to keep in mind is that these nerfs will be made within the power bracket system that was outlined in the previous article. Simply put, some may look scarier than they actually are, even though they may nowhere near as serious as you might believe and in some cases may be accompanied by improvements on other places.

Do not fear this change, commanders. Embrace it. The game needs it and it will be better for it in the long run, which is what we all want. That does not mean we will not listen to your feedback – the main set of changes will arrive with Update 0.33 while Update 0.34 will contain additional fine-tuning based on it. We are fully aware that only by working together will Armored Warfare be the amazing game we all deserve.

And in case the article was a little too vague for you, don't worry. In the next part of the series, we will be discussing specific mechanics changes along with examples. Stay tuned and, as always:

See you on the battlefield!

 


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those changes actually sound good and make sense for the most part.

The MBT changes sound reasonable for T7-10. The spotting capabilities are definitely too good, especially in T9/10. Mobility on some MBTs is straight out ridiculous aswell. It's a good sign that those traits will be looked into. 

Quote

Instead, we’ll be changing the ERA mechanics significantly for them to favor the MBT class more while generally making ERA more useful for everyone.

This sounds promising aswell. ERA just doesn't feel very effective, except for some tanks. I hope that it enhances the overall protection slighty to further accentuate the MBT role.

Quote
  • 1) MBT kinetic shells (APFSDS and others) will become noticeably less effective at longer ranges by means of penetration loss. The penetration loss over distance mechanism for kinetic shells is already in place, we’ll just tweak it to become more prominent
  • 2) MBTs will gain the ability to switch ammunition types faster, allowing you to always have the option to decide what ammunition suits your targets the best (this will affect Ready Racks and Clip magazines as well)

A bit of an unconventional approach but it might work out. The intention of further pushing the player to overthink the ammunition choice is good. For the AP pen drop on distances I hope that it will not be too extreme. MBTs should still be able to easily defeat TD/AFV armor at high ranges but fail against other MBTs frontally. If players show you the side or rear armor on long range they should still be punished for it, even with the pen drop.

I have high hopes that this mechanics punish camping MBT players even more (They really deserve it).

TD wise I'm a bit sceptical about the changes. This really screams to become a campy  and boring to play class in general. Some wheeled TDs already feel like ships in terms of agility. If TDs get even better pen rates than MBTs it could reward a rather campy playstyle, while rendering more active playstyles useless/less effective.

The description of LTs is fitting aswell. Makes sense to me.

Quote

We are generally aiming towards improving their usefulness for the entire team by the means of possible new mechanics that we are currently considering.

Curious what those possible "new Mechanics" will be. There aren't much players who can play AFVs effectively. I still think that a buff in general to AFVs is not necessary at all. The implementation of Infantry already made certain vehicles overperform in my opinion. 

  • Upvote 1

Spoiler

fdassdaas.jpg.c709df3e98adc5265f232fe9458a3043.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

This sounds promising aswell. ERA just doesn't feel very effective, except for some tanks. I hope that it enhances the overall protection slighty to further accentuate the MBT role.

While I agree that increasing ERA effectiveness is a good idea, I hope they nerf the sides of some MBTs as well, since that would encourage smart positioning (for MBTs) and flanking (for AFVs, LTs). Currently, it seems the sides of MBTs are incredibly inconsistent; some are incredibly weak (Type, K2, etc.) while others are extremely strong (Chally, XM, etc.). I'm fine if some MBTs are better armored than others, but there are several culprits whose sides are unreasonably trolly, even without ERA (CATTB, I'm looking at you). 

3 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

A bit of an unconventional approach but it might work out. The intention of further pushing the player to overthink the ammunition choice is good. For the AP pen drop on distances I hope that it will not be too extreme. MBTs should still be able to easily defeat TD/AFV armor at high ranges but fail against other MBTs frontally. If players show you the side or rear armor on long range they should still be punished for it, even with the pen drop.

That should be the sweet spot, effortlessly/consistently punish lightly armored campers/snipers while bouncing off (the fronts of) better armored (and/or angled) opponents at longer ranges.

3 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

I have high hopes that this mechanics punish camping MBT players even more (They really deserve it).

Agreed 100%. Or just give people free reign to TK camping MBTs...

Of course, one solution is far more reasonable than the other.

8 hours ago, Haswell said:

What this means that, especially at close ranges, they will lose to everyone else. On the other side, at long ranges, they will reign supreme because (and this is new):

  • Unlike the MBTs, their kinetic shells will not lose much (or any) penetration over distance
  • Gun Tank Destroyers will always feature better ammunition than the MBTs of the same Tier (providing both use the same gun caliber)
  • Gun Tank Destroyers will not have very high damage per minute values at longer distances in order not to make them surpass other classes such as Light Tanks

I find most of this reasonable.

However, I share the same concerns as @TeyKey1 regarding the ammunition of TDs. While I agree that gun TDs should be powerful at range, I don't believe their weaponry should surpass those of MBTs. Instead, more interesting/dynamic ammunition types and pre-/post-penetration effects should be explored.

Personally, I think PELE is in a great place right now. Far from its previous manifestation with ridiculous spalling and internal damage, it currently rewards accurate fire and intelligent targeting of modules, crew members and weakspots. 

My proposal for an improved iteration of the current gun TDs would involve a new mechanic, where TD rounds impacting within a certain [relatively small] radius of a previous round (from the same gun TD) would encounter decreased effective armor thickness and/or cause additional internal damage; resulting in a higher chance to penetrate and/or cause module/crew damage respectively.

Such a design would emphasize and encourage the effective use of gun TD accuracy. While the penetration of the gun/ammunition would not change, skilled TD players would be able to target and deal damage to even well armored opponents (MBTs), especially those who are camping/immobile.

Of course, such a mechanic would need to be implemented, and who knows if the dev team and/or the engine would be capable of such a task/feat.

9 hours ago, Haswell said:

Missile Tank Destroyers will also carry the best missiles available in the game.

I also mostly find this to be reasonable.

However, I'm concerned with several vehicles who are already armed with some of the best missile systems in the game, but who are also armed with some incredibly effective alternative weapon systems (*ahem* T-15 *cough*). These outliers will definitely need some form of compromise to properly balance their potential effectiveness.

9 hours ago, Haswell said:

Light Tanks will be the flankers and second line support vehicles of Armored Warfare. What this means is:

  • Worse armored but considerably more mobile than MBTs
  • Can spot enemies better than MBTs but worse than AFVs
  • Firepower consists of bursts with extremely high damage per minute values
  • Stealthier than MBTs but less so than TDs or AFVs

So, again, the class will (intention-wise) remain roughly the same as it is now.

As for LTs, I can only hope that they do not extensively nerf their current capabilities. Of course I'm biased (as I main the PL), but I genuinely believe LTs are properly enjoyable to play in their current form.

The current dynamic(s) between and playstyle(s) of the LTs from tier 7 - 10 are rather distinct and diverse, which definitely satisfies me. Let's consider tier 10:

  • K21 XC8
    • Greater [sustained] DPM
    • Better [overall] gun performance
    • Significantly more camo
    • Slightly better mobility
  • PL-01
    • Better protection
    • Greater [burst] damage
    • Slightly better view range
    • Infantry (sniper)

Here we see two different LTs, one suited for active mobile sniping, while the other is more of a sedentary passive scout/fire support. Allowing for choice and/or player preference results in both vehicles having their supports/detractors.

Ultimately, LTs are in a decent place as they are right now. Perhaps I would slightly buff the M8s, reclassify the Sprut-SD as a LT and buff the PL's DPM to at least compete with the Anders (and/or Type 10).

9 hours ago, Haswell said:

And, finally, the Armored Fighting Vehicles will also stay the same with their intention being spotting or fire support (especially via Mechanized Infantry). In short, these will be the fastest, most agile and stealthiest class, but also the most vulnerable one (much like Tank Destroyers, only without the long-range capabilities). We are generally aiming towards improving their usefulness for the entire team by the means of possible new mechanics that we are currently considering.

I also agree with @TeyKey1 in this regard. AFVs are already very capable in their current forms, but many players are unable to extract all of the potential from this specific class of vehicles. 

As I've mentioned before, AFVs should emphasize vision control and mobility while also being equipped with weaponry suitable for hit-and-run attacks dealing sizable amounts of damage (in bursts). Many of the AFVs currently in AW can already claim to serve this function, although some excelling in certain areas more than others (of course).

Instead of developing additional mechanics for an already complex class to play, I would suggest overhauling the assist damage system and it's subsequent rewards. If vision control becomes a viable (or encouraged) role/playstyle, players will naturally gravitate towards the class(es) which benefits from it most.

9 hours ago, Haswell said:

As you can already see, the abovementioned class definitions don’t really fit all vehicles in the game. The Leopard 1 MBT is more like a Light Tank, the Terminators are not unarmored and effectively represent a class of the own. We’re still considering how to address these discrepancies. Internally, we had an idea for multi-classes (MBT/LT for example) and some vehicles may switch to a different class, but this all is something that we’re still thinking about.

This is perhaps the most perplexing and difficult dilemma to resolve. 

There are numerous outliers within a predefined "class" whose abilities and/or playstyle are either distinct or a hybrid between two (or more) classes. The classification of these vehicles are certainly a challenge, and I am interested to see what sort of solution/compromise the team can reach.

Personally, I'm fine with the Terminators being classified as TDs, since their weaponry is perfectly adequate in an anti-armor role. They just so happen to feature autocannons which are rather effective against thinly-armored targets as well. However, to better balance/classify these vehicles as TDs, I would suggest decreasing the DPM of their autocannons, perhaps equipping one gun with the AP belt while HE belt for the other (as IRL)? An exception to this rule would be the T-15. Aside from its ridiculous over-performance, the T-15 is also technically an AFV, as it features infantry. Consequently, should the T-15 retain its infantry, it would most likely fit a hybrid TD/AFV classification.

As for the Leopard 1s, I don't see any better solution apart from classifying them as a LT or perhaps a hybrid LT/MBT. Perhaps such a change may be accompanied with a couple of adjustments to the vehicles themselves (to better suit their "new" class)?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Haswell said:

MBTs... As the most popular class in the game

It seems to me regarding glops, that there's generally about 2-3 mbts per side in a 10 v 10 game and maybe 4 in a 15 v 15. These are quite often either the 'flavour of the month' mbs. Ie the seon gun due to the battle path, or the tanks from a new branch just after it's released: the French for example after they arrived.

Ignoring those, the only ones I really see are: premium terminator variants, a few TTBs and that door-wedge thing, Altays, and at T10,  almost exclusively tryhard platoons of CATTBs. No one really uses actual mbts, ie progression line mbts for glops.

21 hours ago, Haswell said:

... you shouldn’t be able to trade damage with an MBT in a LT and expect a victory...

...Strela, Pindad... Although I won't hold my breath.

21 hours ago, Haswell said:

our goal is to make the gameplay fair and to address power creep

The simplest way of course, is not to introduce power creep in the first place, especially since they are well aware that some tank's armour is better than another/reload is faster/damage is greater, by being able to just read out which number is the biggest one.

Or at least have 2 versions of the OP tank ready, pre-made, when they introduce it: the OP one, to tempt you to get it; and the balanced one that they can switch it with later, when the it's OPness inevitably becomes a problem.

10 hours ago, di_duncan said:

... just give people free reign to TK camping MBTs...

I owe you a pint for that one, dunc.

Edited by Lenticulas
Android auto non-correct (see edit history)

"Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it as as a huge impact to MBT class. Not sure why the article (and whole balance 3.0 agenda) conveniently forget to mention that main base of players likes to play tank games like AW because of MBT-alike and these people want such vehicles to perform well in variety of aspects. 

Per article, devs realized that key factors of MBT are key issues to make things balanced (visual vs AFV, speed vs LT, damage output vs TD). Mind you but the game went already through almost same shock thing already in balance 2.0 and after that it took almost 2,5 years to calm things down. Why not fix things like damage/armor/speed of certain OP premium vehicles, why not fix unfinish business with spotting, broken inversion or mortar infantry? And how best AFV spotting can improve things when PvP maps are simply not designed for AFV spotting ? And why random MBT player should depend on another random AFV player in matters of spotting? Ever care to ask such question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Haswell said:

The last point is closely tied to the success of the 2018-2019 plans to improve low-Tier gameplay in order to make it more dynamic

... because Swingfire spam made low tiers so fun to play, right? It must be very fun and dynamic for new and inexperienced players to get nuked by bots that they couldn't spot. If that is considered to be a success, I have serious reservations about whatever changes they have in mind.

21 hours ago, Haswell said:

Another thing we truly need to do is tweak stealth and viewrange values

Yes, yes, take all of my yeses, so long as they become considerably more blind and easy to spot compared to squishies. As much as MBTs are meant as a universal class, they simply can't have armor and vision control ability at the same time for the sake of balance. Proper vision control is an important skill to learn and master for squishy vehicles, but right now there's no real incentive for pubbies to learn it when they can be almost as effective simply by driving forward in MBTs.

So long as this doesn't lead to situations where MBTs get pelted by unspotted bots (as it already happens at lower tiers), I'm all in support of it.

21 hours ago, Haswell said:

1) MBT kinetic shells (APFSDS and others) will become noticeably less effective at longer ranges by means of penetration loss. The penetration loss over distance mechanism for kinetic shells is already in place, we’ll just tweak it to become more prominent

One big thing I noticed from the article is that it only mentions AP ammo but not HEAT/HESH/PELE, my first thought is that all this talk of balancing revolves solely around PvP and ignores PvE completely. HEAT spam will still reign supreme in PvE thanks to the higher alpha, thus the changes to AP can practically be ignored for the most part. This is also an indirect nerf to bot MBTs since they spam AP with impunity, meaning players may be able to take less damage from bots shooting at long ranges. The lack of penetration decay in bot TDs is a non-issue considering there are very few tracked TDs with guns (ie. Sprut), though this might change if bots suddenly start driving wheeled vehicles.

21 hours ago, Haswell said:

(TDs) What this means that, especially at close ranges, they will lose to everyone else. On the other side, at long ranges, they will reign supreme because (and this is new):

I actually dislike the proposal to turn TDs into dedicated long range vehicles. The current PvE maps simply don't have engagement ranges long enough for TDs to exercise their accuracy advantage over any other class as it is, not to mention the god awful armored brick corridor meta in spec ops. Decreasing their DPM will just make them more unappealing to play over lights and AFVs.

21 hours ago, Haswell said:

Light Tanks will be the flankers and second line support vehicles of Armored Warfare. What this means is:

That is not how lights are actually played right now, contrary to whatever vision the devs have. The vision control capabilities of lights right now are very comparable and even competitive to squishy TDs and AFVs, to the point where all three classes are practically interchangeable for vision control purposes and they all basically play the same way: run around, stay unspotted, maximize DPM by virtue of not getting shot at.

Unless lights also get their view ranges nerfed, I don't see them being anything more than merely TDs on tracks as they are now. Take the K21 and Wilk for example, the only things that differentiate them both are wheels vs tracks, and PELE for the Wilk.

21 hours ago, Haswell said:

(AFVs) We are generally aiming towards improving their usefulness for the entire team by the means of possible new mechanics that we are currently considering.

Let me know when infantry commands get added first.

21 hours ago, Haswell said:

As you can already see, the abovementioned class definitions don’t really fit all vehicles in the game. The Leopard 1 MBT is more like a Light Tank, the Terminators are not unarmored and effectively represent a class of the own. We’re still considering how to address these discrepancies. Internally, we had an idea for multi-classes (MBT/LT for example) and some vehicles may switch to a different class, but this all is something that we’re still thinking about.

Obligatory "Leo 1 has heavy armor" joke. I question why class traits have to be so limiting that they overshadow individual vehicle balancing, such as why the Leo 1 has garbage mobility just because it's classed as an MBT or why light tanks have mediocre accuracy almost universally (ie. Stingray vs LAV-600).

 

Without knowing the exact changes to each vehicle, it's hard to tell whether the proposed changes are good or not.


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2020 at 3:53 AM, dfnce said:

main base of players likes to play tank games like AW because of MBT-alike and these people want such vehicles to perform well in variety of aspects.

So because the majority of players enjoy playing MBTs, their performance should be emphasized/prioritized? That's not a particularly valid/convincing argument.

According to such logic, all other classes should remain inferior to MBTs largely in part due to their overwhelming popularity and accessibility. May as well remove/exclude all the other classes entirely then, since all of their roles can be effectively performed by MBTs (at least in their current form).

I knew several players who enjoyed playing lighter vehicles who quit AW simply because of the dominance of MBTs. I don't think it's particularly enjoyable to be forced to one class due to that specific class of vehicle(s) being far more effective on the battlefield.   

On 7/28/2020 at 3:53 AM, dfnce said:

Why not fix things like damage/armor/speed of certain OP premium vehicles, why not fix unfinish business with spotting, broken inversion or mortar infantry?

I mostly agree in these regards.

Note that extensive rebalancing is planned for some of your concerns in 0.33. @Silentstalker has already confirmed the CATTB will be seeing a nerf and the vehicle movement/mobility system is being overhauled as well.

However, I have no particular issue with mortar infantry. Sure, indirect fire is certainly annoying, but I would rank AT squads far more dangerous and/or troublesome (especially T9-10 HEAT-MP).

Improvements to spotting and incentives for assisting damage would definitely be greatly appreciated though.

On 7/28/2020 at 3:53 AM, dfnce said:

And why random MBT player should depend on another random AFV player in matters of spotting?

I don't think it's a matter of reliance on other classes, but a matter of balancing overall vehicle capabilities.

MBTs should be able to spot their own targets, but only if they actively approach them. Their armor and increased HP pools allow/afford them to push towards the opposition. Consequently, their view range(s) should be far less than those of AFVs and LTs, whose greater view range(s) should allow them to employ active or passive vision control because they have far less protection compared to MBTs. 

As much as I hate to reference WoT, their dynamic between HTs, MTs, and LTs is far more balanced (ignoring TDs and SPGs). All classes have their strengths and weaknesses, which are reflected in their defined specializations/roles.

A WoT heavy's vision pales in comparison to a light because heavies are far better armored and are intended to take fire. Does this mean heavy tanks must rely on light/medium tanks to spot targets and do damage? No. 

However, this "encourages" heavies to push forward to find (and deal damage to) targets; whereas lights (and some mediums) can passively spot enemies pushing and/or overextending (hopefully without being detected themselves) due to their smaller size and to compensate for their far thinner armor. 

MBTs should not be the be-all and end-all of classes in AW. Although they may reign superior while serving with the armies of the world, their capabilities should be equalized in-game.  

Edited by di_duncan
Rewording (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with these roles is that - realistically - there's very little difference between a TD and an LT.  They're both relatively squishy with MBT-class guns.  Sure, TDs are usually wheeled and LTs are usually tracked, but is that really a sufficient distinguishing characteristic?

I suppose an argument can be made that LTs have sufficient armor to be immune to autocannons while TDs to not, but again I'm not sure that provides sufficient variety for them to have separate roles.  (And no, the existence of Terminators is not a counter-argument.  They're clearly an exception.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna read through this discussion a bit later, it's very interesting.

One thing caught my eye though, the TD vs LT discussion, so a quick response. These articles are meant mostly for non-high-end players for kinda obvious reasons. First, players who can truly see the consequences of some choices are very rare. Second, most players who read these articles are average (by the very definition of the word). Hm that sounded a bit weird, but you know what I mean.

My point is, for most players, you gotta define expectations first, because that's the starting point where the opinions will come from. Most players do not think in shades of grey, they think black and white, or, more specifically, black or dark grey (black with some leeway) and white or light grey (white with some leeway). So, in this specific case, defining TDs as snipers is an important aspect because it ensures that players will try to first play them as snipers and then move towards the grey zone when they find out this isn't working all THAT well. Likewise, defining LTs as flankers is important because while the same players will start that way and then gradually move towards the TD role.

The reality is that both classes basically occupy more or less the same niche of "second line fighters". TDs (excluding some weird shit like BMPTs) are better at longer distances, LTs at shorter ones, but the truth is that the role of a "flanker" is a fictional one, at least for LTs. LT flankers are a myth - they don't work because the maps are too small. So what you have instead is something like faster "marksmen" and less agile and more fragile "snipers". But, if you describe it like this to wider audience, we're getting to what I described above - players don't think in scales of grey, they think in absultes. In other words, they will understand "kinda the same" as "totally the same", which it is not, there will always be nuances, either in different characteristics or indirect ones (for example, TDs don't typically carry ERA, which is pretty significant given the upcoming changes). Getting really deep into these statistics and rebalance, you'll start discovering some really weird shit, such as the Type 16 is effectively a wheeled Light Tank and a better LT than some other LTs to boot, yet it must retain its old class because it would completely mess the basic narrative of the game - when all vehicles are the same, it will become incredibly difficult for new players to orientate (and yes, we are getting new players, every day).

There were thoughts about merging LTs and TDs into one class (FSV), but this would be REALLY complex. Right now, every single TD and LT has its seprate table in developer files where its battlefield role and intended gameplay is described. In other words, we're not cutting legs to fit the shoe, we're changing the shoe size to fit the leg - or, we're assigning classes to fit the vehicles based on how we want them played, not vice versa.

I guess the TLDR of it all is, you'll see what happens. We all will (that's why I am specifically avoiding giving any numbers because when everything changes, listing specific changes makes no sense).

Edited by Silentstalker (see edit history)
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, knutliott said:

One problem with these roles is that - realistically - there's very little difference between a TD and an LT.  They're both relatively squishy with MBT-class guns.  Sure, TDs are usually wheeled and LTs are usually tracked, but is that really a sufficient distinguishing characteristic?

Don't see much difference either. Mostly play them the same. Tracked LTs are certainly better for some close combat action compared to the wheeled TD boats.


Spoiler

fdassdaas.jpg.c709df3e98adc5265f232fe9458a3043.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silentstalker said:

such as the Type 15 is effectively a wheeled Light Tank and a better LT than some other LTs to boot, yet it must retain its old class because it would completely mess the basic narrative of the game - when all vehicles are the same, it will become incredibly difficult for new players to orientate (and yes, we are getting new players, every day).

Either my memory is total crap, or this vehicle doesn't exist in game. You mean the t7 Japanese td right? Wasn't that called the type 16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, itzjustrick said:

Either my memory is total crap, or this vehicle doesn't exist in game. You mean the t7 Japanese td right? Wasn't that called the type 16?

Yeah sorry, Type 16, my mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, knutliott said:

One problem with these roles is that - realistically - there's very little difference between a TD and an LT.  They're both relatively squishy with MBT-class guns.  Sure, TDs are usually wheeled and LTs are usually tracked, but is that really a sufficient distinguishing characteristic?

In the current game meta? I would agree with you here.

However, with the arrival of 0.33, I hope the LT and TD role(s) can become more distinguished from each other.

One significant aspect which should be looked into and tweaked (IMO) should be vision and camo capabilities. I believe LTs should have a significant view range/spotting advantage in comparison to TDs (especially armored "TDs"). This would complement their role as a secondary spotter (surpassed only by "scout" AFVs) which just so happens to be a countermeasure to camping/sniping vehicles (like TDs).

On the other hand, TDs would benefit from various relevant bonuses while stationary. Additional camouflage (perhaps a mechanic which adopts a specific percentage of camo value from surrounding foliage within a certain radius?), reduced camo loss upon firing, or even improved gun handling and/or module damage/range, etc. All things considered, stationary TDs should become far and away the best long to medium range sniping platforms, with improved statistics where it matters (aforementioned less AP penetration loss over distance, greater velocities at range, gun handling, etc.)

Essentially, LTs would be specialized/intended for offensive short to medium range fire support (alongside the MBT vanguard) while TDs would excel at defensive fire support at longer ranges.

23 hours ago, knutliott said:

I suppose an argument can be made that LTs have sufficient armor to be immune to autocannons while TDs to not, but again I'm not sure that provides sufficient variety for them to have separate roles.

Protection is yet another area which can be explored to create distinction between the LT and TD classes. 

In my eyes, LTs should be able to somewhat resist standard (not ATGM) HEAT rounds (at least turret front, maybe UFP?), since they are intended to push forward alongside the rest of their team. This could potentially mitigate additional (HEAT-based) damage (both HP and module/crew) from HEAT rounds and AT squad rockets. Such a change may also compel more diverse ammo use (especially for MBTs, which are already "encouraged" to switch ammunition type(s) based on their targets in 0.33).

[Gun] TDs on the other hand, will be vulnerable to nearly every weapon/ammunition type they can encounter, so they will be far more "squishy" and vulnerable to additional [HEAT, PISH, PELE, etc.] damage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 3 of rebalancing, ERA galore. https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/tier-7-10-rebalance-part-3-era

Quote

Welcome to the third part of our developer diary series, in which we explain the changes that will take place in Update 0.33. In the two previous installments, we discussed how we need to address power creep and our vision for the upcoming vehicle roles. Both articles were a little bit vague, but necessary in order to establish the foundations on which the upcoming changes are built. But, today, we’ll start getting more into the specifics.

One of the most discussed topics after the publication of the last part was the impact of all these changes on the PvE modes that are available in the game. Let us address this concern head on: We’ll make sure PvE stays fun due to a combination of adjustments that we are planning. After all, nobody says the AI vehicles have to have the same characteristics as players and other changes to AI opponents are still in the production pipeline.

 

Another concern of yours was the sufficiency of MBT armor in first line combat in general. Rest assured that this too will be addressed during the changes. But one element (that will actually affect all vehicles, not just Tier 7-10) that will definitely play a role in addressing both of these concerns will be the upcoming Explosive Reactive Armor mechanic overhaul.

Here’s what we are planning.

As you know, Explosive Reactive Armor consists of a metallic shell (in most cases anyway) and an explosive filler. When hit, the explosive blow up the frontal plate of an ERA module against the projectile, disrupting HEAT ammo jets and affecting even kinetic ammunition. ERA armor consists of typically brick-shaped elements and gets destroyed upon shell impact.

In Update 0.33, each ERA element will consist of:

  • Armored casing
  • Explosive filler

Armored casing will protect the ERA element from machinegun fire or even autocannons (depending on how advanced the ERA set is). This is due to the fact that with the appearance of machineguns in the game, the tactic of switching to a machinegun and then destroying the entire enemy ERA set in seconds became too prevalent. That way, the ERA would not survive to protect the tank against the threats it was intended against (ATGMs and HEAT rounds). While this is primarily a PvP considerations, having AI opponents rake your armor with autocannon fire yielded the same results.

Please note that while this may sound like a normal armor check, it is not – it doesn’t take the ERA angle into account, only the actual penetration roll.

If the armor of the casing is penetrated, the filler explodes. In game terms, the penetration of this shell will be first reduced by the armored casing thickness and this resulting penetration number will be then reduced by a certain percentage depending on the shell type and ERA effectiveness. This number will also be affected by the shell’s impact angle. The sharper the angle is, the higher the penetration reduction (this will start playing a role at 40 degrees impact angle or sharper).

 

Additionally, ERA elements will have their own hitpoint pool so even if a round penetrates, it may simply damage the ERA (not triggering an explosion) if the shell’s damage is lower than the amount of remaining ERA element hitpoints. The hitpoint count will, however, be lower than on the vehicles equipped with NERA.

So, in summation, what will happen if a projectile hits an ERA element?

  • A penetration check is made with the shell rolling its RNG against the element’s armor casing thickness
  • If the shell penetrates, a damage RNG roll is made and shells with lower damage than the remaining ERA hitpoints simply damage the ERA tile, not doing anything further
  • If the ERA damage fails, the ERA tile explodes

At this point:

  • The penetration established in the first point is reduced by the nominal armor casing thickness
  • This result is then reduced by a percentage determined by each ERA set generation
  • The reduced result is further adjusted by the amount determined by the shell’s impact angle
  • The actual main armor penetration check is made with this new number

The effectiveness of ERA will depend on its generation. There will be four ERA generations present in Armored Warfare (each ERA set will have its generation listed in its description):

First Generation ERA

These are the early ERA sets that appear on Tiers 6 and below.

 

They represent fairly rudimentary designs and offer the following protection:

  • Armor casing immune to machineguns and autocannons of up to 20mm caliber
  • 50% penetration reduction to standard HEAT and HE penetration
  • No protection offered from kinetic shells, HESH shells or tandem ATGM warheads

First generation ERA examples include the Blazer and Kontakt-1 systems.

Second Generation ERA

Second Generation ERA is what you currently see on various service tanks and appears on Tiers 6-8.

 

These sets offer the following protection:

  • Armor casing immune to machineguns and autocannons of up to 20mm caliber
  • 80% penetration reduction to standard HEAT and HE penetration
  • 20% penetration reduction to AP and HESH penetration
  • No protection offered from tandem ATGM warheads

Second generation ERA examples include the Stryker Reactive Armor, ARAT and Kontakt-5 systems.

Third Generation ERA

Third Generation ERA is the current cutting edge technology and appears on Tiers 8-10.

 

These sets offer the following protection:

  • Armor casing immune to machineguns and autocannons of up to 20mm caliber, can take multiple larger autocannon hits to take down
  • 80% penetration reduction to standard HEAT and HE penetration
  • 50% penetration reduction to tandem HEAT penetration
  • 50% penetration reduction to AP and HESH penetration

Third generation ERA examples include the ARAT-2 and Relikt systems and pretty much everything else on the abovementioned Tiers, with some exceptions. Oplot’s Duplet armor will belong to this generation while retaining its “twin layer” special properties.

Fourth Generation ERA

This generation represents either current cutting edge or fictional armor Tier, introduced for the sake of balance. Only two sets of armor will belong to this Generation, Armata’s Malakhit and XM1A3’s special ARAT set.

 

As you can imagine, the protection offered by this armor will be substantial:

  • Armor casing immune to machineguns and autocannons of up to 20mm caliber, can take multiple larger autocannon hits to take down
  • 90% penetration reduction to standard HEAT and HE penetration
  • 90% penetration reduction to tandem HEAT penetration
  • 90% penetration reduction to AP and HESH penetration
  • 70% penetration reduction to the best kinetic shells in the game (excluding kinetic ATGMs)

With that being said, there are a few important things to keep in mind:

  • Like in real life, lighter armor sets meant for IFVs and Light Tanks will not protect as much as the heavy sets carried by MBTs
  • There will also be interim generations (Gen 2+, Gen 3+) with their characteristics somewhere between generations

At the end of the day, the numbers above only serve as examples of what we are aiming towards and we’ll be reviewing each ERA kit individually (for example, the partial Relikt armor found on older BMPT models will perform worse than the one on the BMPT-72) to make sure that they do not end up overperforming. Likewise, we will pay special attention to the MBTs that do not have any frontal ERA, such as the Abrams tanks, to make sure that they do not suffer in this new system.

 

Now, as for how this system will change the actual gameplay, this was disclosed in the previous article. When fighting each other, two MBTs are expected to fire at areas not covered by Explosive Reactive Armor (or other extra armor types, for that matter) at close ranges. At mid-ranges, they will be expected to fire at weaker areas (such as Russian MBT lower frontal plates) and at long ranges... well, you won’t be expected to fight other MBTs in an MBT at long ranges. At lower and mid Tiers (where ATGMs start to become a thing), ERA kits will boost the ability of the MBT class to lead the charge – yes, even against the dreaded Swingfire ATGMs in PvE.

As for the PvE mode specifically, as we announced before, we already introduced some aiming mechanism changes and are planning to take further steps to improve AI behavior, some of which are described in this article but didn’t make it into the game yet. The AI opponents won’t be automatically aiming at your weakspots, which means that your armor will be able to take more punishment in general, especially against HEAT rounds and ATGMs, which, we are sure you will agree, is a good thing to have.

There will also be some changes addressing the PvE situation indirectly, like adding more vehicles to the AI pool (which, in turn, will reduce the appearance rate of vehicles many players consider toxic). But that is a story for another time.

For now, rest assured that we are reading your feedback carefully and taking it into account. Next time, we’ll be diving into even more specifics of the rebalance.

 


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through a lot of this, I'm interested to see where this goes........but.....

This project is a huge undertaking.  i do hope that when changes are made that they can be tested first before put onto the live server.  Success with this will mean the world going forward, if they fail they might as well fall on their sword because it could be a death blow.


 

"If you were not birthed with claws or fangs, store bought will do just fine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather feel powerless with these announced changes, i disliked how the balance 2.0 changed most of things to worse in PvE (not because of ATGM) on low tiers. I concern about reducing penetration of MBT over distance, worse vision range and probably the strange note of "bots armor will be made weaker". I always wanted bots armor be exact as strong as player vehicle armor in PvP and more diverse choice of models (vs current case where 70% of everything is dominated with light armored AFV and T-15 bots). I can welcome fixing some oldest bugs (like bots driving with their back) but i doubt that alone can impact the existing behavior - the pre-programmed rush to designed point no matter what. 

Also i received it as very bad news that PvE won't get any new SO anymore, at least in this present roadmap. The quality (playability, fun factor) of last BP was terrible, I do understand it is difficult COVID situation around the world now and many companies seek for savings and are avoiding investments, but somehow AW (mail.ru) can afford high risk balance 3.0 initiative and they think that PvE community should be happy without any serious content update. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2020 at 2:31 AM, Katsumoto said:

... i do hope that when changes are made that they can be tested first before put onto the live server....

Taking bets now, ladies and gentlemen ..

 

;->


"Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dfnce said:

Also i received it as very bad news that PvE won't get any new SO anymore, at least in this present roadmap. The quality (playability, fun factor) of last BP was terrible, I do understand it is difficult COVID situation around the world now and many companies seek for savings and are avoiding investments, but somehow AW (mail.ru) can afford high risk balance 3.0 initiative and they think that PvE community should be happy without any serious content update. 

We don't know anything for sure, but yes this whole rebalance thing feels mainly intended for the PvP (random battles) players. Mainly because this is the only mode for which I actually feel mbts are strong. (Disprove me please). Without having seen actual stats it's hard to tell, so we'll see... But I hope they will also take the global operations and pve players into account. But we can hopefully assume there will be a public test, so I think it's a bit too early to form our opinions yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...