Introduction
I couple of weeks ago i talked via Teamspeak with at least for me a good friend who is named Obey (from NA) about the situation in and around Amored Warfare .We both are active since the very first start of the game back in the Alpha phase and despite some different opinions about some classes or vehicles , at the end we had somewhat the same view of the game.
We all want that AW will be a good game and has success, even though lately i think that we can agree here, that they made a few mistakes which could have been avoided actually. Personally i have a more critical point of view and i have no problem in saying or writing that.
This doesn't mean that AW is currently in a bad shape or that it has only flaws , though i don't know the influence of my.com / mail.ru and their possible pressure on Obsidian. Another thing might be the contract and different things that are bound with it .
However to get directly to the reason why iam writing this, is the point of view which Obey had when it came down to the armor upgrades for vehicles.
Topic
The reason why he said it, was that you want mainly a change in the look of the tank when you mount or demount some of the unlock able armor upgrades for vehicles, especially MBT's . By thinking of that, iam came to the conclusion that he is right about that. The vehicles themselves don't change a lot when you update your gunbarrel or install new shells or GLATGM's and so on. This means that the only visual upgrade you have are either smoke launcher (which is currently not working as it should) or armor upgrades for the vehicles.
I know that this might be a small issue, but as we look at the Leopard 1A5 as an example, the visual upgrade is not complete, where it should actually and those small things make the game so much better as you see the progress visualy . There are some vehicles where you have such armor upgrades and see a different visual setting when you mount them. If iam not mistaken the T-72 / T-72A / B1 Centauro / M1A1 / M1A2 / Ariete / M60A3 / T-64A / Stingray 2 / XM8 / MGS1128 Stryker / BMP-3 / BMP-3M ? / Chieftain (even though it is small ) / Challenger 1 and i think Challenger 2 as well .
Those are the ones i can recall in my mind, if i forgot a vehicle i will add it later on . Overall it depends on how much vehicles they want to add and how much they want to split those up to either have a huge number of vehicles or what i would like more, less vehicles but more detailed, but this is my personal opinion as i don't see a reason to have the same tank / vehicle over and over again.
What i really like to see are more upgrade options for the visual change of the vehicle. This can be with working smoke launchers (even if you don't have them, they are on the model which is sad) , armor kits , like the ones mentioned before or even thermal jackets for the gun barrel or customised storage cases for the crew and so on.
The first impression of a vehicle when you have it on elite status, should be the change of the visual design which comes along with upgrading, so you have yourself a satisfying look when you see your progress actually. Like i said before this might be not that important, since your current balance is in many ways not good at all, but you should think about those details and first impression when you introduce new vehicles. Sometimes is less , more and nobody is forcing you to release 10 vehicles a month .
My current example of a missing armor ugprade would be the PzH 2000 with its IGEL armor , even though there are a few options for the T-62 / T-64 or like mentioned in the previous post the Leopard 1 had quite some changes as well or the Falcon Turret for the Chieftain / Challenger and so on .
Conclusion
Go for more quality when you introduce vehicles ( more upgrade options who are changing the visual look ) and less quantity. I have no doubts that most players are looking forward for little details and visual changes with further progress .
Sunday, 29 November 2015
Saturday, 28 November 2015
Leopard 1A5 issue
The issue i mainly have, is that the model is not correct for the Leopard 1A5. While i think it is better to have a option here for both turret version's (A5 and A3 actually) the overall issue are the missing sideskirts.
A short information about the overall look changed within the version.(just the look, not internal stuff)
Leopard 1
Leopard 1A1 : Thermal jacket and sideskirts
Leopard 1A1A1 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and the known additional turret armor
Leopard 1A2 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretarmordesign (Cast turret design)
Leopard 1A3 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretdesign (Welded turret design)
Leopard 1A4 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretdesign (Welded turret design)
Leopard 1A5 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and the known additional turret armor
Leopard 1A1A1
Leopard 1A2
Leopard 1A3
Leopard 1A4
Leopard 1A5
You see all Leopard 1's with the beginning of the A1 Version (sadly hard to find that picture) had sideskirts, though the Belgian Leopard 1's for example had a different design and if i see that correct the sideskirts are out of metal instead of kevlar .
In Armored Warfare the Leopard 1A5 is missing those beautiful looking sideskirts, which should be not the case at all !
In Short :
A short information about the overall look changed within the version.(just the look, not internal stuff)
Leopard 1
Leopard 1A1 : Thermal jacket and sideskirts
Leopard 1A1A1 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and the known additional turret armor
Leopard 1A2 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretarmordesign (Cast turret design)
Leopard 1A3 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretdesign (Welded turret design)
Leopard 1A4 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretdesign (Welded turret design)
Leopard 1A5 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and the known additional turret armor
Leopard 1A1A1
You see all Leopard 1's with the beginning of the A1 Version (sadly hard to find that picture) had sideskirts, though the Belgian Leopard 1's for example had a different design and if i see that correct the sideskirts are out of metal instead of kevlar .
In Armored Warfare the Leopard 1A5 is missing those beautiful looking sideskirts, which should be not the case at all !
In Short :
- add the sideskirts to the 1A5
- add the option to have the A3/4 Turret
- add the option to have the BE Army sideskirts + their turretdesign including SABCA
Friday, 27 November 2015
My class and role solution
Personally i don't think that there is a need for 5 classes on its own, as the overall common term for most vehicle's is AFV anyway and within the current "style" which we have there is really not a need to separate more than actually needed.
As you might see, i reduced it to the 3 basic classes which are divided in several roles themselves. In the current game there are already some roles, mainly in the AFV area, naming the Recon bonus or the Troop compartment bonus for IFV's .
My reasoning to put the LT and TD vehicles into the AFV class is fairly simple. Both current classes rely on mobility combined with a higher camo rating than MBT's and SPG's as well as having a high caliber weapon system for the most part. Overall you play LT's and TD's somewhat the same. The main difference between those 2 classes and AFV's is the view range and the camo mechanics .
1) MBT
I divided the MBT's in 2 roles to fit. One will be the heavy armored one and the other is the light armored role. By thinking of that , i tried to divide it by the actual weight, but that won't make a big difference as western MBT's tend to be heavier , even for light armored MBT's.
These role bonuses are just a suggestion on what you can do, while i think that the heavy armored bonus is quite nice as a role bonus inside of the class. The Light armored role bonus should make it, that those MBT's are better at snap shooting when they face heavy armored MBT's . It should be mentioned that this needs a balancing, so heavy armored MBT's don't lose too much for having armor .
However this more likely focused on early cold war / past 2nd WW MBT's , such as the Leopard 1 for example or later on the TAM, which would fit perfectly the light armored role .
2) AFV
IFV are correct ingame and their current role bonus is okay for what they do . I have some ideas for improvement, but those are not necessary at the moment, which is the same for Recon's as well. The main reason is the High Caliber role.
Overall i would give them a steady camo, like the current AFV's have, while this one ain't that high , but it is steady and doesn't increase while standing still as it is at the moment if iam not mistaken .
LT's
TD's
As for LT's iam looking forward to give them a better ECU as at the moment it is not noticeable for most LT's and a better ability to be a "quickscoper" with the option to flank better. You might as well want them to have a higher HP pool or better traverse speeds as well.
TD's is a "class" which i personally don't think is the right name for it. Most people consider something different with that name , while in the current setting, there are no Tankdestroyers anymore, though the vehicle's that have a high caliber gun are most likely to be in a support role with the option to engage in emergency a enemy MBT .
I would increase the ability to be a effective sniper, while you rely on your precision and not the overall damage.
3) SPG
The main reason why i would have a difference in here, is the different agility with a wheeled or tracked SPG system. I was thinking of adding the Mortars as an extra role, but those are tracked or wheeled as well, so it might fit it better with just having that difference .
Wheeled
Tracked
Though iam not sure what to add here, but i'am sure that Obsidian will make enough mistakes in future to jump on the SPG bandwagon. That to be said from what they said in their Q&A i already had a facepalm when i saw future "high tier" SPG choices ....
Conclusion
I think that reducing the classes to 3 and adding one or more roles to the classes itself will be the way to go . This should add a identity to most vehicles that are in game or in the future, as it can be easier to add a role than trying to fit a vehicle into a class itself . However some PJSalt will come tomorrow with a "problem" that bugs me quite often :(
My reasoning to put the LT and TD vehicles into the AFV class is fairly simple. Both current classes rely on mobility combined with a higher camo rating than MBT's and SPG's as well as having a high caliber weapon system for the most part. Overall you play LT's and TD's somewhat the same. The main difference between those 2 classes and AFV's is the view range and the camo mechanics .
1) MBT
I divided the MBT's in 2 roles to fit. One will be the heavy armored one and the other is the light armored role. By thinking of that , i tried to divide it by the actual weight, but that won't make a big difference as western MBT's tend to be heavier , even for light armored MBT's.
- Heavy armored role bonus - HP Bonus | Higher Crew Resilience
- Light armored role bonus - Penetration and damage bonus vs same class | (less bloom when traversing compared to the same class)
These role bonuses are just a suggestion on what you can do, while i think that the heavy armored bonus is quite nice as a role bonus inside of the class. The Light armored role bonus should make it, that those MBT's are better at snap shooting when they face heavy armored MBT's . It should be mentioned that this needs a balancing, so heavy armored MBT's don't lose too much for having armor .
However this more likely focused on early cold war / past 2nd WW MBT's , such as the Leopard 1 for example or later on the TAM, which would fit perfectly the light armored role .
2) AFV
IFV are correct ingame and their current role bonus is okay for what they do . I have some ideas for improvement, but those are not necessary at the moment, which is the same for Recon's as well. The main reason is the High Caliber role.
Overall i would give them a steady camo, like the current AFV's have, while this one ain't that high , but it is steady and doesn't increase while standing still as it is at the moment if iam not mistaken .
LT's
- medium camo rating
- ECU should increase the max speed for the time and the "boost" should be noticeable like it is on the Exp. Tank
- If ECU is not used, you have a higher hull traverse and turret traverse ... maybe ?! (active the boost and passive the agility for the ECU aka NOS setup)
- vision range should be higher than MBT's , but lower than IFV's and Recons
- add higher shell velocity speeds (1400ms+) as a role bonus
TD's
- medium to slightly better camo rating
- instead of damage while fully aimed, it should reduce the normalisation and increase the accuracy
- when spotted you gain increased acceleration for 2 seconds ... maybe ?!
- vision range should be higher than MBT's , but lower than IFV's and Recons
As for LT's iam looking forward to give them a better ECU as at the moment it is not noticeable for most LT's and a better ability to be a "quickscoper" with the option to flank better. You might as well want them to have a higher HP pool or better traverse speeds as well.
TD's is a "class" which i personally don't think is the right name for it. Most people consider something different with that name , while in the current setting, there are no Tankdestroyers anymore, though the vehicle's that have a high caliber gun are most likely to be in a support role with the option to engage in emergency a enemy MBT .
I would increase the ability to be a effective sniper, while you rely on your precision and not the overall damage.
3) SPG
The main reason why i would have a difference in here, is the different agility with a wheeled or tracked SPG system. I was thinking of adding the Mortars as an extra role, but those are tracked or wheeled as well, so it might fit it better with just having that difference .
Wheeled
- Increased gun arcs for the "turret" / "weapon system"
- higher recoil feedback after the shot (bigger bloom)
- better mobility
- worse rate of fire / maybe slower shell speed as well
Tracked
- no 3 shot magazine loader, but single loader ! :^)
Though iam not sure what to add here, but i'am sure that Obsidian will make enough mistakes in future to jump on the SPG bandwagon. That to be said from what they said in their Q&A i already had a facepalm when i saw future "high tier" SPG choices ....
Conclusion
I think that reducing the classes to 3 and adding one or more roles to the classes itself will be the way to go . This should add a identity to most vehicles that are in game or in the future, as it can be easier to add a role than trying to fit a vehicle into a class itself . However some PJSalt will come tomorrow with a "problem" that bugs me quite often :(
Tuesday, 24 November 2015
Playerbase and Patch / Update progress
- Short Introduction
Within the recent Patch , where they introduced tier 9 the forum went somewhat upside down as far as i can read it, though iam not that active in the My.com forum at the moment. For the most part i already expected this to happen as well as the balancing issues that were introduced with it.
From my point of view there are a couple of reasonable points which my.com (they select the patch actually) didn't expected or calculated well, as for example the Player base or the failed balancing in high tier battles .
- In depth Player base
Even before the Open Beta, the RU cluster had more interest in a tank game or higher numbers than both EU and NA together. I guess this never changed regarding the playernumbers , even though the interest is good in both western regions as well, maybe not that hyped up like on the RU server.
This is not an excuse of course, since we have a most likely direct contact with the Dev's and to a certain point a lot of influence which player's didn't had in both other tank games i would say.
However i think that the Player's need to understand that there is a difference in gaming culture between RU and EU/NA , and that certain moves like the Super Test is on RU cluster (they have a lot less problems with having bugs, while NA is from what I've seen in the forum really picky, while EU isn't that strict) or being ahead in terms of releasing patches (about 1-2 weeks), so they can "test" it live, is somewhat okay for me and should be accepted by the western audience, at least for the part of being ahead with the patches, not so much about the Supertest.
Opinion
On the other hand, Obsidian should check to what people they are listening and what the results are. There is no doubt about the current result, that there was clearly a forum influence to favor certain parts of the community, at least it looks like that to me. This means as well that the current population which seems to be stagnating on EU and NA, by quite a margin , is not that good for the future of the game and Obsidian itself.
- Patch / Update progress
At the moment the RU server gets Patch 1-2 weeks before EU and NA , which i would say is okay, not a problem itself. A problem is, that the Russians obviously want their toys as fast as possible, meaning the T-14 needs to be available to them. This could be either a requirement from mail.ru / my.com or the player base over there itself. I can't tell you which of these 2 points is the problem, but going down that road, will be a problem for the EU and NA server, as mentioned before, both have not a very high player count compared to the RU server.
What this means is, that the few player's on the EU and NA server who have a tier 8, will have a tier 9 with a included PowerCreep and a even longer queue time with even more frustration for those who are still grinding . Competition is nice, as for games and ingame , but with such high PowerCreeps in between some of those tiers, it will end up in a downhill for the game itself on both mentioned servers.
EU and NA just don't have the player's to back up such tier difference, as for the RU server, it doesn't seem to be a problem , because they just have more players available. Another thing is, that from my knowledge the Russian's like to test their own stuff, meaning T-series all over the place, which is fine, but not if you count that into your statistics for balancing. If i'am not that mistaken , the current best T9 you can have is a T-90MS, which might be a wrong signal to most players who had bad experience's with such things, or otherwise called RU BIAS all over again . If the western audience is critical about stuff, then it is about BIAS, especially Russian bias again, due the bad past experience .
I guess you can take this all with a grain of salt, but you can do it fairly easy to avoid this. Literally you have 2 options.
- First you just develop the game for the Russian market, so the western audience is not there to be the cow.
- Second you don't focus the Russian market as your main audience.
If we see this with a realistic point of view, both options are not available. While the first one would be the easiest way to develop a game without having the western audience and their requirements for a good game, you won't earn a lot of money that way, at least i would assume that, since in WoT it is somewhat the same . To mention another point, Obsidian wouldn't be hired in that case.
The 2nd reason is probably the most favored one by the western audience, but not possible since the Company which makes this Project able to work is from Russia and they probably have requirements to what the game needs to have (T-14 ...... ).
Opinion
I know this will be a lot more work and might have some toxic replies, but in the current state of the game, they need to have different game versions and progress. Meaning add those tier's when the player base is healthy on EU and NA , and not only on RU, which is the current case. Next to that you really need to work on your Basic game itself before adding tiers.
At the moment you don't have a healthy player base on EU and NA, nor is there a balance for tier 6, tier 7, tier 8 and tier 9 now.
Monday, 23 November 2015
Balance Parameters which i find important (Part 3)
As for the last part, i will go more into a general section about different balance parameters, which are important nonetheless , but not the first or second step from my point of view . Those parameters will be Gunhandling and Retrofit slots .
Gundhandling is one important part when it comes down to give the vehicle a identity , or a certain playstyle. There are quite a few steps to improve a vehicle via the gundhandling, some are hidden stats (might be less important or for balancing reasons or for not having a overload of data) and some are shown. It also depends on the class itself and the overall vehicle design and its capabilities .
My favorites in order of importance
Bloom - can be really annoying, as for example in SPG's and your slightly rotate your turret the circle goes wide and the re aim takes ages. Some regular vehicles have similar "issues" as it is clearly a balancing case, at least i would see it like that.
Shell velocity - Some may ask on why i rate it higher than aim time, well accuracy and shell velocity go hand in hand actually. The reason why i would like to see more often different shell speeds, is that some vehicles would be really good with a higher speed, as it would fit their playstyle a lot, while on the other hand not every class should have it to be fair. If you rely on sniping, shell velocity is a huge improvement to fit that role even better , so it should be considered that some classes get a higher velocity as a basic setting for all type of shells .
Aim time - is really important as it effectively lowers the time you are vulnerable or showing yourself the enemy. Though you can slightly work around a high aim time on some vehicles and classes with stopping beforehand and move slowly forward, so the bloom (look what is 2nd :) ) gets minimized . As mentioned for accuracy, this stat can be improved with retrofits.
Penetration Power - is a value which should be based of its caliber, shelldesign, shellmaterials, other factors like weather influence as a passive influence . Next to the real life points it should be considered, that there needs to be room for boosting it , to either fit the class or tier, but just to a certain point. Overall penetration power defines your actual role in a vehicle, as it limits you in your actions on the map itself. With low PP you need to be picky about your targets and have possibly more outplays to be good, while high PP just needs the right shell choice .
Shell variety - This is more a general and nice to have point, as this game promotes all its 3 general shell types , besides the 4th time, which are the support shells. KE, SC and HE are the 3 main options you have and depending on how they are put in the tech tree you will need all 3 of them to be good in almost every situation . For me it is important as different targets and situations require a different shell to use, so having these options is always a + for me.
Magazine Size / time - A really tricky part when it comes down to balance are vehicles that use a magazine, even though if i were Obsidian, i would limit this as much as i can, due the fact that magazine's are hard to balance. (either OP or UP, rarely I've seen the middle)
The reason why that is so, is the output in damage you can deal in a short amount of time. Either you pull out a ton of damage or you reach the point where the tradeoff is in a best case scenario good and in most cases equal or worse . Eitherway you balance it with the size and time, and latter one is the most important part here. And because of that, i still suggest to limit this kind of weapon system as much as you can, which means, don't transform vehicle's to be a magazine loader , while they are not in real life. (Abbot , Palmaria, Akatsiya, PzH 2000)
Damage - Why is damage the last ? Well Obsidian shouldn't promote a vehicle because it can one or two shot other vehicle's. This kind of playstyle isn't funny for the receiving end and will promote a rather one sided game itself, which should not be the goal . Though damage is an important stat, the focus on it, might be not as important as people might think. In the current state the difference is really big while the caliber difference isn't or as another example the difference in between the tier's and the damage increase to justify a improvements is not given, but sadly ignored to give people a reason to unlock that. The Power Creep is real at the moment .
Thoughts
This is just a general opinion and each class needs a clear identity, not only on paper and in the description, but shown in gun stats as well, as they do it with camo rating and vision. As this is meant to be a more general point, some vehicle's might need some extra love besides a class identity.
Retrofit slots
With the introduction of the retrofit system, Obsidian made a good call and another parameter to balance a vehicle. Some people might not see this potential, but if you take a closer look, retrofit slots can change a vehicle by quite a lot .
The reason on why that is so, are the retrofits itself, which give you certain bonuses too either boost a stat to be better, like adding a higher damage potential or view range, while it can negate somewhat bad stats, like a high aim time or bad accuracy . This potential is quite big and having 2 rfs or 4 rfs is a difference in power you can add. However rfs need to fit the class and vehicle, though Obsidian needs to figure out on what rfs fit it. I don't want to have a armor rfs on my TD in first place, as the possible boost is not big enough of an improvement , even though why would i boost this area of a vehicle anyway ?
Regarding that "problem", Obsidian needs to test those things out before they release a vehicle. Player's usually looking forward to get the maximum out of 1 vehicle, meaning they want to have a high efficiency or the best possible performance. Sure different player's have a different point of view and focus on certain stats, but overall they build similar things as they detect weak and strong parts of a vehicle .
The number of rfs decides on how much you can change the vehicle performance. The more slots you have , the more different load outs you can try and figure out strong and weak parts to be boost worthy.
The kind of rfs you can add is important as well, as this one limits you down to the 4 areas ( Armor / Firepower / Mobility / Technology ) or if they are generous you get universal slots, which are the best case scenario by far . For myself i would say, that limiting classes or vehicles to certain retrofits, shows the focus they should go down with the playstyle or if you want to say it like this, you define the direction .
Thoughts
Overall retrofits add another part of balancing, which is really good, but they need to be aware of the influence with the rfs themselves .
Gundhandling is one important part when it comes down to give the vehicle a identity , or a certain playstyle. There are quite a few steps to improve a vehicle via the gundhandling, some are hidden stats (might be less important or for balancing reasons or for not having a overload of data) and some are shown. It also depends on the class itself and the overall vehicle design and its capabilities .
My favorites in order of importance
- Accuracy
- Bloom
- Shell velocity
- Aim time
- Penetration Power
- Shell variety
- Magazine Size / time
- Damage
Bloom - can be really annoying, as for example in SPG's and your slightly rotate your turret the circle goes wide and the re aim takes ages. Some regular vehicles have similar "issues" as it is clearly a balancing case, at least i would see it like that.
Shell velocity - Some may ask on why i rate it higher than aim time, well accuracy and shell velocity go hand in hand actually. The reason why i would like to see more often different shell speeds, is that some vehicles would be really good with a higher speed, as it would fit their playstyle a lot, while on the other hand not every class should have it to be fair. If you rely on sniping, shell velocity is a huge improvement to fit that role even better , so it should be considered that some classes get a higher velocity as a basic setting for all type of shells .
Aim time - is really important as it effectively lowers the time you are vulnerable or showing yourself the enemy. Though you can slightly work around a high aim time on some vehicles and classes with stopping beforehand and move slowly forward, so the bloom (look what is 2nd :) ) gets minimized . As mentioned for accuracy, this stat can be improved with retrofits.
Penetration Power - is a value which should be based of its caliber, shelldesign, shellmaterials, other factors like weather influence as a passive influence . Next to the real life points it should be considered, that there needs to be room for boosting it , to either fit the class or tier, but just to a certain point. Overall penetration power defines your actual role in a vehicle, as it limits you in your actions on the map itself. With low PP you need to be picky about your targets and have possibly more outplays to be good, while high PP just needs the right shell choice .
Shell variety - This is more a general and nice to have point, as this game promotes all its 3 general shell types , besides the 4th time, which are the support shells. KE, SC and HE are the 3 main options you have and depending on how they are put in the tech tree you will need all 3 of them to be good in almost every situation . For me it is important as different targets and situations require a different shell to use, so having these options is always a + for me.
Magazine Size / time - A really tricky part when it comes down to balance are vehicles that use a magazine, even though if i were Obsidian, i would limit this as much as i can, due the fact that magazine's are hard to balance. (either OP or UP, rarely I've seen the middle)
The reason why that is so, is the output in damage you can deal in a short amount of time. Either you pull out a ton of damage or you reach the point where the tradeoff is in a best case scenario good and in most cases equal or worse . Eitherway you balance it with the size and time, and latter one is the most important part here. And because of that, i still suggest to limit this kind of weapon system as much as you can, which means, don't transform vehicle's to be a magazine loader , while they are not in real life. (Abbot , Palmaria, Akatsiya, PzH 2000)
Damage - Why is damage the last ? Well Obsidian shouldn't promote a vehicle because it can one or two shot other vehicle's. This kind of playstyle isn't funny for the receiving end and will promote a rather one sided game itself, which should not be the goal . Though damage is an important stat, the focus on it, might be not as important as people might think. In the current state the difference is really big while the caliber difference isn't or as another example the difference in between the tier's and the damage increase to justify a improvements is not given, but sadly ignored to give people a reason to unlock that. The Power Creep is real at the moment .
Thoughts
This is just a general opinion and each class needs a clear identity, not only on paper and in the description, but shown in gun stats as well, as they do it with camo rating and vision. As this is meant to be a more general point, some vehicle's might need some extra love besides a class identity.
Retrofit slots
With the introduction of the retrofit system, Obsidian made a good call and another parameter to balance a vehicle. Some people might not see this potential, but if you take a closer look, retrofit slots can change a vehicle by quite a lot .
The reason on why that is so, are the retrofits itself, which give you certain bonuses too either boost a stat to be better, like adding a higher damage potential or view range, while it can negate somewhat bad stats, like a high aim time or bad accuracy . This potential is quite big and having 2 rfs or 4 rfs is a difference in power you can add. However rfs need to fit the class and vehicle, though Obsidian needs to figure out on what rfs fit it. I don't want to have a armor rfs on my TD in first place, as the possible boost is not big enough of an improvement , even though why would i boost this area of a vehicle anyway ?
Regarding that "problem", Obsidian needs to test those things out before they release a vehicle. Player's usually looking forward to get the maximum out of 1 vehicle, meaning they want to have a high efficiency or the best possible performance. Sure different player's have a different point of view and focus on certain stats, but overall they build similar things as they detect weak and strong parts of a vehicle .
- number of rfs
- the kind of rfs
The number of rfs decides on how much you can change the vehicle performance. The more slots you have , the more different load outs you can try and figure out strong and weak parts to be boost worthy.
The kind of rfs you can add is important as well, as this one limits you down to the 4 areas ( Armor / Firepower / Mobility / Technology ) or if they are generous you get universal slots, which are the best case scenario by far . For myself i would say, that limiting classes or vehicles to certain retrofits, shows the focus they should go down with the playstyle or if you want to say it like this, you define the direction .
Thoughts
Overall retrofits add another part of balancing, which is really good, but they need to be aware of the influence with the rfs themselves .
Friday, 20 November 2015
Balance Parameters which i find important (Part 2)
Well sorry for no update, but Fallout 4 is a great game and recent mistakes in Armored Warfare , didn't make me want to play or test it , sadly.
However let's continue with balancing parameter's. The first part was about the view range, as vision is the key factor to be successful, which means seen or don't be seen will make a difference . The following point is somewhat big and important, as it should change the outcome for classes and the tier .
Tier and Classification will decide if you get different bonuses like "designated target" or ECU or more damage when fully aimed, so picking the right class is important for a vehicle to fulfil it's task . What comes as well is the tier, as in the current game some vehicles are "boosted"^10 to fit a tier, while doing this, the balancing will be even harder without losing their logical approach to the game.
Tier
1)
To start things off, the possible upgrades is a big point, as it will somewhat decide on what tier you will end up. For example a engine or armor change can be huge, depending on the tech which is used, and this can change a vehicle to put in up or down a tier . A good example could be the Leopard 2A4 here, which can be tier 6 and if rated high, tier 7, but if you add for example the Evolution Armor kit or the RUAG kit ( should be same level as the Evo kit, but not that sure), it should be rated tier 7 minimum, better tier 8, due the performance of the kit itself and the upgrades which are available to those kits.
2)
Not every vehicle is basically designed to be friendly to upgrade, as some are just developed to either skip a time window or overextend the time window while suffering mechanical problems or being rather fast obsolete in terms or armor, weapon system etc. . Production start , age and the options decide on what tier you should start looking for. If a vehicle is developed in the same ERA / AGE as other vehicles , it should be in the same tierrange , depending on upgrade capabilities.
For the last point it is important to notice that the time of introduction of the upgrade is important as well.
3)
Within the time of service vehicles have most likely some downsides next to their up's, those should be reflected as a balancing parameter and a reason on why you do so. Most vehicles have downsides and with further upgrades you will add some downsides as well. For example if you add additional armor kits without upgrading the engine, the vehicle gets heavier by nature and slower, which should be reflected in game .
4)
Last but not least the weapon system is a major decider on weather it goes up or down a tier. If a vehicle starts with a 20mm cannon and with newer upgrades you can add a 40mm cannon, the result should be either, make 2 vehicles out of it or balance the vehicle to fit a higher tier, which means if you start with the 20mm cannon you will be somewhat restricted to what you can do, till you end up having the 40mm cannon, on which the vehicle itself is balanced for.
Both decisions have downsides, as if you split it up, you will have almost 2 identical vehicles , where the difference might be the weapon system + some armor upgrades, which is the best case scenario, though the worst is, you just have the weapon system as a step up. On the other hand if you balance it for the 40mm cannon in this case, the vehicle will have a tough grind and most likely result a free EP to the 40mm to be useful .
I'd like to see the 2 vehicle variant more often, but make sure you get a lot of upgrades ready for this type of choice, as researching the same things over and over again, might be boring .
Classification
1)
The real life role and task of the vehicle should be shown in game, while it is clear for most vehicle's , for some it might be different. Yes iam looking at you IKV 91 / 105 . Its classification is a Tank Destroyer, but for me it is more a Light Tank regarding the game. Another one is the Centauro 155/39 LW , which is designated as a SPH , but in game it was a TD as the developers said the limited arc of turret rotation , made them believe it is better to be a TD .
While iam clearly against this choice, as i don't see a reason to not "buff" the arc a bit to make it viable as a Arty as they have "fixed" other vehicles as well to fit tiers etc. , so i don't see a problem with that. Another reason on why i'm strictly against this choice, is the caliber which will cause a more "nuke" style of play, which is not fun to play against .
2)
This point is somewhat difficult to explain, as for example a "wrong" classification would be the Leopard 1, while for me it is clearly a MBT, it's play style and maneuverability should be classified as a LT in this case. However i wouldn't mind if the MBT class itself gets at least 2 roles like "light MBT's and heavy MBT's" or something like that. (AFV's have for example IFV's and Recons as a role)
Size itself is a good indicator on what camo value you have, though it seems it is not like that at the moment, sadly. I mean it is not that important as a point, but a box looking vehicle has a better camo rating than a vehicle that is half the size of the box looking vehicle, makes me feel awkward.
3)
A really big decider and like mentioned before in the tier section , it will decide not only what class you will end up, but the tier as well. If we break it down i would handle it like this, at least for the most part.(mid to high tier)
My thoughts
In general the weapon system is just a part of the whole thing for the classification, but it should be reflected in the class and later on in the tier. I don't want to see things like i need to see right now with the CRAB (30x113mm) vs the DRACO (76x636mm)[not sure actually about the cartridge length but it is a naval gun] , while the only difference is that the DRACO deals more damage. For me this is just the reason why these points should be considered and checked before picking anything for the vehicle .
Their current balance of tiers and probably some class choices (Cent.155 maybe) doesn't make sense or has any logic, due i question the guys who are in charge of this, since they really need a clear direction of what they want to have on what tier in what class and how they want to have the high tier game play . Reading the forum from time to time and the current feedback is exactly what i have foreseen and said before, but i guess we are all humans and like to do mistakes even if we told so, that we shouldn't do it :^)
However let's continue with balancing parameter's. The first part was about the view range, as vision is the key factor to be successful, which means seen or don't be seen will make a difference . The following point is somewhat big and important, as it should change the outcome for classes and the tier .
Tier and Classification will decide if you get different bonuses like "designated target" or ECU or more damage when fully aimed, so picking the right class is important for a vehicle to fulfil it's task . What comes as well is the tier, as in the current game some vehicles are "boosted"^10 to fit a tier, while doing this, the balancing will be even harder without losing their logical approach to the game.
Tier
- capabilities of the vehicle (possible upgrades and version)
- production start / age / upgrade capabilities
- in real life downsides of the vehicle
- weapon system
1)
To start things off, the possible upgrades is a big point, as it will somewhat decide on what tier you will end up. For example a engine or armor change can be huge, depending on the tech which is used, and this can change a vehicle to put in up or down a tier . A good example could be the Leopard 2A4 here, which can be tier 6 and if rated high, tier 7, but if you add for example the Evolution Armor kit or the RUAG kit ( should be same level as the Evo kit, but not that sure), it should be rated tier 7 minimum, better tier 8, due the performance of the kit itself and the upgrades which are available to those kits.
2)
Not every vehicle is basically designed to be friendly to upgrade, as some are just developed to either skip a time window or overextend the time window while suffering mechanical problems or being rather fast obsolete in terms or armor, weapon system etc. . Production start , age and the options decide on what tier you should start looking for. If a vehicle is developed in the same ERA / AGE as other vehicles , it should be in the same tierrange , depending on upgrade capabilities.
For the last point it is important to notice that the time of introduction of the upgrade is important as well.
3)
Within the time of service vehicles have most likely some downsides next to their up's, those should be reflected as a balancing parameter and a reason on why you do so. Most vehicles have downsides and with further upgrades you will add some downsides as well. For example if you add additional armor kits without upgrading the engine, the vehicle gets heavier by nature and slower, which should be reflected in game .
4)
Last but not least the weapon system is a major decider on weather it goes up or down a tier. If a vehicle starts with a 20mm cannon and with newer upgrades you can add a 40mm cannon, the result should be either, make 2 vehicles out of it or balance the vehicle to fit a higher tier, which means if you start with the 20mm cannon you will be somewhat restricted to what you can do, till you end up having the 40mm cannon, on which the vehicle itself is balanced for.
Both decisions have downsides, as if you split it up, you will have almost 2 identical vehicles , where the difference might be the weapon system + some armor upgrades, which is the best case scenario, though the worst is, you just have the weapon system as a step up. On the other hand if you balance it for the 40mm cannon in this case, the vehicle will have a tough grind and most likely result a free EP to the 40mm to be useful .
I'd like to see the 2 vehicle variant more often, but make sure you get a lot of upgrades ready for this type of choice, as researching the same things over and over again, might be boring .
Classification
- in real life role / task
- size / armor / maneuverability
- weapon system
1)
The real life role and task of the vehicle should be shown in game, while it is clear for most vehicle's , for some it might be different. Yes iam looking at you IKV 91 / 105 . Its classification is a Tank Destroyer, but for me it is more a Light Tank regarding the game. Another one is the Centauro 155/39 LW , which is designated as a SPH , but in game it was a TD as the developers said the limited arc of turret rotation , made them believe it is better to be a TD .
While iam clearly against this choice, as i don't see a reason to not "buff" the arc a bit to make it viable as a Arty as they have "fixed" other vehicles as well to fit tiers etc. , so i don't see a problem with that. Another reason on why i'm strictly against this choice, is the caliber which will cause a more "nuke" style of play, which is not fun to play against .
2)
This point is somewhat difficult to explain, as for example a "wrong" classification would be the Leopard 1, while for me it is clearly a MBT, it's play style and maneuverability should be classified as a LT in this case. However i wouldn't mind if the MBT class itself gets at least 2 roles like "light MBT's and heavy MBT's" or something like that. (AFV's have for example IFV's and Recons as a role)
Size itself is a good indicator on what camo value you have, though it seems it is not like that at the moment, sadly. I mean it is not that important as a point, but a box looking vehicle has a better camo rating than a vehicle that is half the size of the box looking vehicle, makes me feel awkward.
3)
A really big decider and like mentioned before in the tier section , it will decide not only what class you will end up, but the tier as well. If we break it down i would handle it like this, at least for the most part.(mid to high tier)
- 105mm, 115mm, 120mm and 125mm should be MBT caliber, while i would like to see 120mm and 125mm only in high tier. (bye bye M1 Abrams on tier 7)
- 90mm, 105mm, 120mm and 125mm should be the range for TD's, while the 90mm stuff should be ending on tier 5 like it is now. Though i don't know about the 105mm and 120mm LRF performance, but it shouldn't be less than a 60 year old 105mm rifled one :^)
- 90mm, 105mm, 120mm and 125mm is the range for LT's, even though i would say , depending on the vehicle the 90mm could go up to tier 6 max, due the overall play style maybe . The 120mm and 125mm should be high tier only ,as for reasons.
- AFV's are different as most of them come with a ATGM, which actually decides on what tier they can be . However only bigger calibers like 35mm / 40mm + etc. should be seen in high tier for the Autocannon , with the exception of having a ATGM which is capable of the tier in a dual weapon system. (AC+ATGM and not AC or ATGM )
My thoughts
In general the weapon system is just a part of the whole thing for the classification, but it should be reflected in the class and later on in the tier. I don't want to see things like i need to see right now with the CRAB (30x113mm) vs the DRACO (76x636mm)[not sure actually about the cartridge length but it is a naval gun] , while the only difference is that the DRACO deals more damage. For me this is just the reason why these points should be considered and checked before picking anything for the vehicle .
Their current balance of tiers and probably some class choices (Cent.155 maybe) doesn't make sense or has any logic, due i question the guys who are in charge of this, since they really need a clear direction of what they want to have on what tier in what class and how they want to have the high tier game play . Reading the forum from time to time and the current feedback is exactly what i have foreseen and said before, but i guess we are all humans and like to do mistakes even if we told so, that we shouldn't do it :^)
Tuesday, 10 November 2015
Balance Parameters which i find important (Part 1)
Balancing is the main goal for having a great game and a good balance in between the classes, though every class has somewhat a different focus on them or approach and reasoning. In the past i was wondering why they buff certain areas for a vehicle, while it doesn't change that much the outcome, at least from the first point of view.
My general parameters of importance for balancing .
View range - in this game it is all about the vision itself. Usually AFV's have the highest view range, since they are supposed to scout, even if they are not recons in this case. View range can be balanced with a couple of things:
The basic value is giving you somewhat of a direction and a possible choice on weather you want to invest in vision retrofits or not, as well as unlocking upgrades which add vision range or visioneffectiveness .
A big thing which makes this part hard to balance in high tier is the tier boost itself, though if you "gain" a tier, aka you buy a higher tiered vehicle, you want it to be an improvement to its predecessor, so you keep adding the basic value in view range. This can lead to the unfortunate problem that higher tiers reach vision range levels which are far beyond lower tiers, even in classes who are not supposed to scout / or have high view range in general .
The only difference will be the vehicle's own camorating then.
My focus :
I would focus on 2 things actually, the basic value and the vision upgrades for the vehicle. Basic view range is the most important one, as you set here the role basically, while vision upgrades are a bonus to either give you a advantage within the same class or to boost the basic value .
My general parameters of importance for balancing .
View range - in this game it is all about the vision itself. Usually AFV's have the highest view range, since they are supposed to scout, even if they are not recons in this case. View range can be balanced with a couple of things:
- basic value
- kit ( recon kit on AFVs for example )
- vision upgrades which extend the range
- vision upgrades which make your vision more effective (thermal view)
- retrofits ( universal or technology slots)
The basic value is giving you somewhat of a direction and a possible choice on weather you want to invest in vision retrofits or not, as well as unlocking upgrades which add vision range or visioneffectiveness .
A big thing which makes this part hard to balance in high tier is the tier boost itself, though if you "gain" a tier, aka you buy a higher tiered vehicle, you want it to be an improvement to its predecessor, so you keep adding the basic value in view range. This can lead to the unfortunate problem that higher tiers reach vision range levels which are far beyond lower tiers, even in classes who are not supposed to scout / or have high view range in general .
The only difference will be the vehicle's own camorating then.
My focus :
I would focus on 2 things actually, the basic value and the vision upgrades for the vehicle. Basic view range is the most important one, as you set here the role basically, while vision upgrades are a bonus to either give you a advantage within the same class or to boost the basic value .
Friday, 6 November 2015
Patch 0.11 and what bugs with me it
I will first off start with some Tier 9 vehicles where i see a problem.
1) Leopard 2A6
The Leopard 2A6 Main Battle Tank is possibly the best widely used version of the Leopard 2. Its most distinctive upgrade over its predecessors is the replacement of the L/44 Rheinmetall smoothbore gun with the longer and better-performing L/55 variant. In Armored Warfare, it will be possible to upgrade the Leopard 2A6 with all the high tier MBT protection features, including smoke grenade launchers and an APS system, and with its powerful armament it will certainly find its place on the battlefield.
The Leopard 2A6 does not use any APS system as far as i know, though it might be offered by Rheinmetall or KMW, it is offered for there own variants (MBT Evolution as for example). However that said, those versions can fit a APS most likely.
Another thing is the tech-tree itself. What are your possible upgrades , how much difference will they have, are they different to the previous tank, in this case the Leopard 2A5 etc. .
Having every version of a vehicle ingame, might not be the right decision, though researching the same thing over and over again, should not be the way to go.
Leopard 2 -> DM43 -> DM53 -> DM63
Leopard 2A5 -> DM43 -> DM53 -> DM63
As for the Leopard 2A6, there won't be a difference, since it uses the DM63 and can be used with the DM53 .
My own thoughts :
I don't like this move, because the fairly low amount of possible new upgrades and the same research tree for the most part again, just to have T9 instead of T8 .
2) M8 Thunderbolt
The 120mm-armed M8 Thunderbolt Light Tank was developed as a variant of the earlier XM8 program and the U.S. Army is currently considering its purchase and use. The main purpose of this vehicle is to provide airmobile units with highly-mobile air-transportable firepower, capable of being deployed by means of an air drop. The automatically loaded 120mm experimental gun ammunition can penetrate even modern heavy armored vehicles and while this light tank does not sport the extremely thick armor of its MBT counterparts, its mobility allows it to stay ahead of the enemy and to deliver killing blows from flanking maneuvers.
You will get somewhat the same vehicle , with a 120mm smoothbore instead of the 105mm and maybe some other upgrades, yet i don't know what they will add to that. I know that people wanted them to be split into 2 vehicles instead of having 1 vehicle with 2 gun choices.
I would like to know if they really needed to uptier it as well as splitting it up to fullfil a techtree.
My own thoughts :
I'd rather have them either in 1 vehicle with 2 gun choices, while both have different approaches to the vehicle playstyle itself or if you really need to have a truckload of vehicles in the game, i would have had them split up into 2 different lines of LT tanks. One is the 105mm branch and the other a 120mm branch, while both end up at tier 8
3) Panhard CRAB
The French Panhard Combat Reconnaissance Armored Buggy, also known as the CRAB, was developed as a replacement for the aging VBL. It is an extremely light but well-armed AFV. Although its armour cannot generally withstand the fire of anything more powerful than a heavy machine gun, the CRAB’s blazing speed prevents it from being hit in the first place. The CRAB can be equipped with either an automatic cannon or a turreted MPCV missile launcher. The most interesting feature of the CRAB, however, is its ability to steer both forward and rear wheels, allowing the vehicle to “side-strafe”, which will be available in Armored Warfare.
This is a interesting choice for this tier as i think that it shouldn't be up there , despite it has options to fit bigger calibre auto cannons, such as 30mm, it will be buffed to fit the tier. Let's have a short look on what auto cannon calibre options the CRAB will have.
20x139mm (guess)
25x137mm
30x113mm
The length of the shell itself is pretty important when it goes down to performance, such as range, penetration power, speed or if we take it to ingame values only, damage and penetration power . A 30x113mm weapon system won't do anything to a MBT , unless you buff it to fit the tier . You might have a question on why they just put in a 30x113mm weapon system instead a 30x170/173mm weapon system ? The answer is short, the recoil, length of the shell and the amount ammo you can carry , plus the task doesn't change with a bigger calibre as you will use it only when needed .
My own thoughts :
So the CRAB is a case where they put a vehicle on a tier, just because it is a new product , while it is advanced for sure, it fits a tier 8 best, to complete the recon line with a decent vehicle, but you need to fill in a techtree, i guess .
4) T-90MS
One of the best variants of the T-90 is the T-90MS export variant. Featuring a modern Relikt ERA kit, a powerful 2A82 gun, capable of launching missiles and modern electronics and countermeasures, the T-90MS in Armored Warfare continues the Russian MBT tradition - a low silhouette, very powerful turret armor and good mobility are the hallmarks of this vehicle.
My own thoughts :
This is the newest T-90 version which is available for the export market. Compared to the previous criticism, this is different in the meaning that i would put it as a tier 8 , while the current tier 8 , the regular T-90 goes down to tier 7 . The reason why i would do it like that is :
T-72 -> T-72A (for whatever reason) -> T-90 -> T-90MS
It would be in the same "tank family" of the same production plant / company for the russian MBTs. For example another line is the T-64, T-80 and T-84 .
So far my thoughts on the tier 9 stuff, not that i like to have them ingame in first place, but it seems like the russians want it to be like that .
Now some different stuff from the Patch Notes.
Challenger 1
The Challenger 1 has been performing below expectations. While it does have strong armor, its weak points, low penetration, and lower HP than the Abrams, coupled with lower speed, have made it perform below par. To help bring it up to par, we've bumped its penetration up to levels more comparable to other MBTs of the same tier and increased its hit points, which we feel will give the Challenger 1 the necessary resilience needed to be an excellent brawler. Additionally, we've significantly buffed the frontal sides of the turret and hull enough to bounce some MBT shells, along with strengthening the driver's sight weak point and removing the gunner's sight weak point.
Who would have thought that the Challenger 1 has problems in penetrating something , when it has by far the lowest amount of penetration power for its tier and counterparts. The thing about the Challenger 1 is, that this tank is all about the armour and not about the big damage numbers , at least in this game. A penetration buff was needed a long time ago, but what made the Challenger 1 as bad as it is right now, is more that you have a giant weak spot in form of the "gunner sights".
The buff or change of that is right, the penetration power increase is good as well, but from my point of view, you should have done it like this . Fix the armour (gunner sights) / general amount of armour, buff the pen power slightly, and see if it is working out.
Buffing in big steps shouldn't be done, you rather want to fix the issue and buff favourable things afterwards, like the pen power .
C1 Ariete
When evaluating the Ariete we found its side armor to be performing below what players should expect from a tier 8 MBT. As a result, the appliqué armor package on the Ariete has had its effectiveness more than doubled and we've buffed the sides of the turret, allowing the vehicle to better resist shells against the tank's hull and turret sides with the armor package on. The front of the turret also received a small armor buff, which included removing the gunner's sight weak point, allowing the vehicle to be more effective in hull down positions against other Tier 8 vehicles. The goal is to allow it to be a mobile scrapper, but still allow players to find opportunities where it won’t be as easily penetrated.
The main issue with the Ariete is that it is bugged most of the time you play it. It was first the magnetic aiming, now the turret joins the hull one level lower than it should be etc. . When i played the Ariete i do liked it , because the fairly low aiming time, good accuracy, so you can somewhat snapshot with it.
You might want to fix the bugged Ariete in first place and give it a niche where it can be played at, compared to the current MBTs.
I would like to see it more as a good snapshot MBT, then you don't need the sidearmor buff, but that is me .
Leopard 1A5
The Leopard 1A5 is performing below standards for the tier. We've given it significant buffs to targeting time and accuracy on the move to make it superior to the earlier vehicles in the same line in those regards, as well as a boost to damage.
T-72 / T-72A / T-80
To bring the vehicle's weak points in line with the T-72A, the armor in the upper left portions of the cupola, the flat area of the sight and the roof of the vehicle have been increased to better resist high penetration shots. Given the easily penetrated lower glacis, the player should be rewarded more for protecting it with a strong turret, although the T-72 will still have several locations that can be breached with careful aim.
I guess a good change, so i need to aim for the turret ring now most of the time . Just thinking if the T-series now gets even better at hulldown play, you might want to think of some "nerfs" in the weapon system section, due having only advantages shouldn't be the goal right .
Missing fixes
I don't know what there plan is with the game, but to be honest, having tier 9 already when you didn't even balance tier 6+ is not the right move here. The gap in between some tiers is already huge, and what you are doing right now, is add another tier, to make it even harder for yourself to balance already existing tiers with each other.
Not to mention that the MatchMaking is punishing for players with decent skill in this game, by giving them 10 players+ who are doing nothing. Sorry but you have so much work and balancing to do in the current game, while you focus on adding stuff (T9/10) which is not needed. You should get your base stable and sorted , before stepping up and add another tier.
1) Leopard 2A6
The Leopard 2A6 Main Battle Tank is possibly the best widely used version of the Leopard 2. Its most distinctive upgrade over its predecessors is the replacement of the L/44 Rheinmetall smoothbore gun with the longer and better-performing L/55 variant. In Armored Warfare, it will be possible to upgrade the Leopard 2A6 with all the high tier MBT protection features, including smoke grenade launchers and an APS system, and with its powerful armament it will certainly find its place on the battlefield.
The Leopard 2A6 does not use any APS system as far as i know, though it might be offered by Rheinmetall or KMW, it is offered for there own variants (MBT Evolution as for example). However that said, those versions can fit a APS most likely.
Another thing is the tech-tree itself. What are your possible upgrades , how much difference will they have, are they different to the previous tank, in this case the Leopard 2A5 etc. .
Having every version of a vehicle ingame, might not be the right decision, though researching the same thing over and over again, should not be the way to go.
Leopard 2 -> DM43 -> DM53 -> DM63
Leopard 2A5 -> DM43 -> DM53 -> DM63
As for the Leopard 2A6, there won't be a difference, since it uses the DM63 and can be used with the DM53 .
My own thoughts :
I don't like this move, because the fairly low amount of possible new upgrades and the same research tree for the most part again, just to have T9 instead of T8 .
2) M8 Thunderbolt
The 120mm-armed M8 Thunderbolt Light Tank was developed as a variant of the earlier XM8 program and the U.S. Army is currently considering its purchase and use. The main purpose of this vehicle is to provide airmobile units with highly-mobile air-transportable firepower, capable of being deployed by means of an air drop. The automatically loaded 120mm experimental gun ammunition can penetrate even modern heavy armored vehicles and while this light tank does not sport the extremely thick armor of its MBT counterparts, its mobility allows it to stay ahead of the enemy and to deliver killing blows from flanking maneuvers.
You will get somewhat the same vehicle , with a 120mm smoothbore instead of the 105mm and maybe some other upgrades, yet i don't know what they will add to that. I know that people wanted them to be split into 2 vehicles instead of having 1 vehicle with 2 gun choices.
I would like to know if they really needed to uptier it as well as splitting it up to fullfil a techtree.
My own thoughts :
I'd rather have them either in 1 vehicle with 2 gun choices, while both have different approaches to the vehicle playstyle itself or if you really need to have a truckload of vehicles in the game, i would have had them split up into 2 different lines of LT tanks. One is the 105mm branch and the other a 120mm branch, while both end up at tier 8
3) Panhard CRAB
The French Panhard Combat Reconnaissance Armored Buggy, also known as the CRAB, was developed as a replacement for the aging VBL. It is an extremely light but well-armed AFV. Although its armour cannot generally withstand the fire of anything more powerful than a heavy machine gun, the CRAB’s blazing speed prevents it from being hit in the first place. The CRAB can be equipped with either an automatic cannon or a turreted MPCV missile launcher. The most interesting feature of the CRAB, however, is its ability to steer both forward and rear wheels, allowing the vehicle to “side-strafe”, which will be available in Armored Warfare.
This is a interesting choice for this tier as i think that it shouldn't be up there , despite it has options to fit bigger calibre auto cannons, such as 30mm, it will be buffed to fit the tier. Let's have a short look on what auto cannon calibre options the CRAB will have.
20x139mm (guess)
25x137mm
30x113mm
The length of the shell itself is pretty important when it goes down to performance, such as range, penetration power, speed or if we take it to ingame values only, damage and penetration power . A 30x113mm weapon system won't do anything to a MBT , unless you buff it to fit the tier . You might have a question on why they just put in a 30x113mm weapon system instead a 30x170/173mm weapon system ? The answer is short, the recoil, length of the shell and the amount ammo you can carry , plus the task doesn't change with a bigger calibre as you will use it only when needed .
My own thoughts :
So the CRAB is a case where they put a vehicle on a tier, just because it is a new product , while it is advanced for sure, it fits a tier 8 best, to complete the recon line with a decent vehicle, but you need to fill in a techtree, i guess .
4) T-90MS
One of the best variants of the T-90 is the T-90MS export variant. Featuring a modern Relikt ERA kit, a powerful 2A82 gun, capable of launching missiles and modern electronics and countermeasures, the T-90MS in Armored Warfare continues the Russian MBT tradition - a low silhouette, very powerful turret armor and good mobility are the hallmarks of this vehicle.
My own thoughts :
This is the newest T-90 version which is available for the export market. Compared to the previous criticism, this is different in the meaning that i would put it as a tier 8 , while the current tier 8 , the regular T-90 goes down to tier 7 . The reason why i would do it like that is :
T-72 -> T-72A (for whatever reason) -> T-90 -> T-90MS
It would be in the same "tank family" of the same production plant / company for the russian MBTs. For example another line is the T-64, T-80 and T-84 .
So far my thoughts on the tier 9 stuff, not that i like to have them ingame in first place, but it seems like the russians want it to be like that .
Now some different stuff from the Patch Notes.
Challenger 1
The Challenger 1 has been performing below expectations. While it does have strong armor, its weak points, low penetration, and lower HP than the Abrams, coupled with lower speed, have made it perform below par. To help bring it up to par, we've bumped its penetration up to levels more comparable to other MBTs of the same tier and increased its hit points, which we feel will give the Challenger 1 the necessary resilience needed to be an excellent brawler. Additionally, we've significantly buffed the frontal sides of the turret and hull enough to bounce some MBT shells, along with strengthening the driver's sight weak point and removing the gunner's sight weak point.
- Stock AP penetration increased from 342 to 377
- First AP upgrade penetration increased from 360 to 396
- Second gun stock AP penetration increased from 360 to 405
- Second gun upgraded AP penetration increased from 368 to 423
- Increased frontal hull sides from 80 to 275
- Increased frontal turret sides from 176 to 330
Who would have thought that the Challenger 1 has problems in penetrating something , when it has by far the lowest amount of penetration power for its tier and counterparts. The thing about the Challenger 1 is, that this tank is all about the armour and not about the big damage numbers , at least in this game. A penetration buff was needed a long time ago, but what made the Challenger 1 as bad as it is right now, is more that you have a giant weak spot in form of the "gunner sights".
The buff or change of that is right, the penetration power increase is good as well, but from my point of view, you should have done it like this . Fix the armour (gunner sights) / general amount of armour, buff the pen power slightly, and see if it is working out.
Buffing in big steps shouldn't be done, you rather want to fix the issue and buff favourable things afterwards, like the pen power .
C1 Ariete
When evaluating the Ariete we found its side armor to be performing below what players should expect from a tier 8 MBT. As a result, the appliqué armor package on the Ariete has had its effectiveness more than doubled and we've buffed the sides of the turret, allowing the vehicle to better resist shells against the tank's hull and turret sides with the armor package on. The front of the turret also received a small armor buff, which included removing the gunner's sight weak point, allowing the vehicle to be more effective in hull down positions against other Tier 8 vehicles. The goal is to allow it to be a mobile scrapper, but still allow players to find opportunities where it won’t be as easily penetrated.
- Increased both appliqué packages’ armor from 100/80 to 250/250 for the turret and hull
- Upgraded vehicle side armor from 120 to 200
- Upgraded frontal spaced armor from 300 to 400
The main issue with the Ariete is that it is bugged most of the time you play it. It was first the magnetic aiming, now the turret joins the hull one level lower than it should be etc. . When i played the Ariete i do liked it , because the fairly low aiming time, good accuracy, so you can somewhat snapshot with it.
You might want to fix the bugged Ariete in first place and give it a niche where it can be played at, compared to the current MBTs.
I would like to see it more as a good snapshot MBT, then you don't need the sidearmor buff, but that is me .
Leopard 1A5
The Leopard 1A5 is performing below standards for the tier. We've given it significant buffs to targeting time and accuracy on the move to make it superior to the earlier vehicles in the same line in those regards, as well as a boost to damage.
- Targeting Time decreased from 2.9 seconds to 2.5 seconds
- Hull traverse accuracy bloom rate halved
- Turret yaw bloom decreased from 0.15 to 0.1
- Stock AP damage increased from 294 to 317
- First AP upgrade damage increased from 309 to 332
- Second AP upgrade damage increase from 340 to 348
- Stock HE damage increased from 177 to 190
- Upgraded SC damage increased from 406 to 435
- As a first thing, you might want to correct the tank model and add ffs SIDESKIRTS .
- The aim time buff is okay, but not needed as you can tweak it down to almost 2 seconds, though 0.4 seconds buff is a lot .
- The bloom changes are probably the best changes in this patch for the 1A5, as it boosts your overall accuracy and time that you need to re aim by a lot.
- Last but not least the damage changes. They are not that much, though not needed , compared to the bloom changes.
T-72 / T-72A / T-80
To bring the vehicle's weak points in line with the T-72A, the armor in the upper left portions of the cupola, the flat area of the sight and the roof of the vehicle have been increased to better resist high penetration shots. Given the easily penetrated lower glacis, the player should be rewarded more for protecting it with a strong turret, although the T-72 will still have several locations that can be breached with careful aim.
- Remodeled cannon mantle section to more accurately deflect shots.
I guess a good change, so i need to aim for the turret ring now most of the time . Just thinking if the T-series now gets even better at hulldown play, you might want to think of some "nerfs" in the weapon system section, due having only advantages shouldn't be the goal right .
Missing fixes
- Akatsiya is bugged, as I can't select any consumables / nothing in the patch notes and this is nothing small
- Fox smokescreen is bugged as well, as it fires the smoke 90° to the right and in a small area only
I don't know what there plan is with the game, but to be honest, having tier 9 already when you didn't even balance tier 6+ is not the right move here. The gap in between some tiers is already huge, and what you are doing right now, is add another tier, to make it even harder for yourself to balance already existing tiers with each other.
Not to mention that the MatchMaking is punishing for players with decent skill in this game, by giving them 10 players+ who are doing nothing. Sorry but you have so much work and balancing to do in the current game, while you focus on adding stuff (T9/10) which is not needed. You should get your base stable and sorted , before stepping up and add another tier.
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Vehicles in the wrong tier ?
For me the tier of a vehicle is bound to its capabilities in its role, the historical point of view and somewhat a logic behind the choice.
Example on why a vehicle can be miss placed.
Usually most vehicles are in the right tier and role, while for some reason, some are not. A good example is the LAV-300 which was tier 5 at start of the Alpha phases.
During the Alpha phases the LAV-300 was the vehicle, which followed the Sheridan . Back then, the Sheridan had its APFSDS (1800ms speed) , while the LAV-300 was pretty bad for a tier 5 with its options for upgrade and the performance.
Suggestions in the forum stated, that a gun depression buff would be recommend, as well as accuracy and penetration power, or as a alternative , change the tier with the Sheridan. The reason behind the latter suggestion was fairly easy, due the really good performance of the Sheridan and its capabilities to hurt the enemy a lot, with a low chance of losing the trade off .
Overall the Sheridan was quite popular as a easy grind machine and the already mentioned performance, some people , including me, just saw a change of the tier , as a really good option to handle its current state of performance. It was necessary to change the LAV-300 , due its play style and the possible game play options, which limited you by a lot . Even though it was by far the worst tier 5 vehicle in that phase .
Obsidian decided to buff the LAV-300 in areas where none of us expected it.
My opinion of the buff is, that they boosted areas where the vehicle was already strong at, and the major flaws of grind and low penetration values didn't change the play style by a lot. I still favoured a change to tier 4 or buffs which boosted the ability to snipe better on distance and weak spots. A different approach within the grind itself was also recommend, due the fact, that HEAT itself limits your play and grinding that much to have the APFSDS option just in the last section, didn't make this vehicle any better.
At the end Obsidian changed the LAV-300 to tier 4 , where it is way better placed than on tier 5.
What i'am looking for ?
As the previous example might have shown already, a vehicle has different values which make it either good or bad for some tiers, despite the LAV- series is not that old, it has limits within the capabilities of its own performance. The main reason is the performance of the 90mm gun, which limits the choice of the tier, as well as the class itself, is a limit in where you can put it. If we had put the LAV-300 in the AFV class and gave it a higher rate of fire, as well as lower damage and penetration maybe, it would have fitted the tier , due the difference in class design and their tasks.
Looking at this example and the topic , i have a problem with some vehicles in its current tier and role.
1) The first vehicle where i have a huge problem, is the British Warrior IFV.
Looking at its raw stats and the main reason on why i have a problem with it, is the weapon system, the weapon system performance compared to similar aged IFVs and the historical age of it , again compared to similar vehicles of the same class.
If you take a quick look at the current in game Tech-Tree you will see that the Bradley (similar age / weapon system ) is on tier 6, the BMP-3 (similar age / weapon system ) is on tier 6 and even the relatively new BMD-4 is just on tier 7.
Question is now : Why is the Warrior so much superior to previous mentioned same aged / produced (besides the BMD-4) vehicles , that they say , that it needs to be on tier 8 ?
When i mentioned the weapon system, i asked myself , why is a 30x170mm gun with a 6 clip magazine, so much better than the 25x137mm or 30x165mm or 30x173mm or even 30x250mm ?
While i can see that it should be more powerful than the 25mm variant, but for the other 30mm i don't see the reason behind the decision to have it above of them all .
Another aspect for me is the "historical" part, where the Warrior fit perfectly the same tier as the Bradley or the BMP-3, due they have somewhat the same age of production. If we take this far over any logic you could just produce a vehicle with a weapon system from the 1950's and put it on tier 10 , because its new production date.
Game wise i would put it down to tier 6, as it fits the age, the weapon system capabilities, and the current ingame upgrade options .
2) The second vehicle would be the Swingfire, as it is miss placed in it's role compared to all previous and following vehicle in that line.
Currently all vehicles in the Recon AFV line have the option to use a Autocannon, are mobile (speed, size, mobility) and have a good viewrange. While the viewrange and camo is good for the Swingfire, it is fairly slow, has a big size and just ATGMs to rely on .
With the latter mentioned weapon system, some vehicles have either the choice to fit both a Autocannon and ATGM launcher (FOX), some have only a Autocannon (XM800T) and other's can only choose in between having a Autocannon or ATGM launcher fitted .
For me especially in that line it is important to be flexible and be useful for your team in the role you are playing inside of a class. ATGMs are powerful nontheless, but they limit you in what you should do, which is giving vision . A autocannon gives you enough flexible options either in a defensive way , like defending yourself against other AFVs or even in a offensive way, like taking out another enemy in a 2v1 situation . Of course you will have problems, as autocannons have limits with the penetration power, but overall you are more flexible compared to have only a ATGM weapon system.
In the current state of play the swingfire has some advantages maybe, but overall i don't think that it fits the role where it is put in. It is not as flexible as all other vehicles, before or after it and going for a early spotting run, is nearly impossible as well as agressive positions up front, due the fact that the Swingfire is anything but mobile.
As for the game, i would either replace it with a vehicle that fits previous mentioned requirements (mobile, either or Autocannon/ATGM) or add the vehicle as a choice for tier 4 next to the Swingfire
General Conclusion
It is important when you pick a vehicle into a tier, that you fullfil the role, so it suits the rest of the line, as well as having in mind the age of the vehicle, next to it's capabilities of the weapon system. This should result into not having vehicles boosted^10 to suit tiers to fullfil empty holes.
Example on why a vehicle can be miss placed.
Usually most vehicles are in the right tier and role, while for some reason, some are not. A good example is the LAV-300 which was tier 5 at start of the Alpha phases.
Suggestions in the forum stated, that a gun depression buff would be recommend, as well as accuracy and penetration power, or as a alternative , change the tier with the Sheridan. The reason behind the latter suggestion was fairly easy, due the really good performance of the Sheridan and its capabilities to hurt the enemy a lot, with a low chance of losing the trade off .
Overall the Sheridan was quite popular as a easy grind machine and the already mentioned performance, some people , including me, just saw a change of the tier , as a really good option to handle its current state of performance. It was necessary to change the LAV-300 , due its play style and the possible game play options, which limited you by a lot . Even though it was by far the worst tier 5 vehicle in that phase .
Obsidian decided to buff the LAV-300 in areas where none of us expected it.
My opinion of the buff is, that they boosted areas where the vehicle was already strong at, and the major flaws of grind and low penetration values didn't change the play style by a lot. I still favoured a change to tier 4 or buffs which boosted the ability to snipe better on distance and weak spots. A different approach within the grind itself was also recommend, due the fact, that HEAT itself limits your play and grinding that much to have the APFSDS option just in the last section, didn't make this vehicle any better.
At the end Obsidian changed the LAV-300 to tier 4 , where it is way better placed than on tier 5.
What i'am looking for ?
As the previous example might have shown already, a vehicle has different values which make it either good or bad for some tiers, despite the LAV- series is not that old, it has limits within the capabilities of its own performance. The main reason is the performance of the 90mm gun, which limits the choice of the tier, as well as the class itself, is a limit in where you can put it. If we had put the LAV-300 in the AFV class and gave it a higher rate of fire, as well as lower damage and penetration maybe, it would have fitted the tier , due the difference in class design and their tasks.
Looking at this example and the topic , i have a problem with some vehicles in its current tier and role.
1) The first vehicle where i have a huge problem, is the British Warrior IFV.
Looking at its raw stats and the main reason on why i have a problem with it, is the weapon system, the weapon system performance compared to similar aged IFVs and the historical age of it , again compared to similar vehicles of the same class.
If you take a quick look at the current in game Tech-Tree you will see that the Bradley (similar age / weapon system ) is on tier 6, the BMP-3 (similar age / weapon system ) is on tier 6 and even the relatively new BMD-4 is just on tier 7.
Question is now : Why is the Warrior so much superior to previous mentioned same aged / produced (besides the BMD-4) vehicles , that they say , that it needs to be on tier 8 ?
When i mentioned the weapon system, i asked myself , why is a 30x170mm gun with a 6 clip magazine, so much better than the 25x137mm or 30x165mm or 30x173mm or even 30x250mm ?
While i can see that it should be more powerful than the 25mm variant, but for the other 30mm i don't see the reason behind the decision to have it above of them all .
Another aspect for me is the "historical" part, where the Warrior fit perfectly the same tier as the Bradley or the BMP-3, due they have somewhat the same age of production. If we take this far over any logic you could just produce a vehicle with a weapon system from the 1950's and put it on tier 10 , because its new production date.
Game wise i would put it down to tier 6, as it fits the age, the weapon system capabilities, and the current ingame upgrade options .
2) The second vehicle would be the Swingfire, as it is miss placed in it's role compared to all previous and following vehicle in that line.
Currently all vehicles in the Recon AFV line have the option to use a Autocannon, are mobile (speed, size, mobility) and have a good viewrange. While the viewrange and camo is good for the Swingfire, it is fairly slow, has a big size and just ATGMs to rely on .
With the latter mentioned weapon system, some vehicles have either the choice to fit both a Autocannon and ATGM launcher (FOX), some have only a Autocannon (XM800T) and other's can only choose in between having a Autocannon or ATGM launcher fitted .
For me especially in that line it is important to be flexible and be useful for your team in the role you are playing inside of a class. ATGMs are powerful nontheless, but they limit you in what you should do, which is giving vision . A autocannon gives you enough flexible options either in a defensive way , like defending yourself against other AFVs or even in a offensive way, like taking out another enemy in a 2v1 situation . Of course you will have problems, as autocannons have limits with the penetration power, but overall you are more flexible compared to have only a ATGM weapon system.
In the current state of play the swingfire has some advantages maybe, but overall i don't think that it fits the role where it is put in. It is not as flexible as all other vehicles, before or after it and going for a early spotting run, is nearly impossible as well as agressive positions up front, due the fact that the Swingfire is anything but mobile.
As for the game, i would either replace it with a vehicle that fits previous mentioned requirements (mobile, either or Autocannon/ATGM) or add the vehicle as a choice for tier 4 next to the Swingfire
General Conclusion
It is important when you pick a vehicle into a tier, that you fullfil the role, so it suits the rest of the line, as well as having in mind the age of the vehicle, next to it's capabilities of the weapon system. This should result into not having vehicles boosted^10 to suit tiers to fullfil empty holes.
Tuesday, 3 November 2015
Why i consider the PVE design to be bad .
Point of View :
I think that the PVE mode has a lot of potential to be a really good mode , besides PVP , but not in within the current design . The mission design is a good choice and it suits the game and it's background. What i really dislike is the fact that it is mostly made for MBTs and the random spawning of enemies.
Current Design:
At the moment you pick a mission and get thrown onto a map with a task. Most of the time you have to defend or prevent the enemy from taking something, while this is a good choice , within the background of Armored Warfare , the overall map design isnt.
Most of the maps are parts from PVP maps , while only a few are standalone mission at the moment. Before they introduced the PVE stuff, i already thought that they will use their existing maps for PVE, as it reduces the time and effort for something completely new . This can be good but it can be really bad as well and for the most part i think that it is badly done.
They cut those PVP maps in half or use just a small part of it, put random enemy spawns on it and change the enviroment a tiny bit. Please this shouldn't be the way of doing it, and i guess / know that you can do better than this . Lately i have thought about a game which had a really good campaign with a good setup, which can be done for the Armored Warfre PVE mode. The games name is Sudden Strike .
From my perspective , Obsidian could do somewhat the same with the existing maps and the current PVE setup.
Changes that needs to be done :
I think that the PVE mode has a lot of potential to be a really good mode , besides PVP , but not in within the current design . The mission design is a good choice and it suits the game and it's background. What i really dislike is the fact that it is mostly made for MBTs and the random spawning of enemies.
Current Design:
At the moment you pick a mission and get thrown onto a map with a task. Most of the time you have to defend or prevent the enemy from taking something, while this is a good choice , within the background of Armored Warfare , the overall map design isnt.
Most of the maps are parts from PVP maps , while only a few are standalone mission at the moment. Before they introduced the PVE stuff, i already thought that they will use their existing maps for PVE, as it reduces the time and effort for something completely new . This can be good but it can be really bad as well and for the most part i think that it is badly done.
They cut those PVP maps in half or use just a small part of it, put random enemy spawns on it and change the enviroment a tiny bit. Please this shouldn't be the way of doing it, and i guess / know that you can do better than this . Lately i have thought about a game which had a really good campaign with a good setup, which can be done for the Armored Warfre PVE mode. The games name is Sudden Strike .
From my perspective , Obsidian could do somewhat the same with the existing maps and the current PVE setup.
Changes that needs to be done :
- use the whole map, not only parts of it
- see that screenshot above ? It adds a lot of information , like target objective, defensive positions and most important, attack moves and directions on the map (where you are defending, where the enemy is coming from etc.)
- no random enemy spawn zones, where they drop off the air
- give them a attack direction and defensive options, so they dont turn their back to the front
- player's who do the secondary objectives should be rewarded a bit better, besides the team reward
- vision is important, so make it worth to be a AFV and not get nuked instandly for scouting
- you already have objectives aka hardcover which can deny vision, that shouldnt be a problem to use it as a tool
- Teambuilder. With a teambuilder , players should have a higher chance of success in PVE, because classes are set up right. For example every team consists of 2 MBTs at minimum, while 3 spots can be filled up with the other classes or make it as a requirement , bound to the mission.
- A Different approach can be, that you just select the difficulty and the PVE generator puts you on a mission where you have a chance of being successful. For example a SPG in a city map is bad, while on a more open map you can do something.
- AI should be a more on a military drill, like if they attack the drive towards you, and if they are low they retreat with reversing and not turn a 180° and show you the back of it.
Here is another screenshot with a decent amount of information on where the enemy is defending or coming from. It is way better to show such information on the map, so players can prepare themselves, than just having "airdrops" in the middle of nowhere.
Conclusion :
They have a lot of potential to make it great, but in its current state it is just there, but nothing impressive nor would i consider the PVE mode as well done . If they want to keep it the way they are doing it right now, then at least add a arrow or something where i can see the enemy spawns when they come with reinforcements. There is nothing worse to have a "spawn of reinforcements" right next to your back .
PVE vs PVP
With the recent changes for PVE i'd like to give my point of view on why i think a lot of people play PVE instead of PVP .
It was always clear from the start of this, that PVE has a lower reward in terms of money and maybe experience (reputation), which i assume is absolutely fine, due the lower amount of risk you are running .This is my personal feedback from a player who plays 99,5% solo .
PVE:
+ You only have 4 other guys
+ fairly safe to do the double or farm
+ somewhat of a place to learn to look out for some weakspots on vehicles
+ relatively quick done
- low amount of credits $$$
- if you died the amount of experience and money can be low
- boring to a certain point
- for myself PVE is bad designed
- MBTs have the biggest advantage over any other class
Reason behind this:
For myself i picked PVE over PVP , because you have a more stable way of gaining reputation and some vehicles are considered bad in PVP, thats why i play PVE for the main reason. The Developers said that most people picked PVE , because it is the more efficient way to earn reputation , especially for lower tiers with the "hard mode", which they raised to the minimum of tier 5 now . I can understand this change, though i don't see it that reasonable to get it done, due the main issue is the bad MM in PVP and some inbalance for certain vehicles and classes.
Of course at this point PVE is a really efficient way to level up, but you should ask yourself more on why people are picking it over PVP, as for myself PVP adds competition which i think is needed, but not on a basis, where the MM decides on who is winning it. (screenshots below)
For example , a OF-40 can be played in PVP well i guess, though i find it more difficult to play it, i have done most of the grind with PVE , as it was easier to gain reputation there with the daily than within the random PVP setup.
Another reason is, that you might know the PVE map , due you select the mission beforehand, which adds another advantage , as a vehicle can be good on 1 map, but bad on another one, which is another random factor .
PVP:
+ really good cashflow $$$
+ a big match will give you a lot of experience
+ competition
- 14 other players
- high chance of 3-4 vs 27-26 players
- chance of having a bad double
Reason behind this:
PVP is of course the goal and it is quite fun from time to time, but with the current MatchMaking, it feels like i get punished a lot more for no reason , than it should. I know that Obsidian can't change the customers attitude nor their skill, but currently you get punished with teams, where you have 90% of the times 2-3, maybe 4 players which are doing their "job" and the rest is just there to get carried. Usually i don't mind carrying some people as of course i couldnt win without them anyway, but when you are 2 minutes ingame and already down 8 players with 0 damage, it was clear that either the MM failed hard or bots are appearing in the game .
As i said, Obsidian can't change the skill or attitude of players, but at the moment PVP is more a lottery than having fun, while i don't think that 12-0 , 11-0 , 10-0 etc. are fun games for either side.
Those are just a few examples of how games are going, and i can post a lot more of these, where you literally have only 2-3/4 players which are doing something . Yes not every vehicle is good on certain maps , but within a +-0 tier range as shown in these examples, it should be possible for everyone to play their vehicle on a certain level of competition. 0 damage is not enough, despite having some spotting damage, damage is needed to give better players a chance of carrying.
Conclusion
Even if they change their MM (there needs to be done a lot of work with it), PVE will be a option for me and certain classes / vehicles as the pressure and randomness is lower than the PVP queue .
It was always clear from the start of this, that PVE has a lower reward in terms of money and maybe experience (reputation), which i assume is absolutely fine, due the lower amount of risk you are running .This is my personal feedback from a player who plays 99,5% solo .
PVE:
+ You only have 4 other guys
+ fairly safe to do the double or farm
+ somewhat of a place to learn to look out for some weakspots on vehicles
+ relatively quick done
- low amount of credits $$$
- if you died the amount of experience and money can be low
- boring to a certain point
- for myself PVE is bad designed
- MBTs have the biggest advantage over any other class
Reason behind this:
For myself i picked PVE over PVP , because you have a more stable way of gaining reputation and some vehicles are considered bad in PVP, thats why i play PVE for the main reason. The Developers said that most people picked PVE , because it is the more efficient way to earn reputation , especially for lower tiers with the "hard mode", which they raised to the minimum of tier 5 now . I can understand this change, though i don't see it that reasonable to get it done, due the main issue is the bad MM in PVP and some inbalance for certain vehicles and classes.
Of course at this point PVE is a really efficient way to level up, but you should ask yourself more on why people are picking it over PVP, as for myself PVP adds competition which i think is needed, but not on a basis, where the MM decides on who is winning it. (screenshots below)
For example , a OF-40 can be played in PVP well i guess, though i find it more difficult to play it, i have done most of the grind with PVE , as it was easier to gain reputation there with the daily than within the random PVP setup.
Another reason is, that you might know the PVE map , due you select the mission beforehand, which adds another advantage , as a vehicle can be good on 1 map, but bad on another one, which is another random factor .
PVP:
+ really good cashflow $$$
+ a big match will give you a lot of experience
+ competition
- 14 other players
- high chance of 3-4 vs 27-26 players
- chance of having a bad double
Reason behind this:
PVP is of course the goal and it is quite fun from time to time, but with the current MatchMaking, it feels like i get punished a lot more for no reason , than it should. I know that Obsidian can't change the customers attitude nor their skill, but currently you get punished with teams, where you have 90% of the times 2-3, maybe 4 players which are doing their "job" and the rest is just there to get carried. Usually i don't mind carrying some people as of course i couldnt win without them anyway, but when you are 2 minutes ingame and already down 8 players with 0 damage, it was clear that either the MM failed hard or bots are appearing in the game .
As i said, Obsidian can't change the skill or attitude of players, but at the moment PVP is more a lottery than having fun, while i don't think that 12-0 , 11-0 , 10-0 etc. are fun games for either side.
Those are just a few examples of how games are going, and i can post a lot more of these, where you literally have only 2-3/4 players which are doing something . Yes not every vehicle is good on certain maps , but within a +-0 tier range as shown in these examples, it should be possible for everyone to play their vehicle on a certain level of competition. 0 damage is not enough, despite having some spotting damage, damage is needed to give better players a chance of carrying.
Conclusion
Even if they change their MM (there needs to be done a lot of work with it), PVE will be a option for me and certain classes / vehicles as the pressure and randomness is lower than the PVP queue .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)