Last post for ~1 year

Due real life changes or rather decisions I made a while back, I will be not able to play AW or be active in the forum or here with the beginning of June. Even though I will try to have a look every now and then in the forum for the latest changes, I can't gurantee that I will be able to post or write something regarding AW itself or about real life armor.

I appreciate the feedback and excuse myself for the latest inactivity here, as I didn't felt to post anything on what is happening in AW itself.

I wish you all the best and still hope that AW, or rather the developers and the publisher will decide better and more intelligent on what the game needs.

Thank you all :^)

T10 on the PTS and my opinion

So they released or launched their T10 vehicles on the RU PTS and well from what I see there this is a good nail for the game actually. This is exactly what was worrying me when they introduced the T9 stuff and T10 was just a matter of time before we see those. There are quite a few reasons on why this is bad, but as the forum majority voted to have such crap, they need to live with the outcome or well actually not, since you can just drop the game.

Why is T10 bad, besides T9 already being bad ?

• tierspread in regard of the player population for EU and NA
• bigger caliber = bigger damage and penetration
• low armored and lower tiered vehicles will be ~2 shots
• T10 are fantasy tanks for the most part
• extra tier = we need higher, faster, stronger vehicles compared to the previous tier
• work gets delegated towards something which we don't need yet ( T9 and T10 ), while not focusing on important stuff to grow the game itself

The biggest issue this game will have its the population, since it dropped to a point where you need to balance between the different tiers and not only on the tier itself (+-0 MM). When you know this, you need to balance different, since the requirement is another. While balancing is just one part, players having no fun is another, or why do you think, that there are just a few people playing high tier, besides the grind "issue".

People wanting blueprints, mockups and all the shiny new stuff, while forgetting about everything else. I don't know why they keep listening to those people who are in a tunnelvision 24/7, although it is not good to grow a game in this state by then.
I said this in Alpha, during the EA and I say it right now again, keep it slow, don't add tiers like you change your underwear every day, don't listen to the majority of people who just see nice stuff and want to have it right now, but I know already that this is fighting against wind mills.

In the long run you won't grow as big as WoT, nor will the game survive long enough to actually add all the stuff which it needed right now and not in 2 or more year. You can proof me wrong, but Iam pretty sure that I will be right.




Regarding the other stuff, well it is self explaining for the most part, as those "140/152mm" guns will have more penetration and a lot more damage, even if they tweak it, it will be more in every aspect. Is this good ? Nope, but I won't support this trash by playing high tier.



I can tell already that T8 will be freeEP pinata, just because the population numbers are that low that the MM will go up to +-2, unlike T10 want to wait forever. As for T9 well, they might stand a chance, but as it stands, 1 mistake and you lose a lot of HP right now, while T10 has a lot of HP themselves already.



Yes people will call it out, we are playing in the future and stuff. Well the worst argument I have read, but it is funny that people trying to justify those fantasy builds of tanks.

• Challenger 2B  which seems to be a T9 Challenger 2 with a 140mm gun ( it had problems fitting a 120mm smoothbore, but now it can fit a 140mm with the same turret )
• Leopard 2A7-140 uses ESPACE, whereas it was just shown as a "mockup on a tankmodel". It has a 140mm gun which wasn't even used on this variant of the Leopard 2. Who knows if it would work out with all the ugprades from the past 140mm project to the current 2A7.
• XM1A3 is another fantasy build. Basically the T9 variant with rooftiles as an upgrade next to the 140mm gun.
• T-14 is obviously the only tank that actually might have had tests with the 152mm gun, but yet you don't know if it will look different or be different to the 125mm T-14.
• PL-01 is a mockup, aka it doesn't even exist as a working prototype by now. From what it looks like, wood / cardboard has stronger armor than composite on the PTS.
• Panhard Sphinx is just a fail tiered vehicle, like the CRAB.

However now you will read top secret information's. They plan to introduce the Mammoth Tank from C&C  as T10 as well as the Baneblade from Warhammer 40k.



Higher, faster and stronger that is how T10 will be compared to T9 and T8. I wonder on how you will balance this out.



In the time they spent on adding T9 and T10, they could have done:

• balance between T5 and T6 (not a lot, but there is some need to tweak)
• balance between T6 and T7
• balance between T7 and T8
• tier properly
• introduce the reworked Crew and Commander system
• add a gamemode
• add clan stuff
• add base stuff
• rework your mapdesign
• improve the MM
• fix bugs to finally have a working base on which you can build the game
• rework some of the PvE stuff
• rework the class and role ( prefer the 3class system with many roles )
• go more indepth with SPGs as a better support ( improve the support shell mechanics )
• look out for gamemechanics, like tracking or shell / armor mechanics

Those are things you could have done meanwhile, and all would benefit the game more than adding 2 new tiers which are not good for your game.


My personal opinion still is the same as it was before, T9 and T10 are not needed, nor will you get players back and stick to your game that way. It is sad, that you didn't learn and listen when it was needed.

2x M60 upgrades I like

This is one of the MBTs which i can't play or dislike to play, despite its pros and cons, which are not too bad overall. For me it is the playstyle and the obvious weakspot, which doesn't fit on how I like to play MBTs on that tier. However I think it has some of the most interesting upgrades, which some might know and others don't.
Let us start with the first beauty.

1) M60 Phoenix from KADDB (King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau) / Jordan

Stats:

• Length x Width x Height (m): 6.9 x 3.8 x 3.2
• Weight: 60 ton
• Speed: 48 km/h
• Gradient: 60 %
• Side slope: 30 %
• Ground clearance: 0.46 m
• Fuel capacity: 1457 liters
• Operational range: 500 km
• Main armament: 120 mm L50 smooth bore gun
• Secondary armament: 12.7 mm commander MG and 7.62 mm coaxial MG
• Engine: 950 HP AVDS- 17902-C
• Transmission: CD 1000
• Upgraded final drives
• Suspension system: independent hydro pneumatic
• Protection level: high protection level through Tandem Explosive Reactive Armour (TERA)

The engine is from General Dynamics (USA) and the weapon system from RUAG (Switzerland), which also uses NATO standard ammunition. Other upgrades are a automatic fire suppression, a NBC system (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical System), a new FCS from Raytheon (USA), a loading assistent and the option to refit the armor upgrades according to the mission requirements.

Other pictures of it.

2) M60 upgrades from Israel

 It looks slightly different in comparison to the Phoenix though.


Now what tier those would be in Armored Warfare ? Well just from the looks they are at minimum tier 6 in the current setting, but I think tier 7 could be a good choice as well. Although it really depends on the performance, regarding the upgrades and the overall placement then.
Personally in my little world of tiering they are tier 6, but most likely tier 6.5. As I don't know on how they will change ATGMs / tandem charges and all ERA variants, they might be placed higher, but that solely depends on the possible performance of their protection.

Here are both links to the company:
M60 Phoenix
M60 from IMI Israel

Patch 0.14

 Introduction

Is this a patch which will change something ? Probably not, since the changes are minor or do not show a complete picture of high tier changes, which will come probably in every future patch. Personally I think they are splitting their personal on too many different areas, while everything is half done or finished, but nothing is complete.



Update 0.14 does bring several major features that include:

• A new PvP Map Highwall

(terrain design approach seems okay, overall gameplay/size/design is nothing for me to look forward to. I don't like to play on this map)

• New PvE Missions (Albatross, Cerberus)

(Looks promising)

• Light Tank and Tank Destroyer Penetration Overhaul

 (not impressed by this move at all, since it doesn't, change the issue completely)

• High Tier Gameplay Changes

 (those are just steps, not a lot of changes in general, or at least nothing which would trigger me to play high tier again)

• Replay System

 (very basic at the moment)

• Field Rebuild Kit

 (expensive, never used it, as i don't care a lot if I die in PvE)

List of 0.14.1972 Changes



Gameplay Mechanisms

• Falling damage is no longer based on absolute height differences. As a result, grazing collisions with terrain should no longer deal damage

Is a good change actually.

• The SPG class bonus to Reputation and Credits has been increased from 20% to 40% in PvE. This has no effect on rewards earned in PvP

I finished most of the grind, so i don't even play it in PvE anymore, since 50% of the maps are bad for SPGs anyway.

• Implemented some optimizations geared towards improving performance on AMD systems 

Can't tell if it is working out, since I have a Intel CPU.


Vehicles

Armor Changes



Wheels no longer grant bonus armor due to striking them at a high angle; they can also no longer ricochet shells. Passing through a wheel will always grant a passive 15mm for non-MBT/25mm for MBT level of effective protection. This should greatly reduce strange behavior firing at the sides of vehicles, especially at lower tiers of play.



I guess it is for wheel shooting without damage ? Otherwise I can't see a point on where this is going


The underbelly armor of all vehicles has been redone, reducing its effectiveness to no longer auto-ricochet shots. Firing at the occasional underbelly of a vehicle going over a rise - protected in the past by the extreme angle this tends to generate- will now result in the shot penetrating and damaging the vehicle.


My question would be in future, regarding the 2A7(+), will that belly be a non penetration, since it has increased belly armor as of the beginning with the 2A6M, who has increased mine protection. Not that I think shooting the belly is a great mechanic, since it was not the same for every vehicle, which is stupid in first place.


We have begun instituting changes to the armor behavior of vehicle hatches. In this introductory pass, Tier 7 through Tier 9 MBT driver hatches should no longer ricochet shots from non-autocannon fire in the majority of cases. There are still some flat portions of certain cupolas that autocannons will be able to deal some damage to. This will be expanded to all MBTs in 0.15, and also further improve cupola performance on the turret as well, resulting in cupola hits being more reliable regardless of angle. We are still testing this system, so please provide feedback on how you feel this affects higher tier gameplay, and any issues you encounter!


Since they introduced "high penetration boosted autocannons", I see this change critical, since they can't set the minimum penetration to high, due the tierspread, but also not to low, since we have stupidly high penetration values for autocannons.


Previously, shooting cupolas that were not part of an MBT's turret did an additional 10% damage. This critical damage has been removed from all vehicles; shooting a cupola will instead do normal penetration damage in these cases. Additionally, Light Tanks have been adjusted, and now gain the same damage reduction to turret cupolas as MBTs.


Seems a good move, therefore you don't shoot cupolas a lot on the tier where i play, so I can't tell if it is a good gameplay change


Vehicle cannons will no longer ricochet enemy shots. Previously, due to their rounded shape, some vehicle cannons were deflecting shots or providing unwanted protection defensively. The armor thickness of all cannons has been reduced to remove this behavior and allow even autocannons to damage them from any angle.


Already can say, that this will be annoying



Light Tank and Tank Destroyer Overhaul



As one of the steps toward improving our Tier 6+ gameplay, we're improving the penetration values of some Tier 6+ Light Tanks and Tank Destroyers that are currently below average. In some select cases, we'll also be improving penetration for Tank Destroyers that are already in average ranges, but might need some extra punch to fit the Tank Destroyer role.


So they are saying TD role and not class. Does this mean that they will change the class into a subrole for AFVs, like I suggested on my blog? It will be a solid move, but i doubt on the other hand, that they have the guts to do it. 
However Iam not convinced that buffing the penetration values is needed when you correct your vehicle models within the same patch to give them a better gunhandling in general.
Most of them had enough penetration in first place, since they still need to get shots on the side or rear to deal damage. More penetration here, seems more a nerf, since overmatch and maybe in future overpenetration kicks in , which results in less damage.



In 0.14, we've also begun the process of updating the underlining system controlling the depression values on our vehicles. As a result, we've been able to give many of our vehicles a much-needed increase in cannon depression not only from the front and rear, but also on the sides. While we plan on updating the values for all of our vehicles where needed, we have started with Tank Destroyers.


This was really needed and people demanded it for some vehicles already 1 year ago. Definitely one of the best changes and balancing buffs for most vehicles. If they would be patient they would have not buffed the penetration within the same patch, as a better gunhandling increases already the playability of the vehicle, by a lot.



AMX-10 PAC 90

• Increased cannon depression on the Front/Sides/Rear to -10 / -10 / -10 degrees 

I think it is a good change, but I would say, that it is still to good now

B1 Centauro

• Stock AP penetration increased from 303 to 333
• Upgraded AP penetration increased from 318 to 357
• HEAT penetration increased from 278 to 292
• Increased cannon depression on the Front/Sides/Rear to -8 / -9 / -6 

While I don't agree with the penetration buff, the gunhandling buff is one of the best things for this vehicle. If they would lower either the aimtime or accuracy a bit, the vehicle wouldn't need a penetration "buff".

Centauro 120

• No penetration changes; this vehicle already has sufficient penetration for its tier and is performing above average
• Increased cannon depression on the Front/Sides/Rear to -8 / -9 / -8 degrees 

Changing the gunhandling like with the T6 Centauro is really good and improves the options for this vehicle.


Dragoon 300 90

• Increased cannon depression on the Front/Sides/Rear to -7 / -7 / -5 

Before this change the T3 TD was really good compared to the T4 TD, though like all gundepression changes, I like them a lot. I guess people will have a lot of fun with this one, like I even had before this buff.

ERC 90 F4

• Increased cannon depression on the Sides/Rear to -10 / -10 degrees
• Decreased cannon depression on the Front to -10 

So this is technically a nerf, since it had -12° before. Might not sound like a lot, but could lower the performance a bit.

LAV-300

• Increased cannon depression on the Front/Sides/Rear to -7 / -9 / -8 

Personally this vehicle became really good after more than 1 year pain with no gundepression. I would consider this the 2nd best TD for its tier, behind the OP Zhalo.

LAV-600

• Stock AP penetration increased from 363 to 381
• First AP upgrade penetration increased from 381 to 400
• Second AP upgrade penetration increased from 390 to 410
• Third AP upgrade penetration increased from 408 to 429
• Stock HEAT penetration increased from 334 to 351
• First HEAT upgrade penetration increased from 341 to 358
• Second HEAT upgrade penetration increased from 356 to 365
• Increased cannon depression on the Front/Sides/Rear to -4.5 / -12 / -6 degrees 

Most people will cheer up, because the penetration buff, but I think they should have waited for the statistics after the buff for its gundepression. Therefore other areas to change would be better in my opinion, like a change of the retrofit slots, less camopenalty from shooting, more direct handling when steering, higher base camo value, higher shellvelocity, accuracy and so on.
I played just 4 games with it in PVP, and managed to win them all, while taking advantage of its DPM compared to the lower Alpha on the Cent.120 . Sure it is no sample size, but the depression helps a lot now.

M1 Abrams

• The M1 Abrams has received a new model 

Seems like it is still not 100% correct, but on a good way towards being identical. I would wish, that they put in more time to give us 100% correct models with their first attempts and not after x tries.
 
M1128 Stryker
The Stryker already has excellent penetration values, and thus it is not receiving a penetration boost in this pass. We are looking at some of its other capabilities, however. We plan on adding more elevation to the Stryker in order to match its real life performance, but this requires some art changes to be completed first.

• Increased cannon depression on the Front/Sides/Rear to - 6 / -13 / -10 degrees
• Increased cannon elevation to 12 degrees 

Good move, though I still would put it a tier lower according to my attempt of a tech tree :)

Stingray 1

• Stock AP penetration increased from 278 to 311
• First AP upgrade penetration increased from 292 to 327
• Second AP upgrade penetration increased from 299 to 334
• Third AP upgrade penetration increased from 320 to 350
• Stock HEAT round penetration increased from 262 to 280
• Upgraded HEAT round penetration increased from 274 to 299 

SR1 is still trash.....
Sorry but these changes, won't change the issue with the SR1. It is still big, has mediocre mobility, no gundepression, sluggish gunhandling overall and no armor against anything.

Stingray 2

• Stock AP penetration increased from 334 to 365
• First AP upgrade penetration increased from 350 to 384
• Second AP upgrade penetration increased from 359 to 393
• Third AP upgrade penetration increased from 375 to 411
• Stock HEAT penetration increased from 296 to 324
• First HEAT upgrade penetration increased from 310 to 339
• Second HEAT upgrade penetration increased from 317 to 346
• Third HEAT upgrade penetration increased from 330 to 361 

Can't tell if something will change for this one, despite the increased overmatch now 

T-80

We increased the minimum armor thickness of the vehicle to be on par with the preceding T-72A. Due to its already improved armor composition, this change will make the T-80's weak points on the turret - including the flat portions in front of the commander's cupola - to appear on average as yellow to Tier 7 penetration values instead of green like before.

I hope you are aware of the changes when you introduce a armorupgrade for it with the T-80B/U

Warrior

We increased its base armor thickness to bring it up to 14.5mm of all-around protection, accurate to the real world equivalent. The applique armor upgrade package should now also provide complete protection against autocannons as well, making it a viable alternative to the vehicle's ERA upgrade package.

And when does this vehicle gets downtiered ? It would represent the IFVs on tier 6 best, since it shows the difference between western and eastern IFV designs and the different approach to protection.

 Zhalo-S

• Increased cannon depression on the Front and Sides to -8/-8 

Best camo for its tier for all classes, really good gunhandling, and now you buff the gundepression to make it the most broken vehicle on its tier and the best TD on T4 ? I didn't understand your buff for the camo in first place ( a while back ) and now you buff this vehicle even more ?
You know that this is pay2win, right ?

 

Conclusion 

While I appreciate the changes or finally the solution to give each vehicle its real life gundepression ( I hope you used those ), you should have waited for the change in statistics for it, before buffing the penetration values.

Overpenetration needs to be added again, which will add a lot of survivability for low armored vehicles overall, without even buffing every other aspect beforehand.

The replay system is a step forward, while it is really basic right now. I personally think that the new map is nothing for me, as it is too much corridor based, but I do like that they realize that the terrain itself can be enough to add cover and vision plays.

Besides this they released T7 premiums, which I don't like, since those are probably all Löwe drivers from WoT, regarding their skill and what they are doing. Next to that they picked probably the strongest vehicles on its tier to be premium........

MM values for specific balance (Part 2)

Detailed Values

Starting with detailed values, means a lot of queue time most likely, therefore the outcome should be relatively even matched for both teams. Why would you go with something like this? Well if you really want to clarify on who is the best overall, you need to find values who are representing the player skill the most accurate.

Like i had in my previous example regarding playerrating, you have 2 values who are representing the best athlete on the 100m run. It is the distance (100m) and the time you need for it. I should mention that a certain reaction time leads to disqualification as well as leaving your own lane, next to your body counts when passing the finish line.

Regarding this game, you will have a lot more values, who are needed to make the difference between real skill or talent compared to fake skill, like we can see within the current winrate based MatchMaking.

Vehicle based values

Vehicles are the major factor for clarifying real skill, therefore you will have a lot of different values
here to try to make the difference.

•     average spotting damage*

Should be clear on what i mean here. Some classes benefit more from this than others, also it might indicate the specific role or vehicle balance. The T5 ERC would be a exceptional case here, since it should be considered with a slightly OP balance. (more to that below)

•     average spotting damage after 5 seconds for the spot*

  This is really important actually, as even i underestimated this in the official forum and was against it. Iam a fool.... . Why you might ask, because we have spotting damage already right ?
The reason is simple, if the map offers the ability to overwatch it with your high viewrange this value wouldn't kick in, since you permaspot the enemy most likely. But what is the case if you quickspot due the mapdesign?

You will get the initial spot and maybe some spotting damage, when your teammates are quick. But what happens if you quickspot and the damage kicks in just after 3 seconds, while you have no direct line of sight to your spot. Yes the spotting damage won't go anywhere, since you are not spotting in a LOS (line of sight), nor does anyone else spots it.

The target is just being spotted due ingame mechanics for quite a while after the initial spot while losing LOS.That is why this value is important to AFVs who are relying on quickspots on non open maps for example.

•     average damage blocked*

Pretty much self explaining here. Important to MBTs the most, since they have the biggest amount of armor. It can be a small value for some other vehicles, but not the main factor as for MBTs.

•    average damage*

 
Same as above, it is pretty much self explaining. Damage is important nonetheless, but it shouldn't be the major part of the possible rating. Every kind of damage that you can deal needs to be equal, while damage blocked might have a little less weight.

•     average assisting damage*

 
This is basically when you disable a vehicles movement, either due shooting the tracks off or the engine and important as well, if you disable active defensive modules, such as APS or ERA, who are resulting into damage due that disabling.
( for example you disable the APS, and 3 seconds later the target got damage from a ATGM or if you kill the ERA plates you should be rewarded if the vehicle is now able to be penetrated there, although this "damage" should be split up to all parties who are involved )

•     average kill death assist ratio*

 
I think assisting to a kill is as important as killing itself, next to not dying often. As for a specific value i would rate all 3 the same.

•     average damage done and taken ratio*

 
This ratio is already in the dossier and i quite like it.

•      average balance rating compared to same class vehicles for the tier*

 
This one needs probably a further explanation on what i mean here. If we have for example 6 tier 5 MBTs, each of them is different in design and playstyle, plus their very own ability to win games.

1.     T-72 can be beast, but requires quite some skill -slightly OP-
2.     M60A3 is a good allrounder -fairly balanced-
3.     Chieftain MK5 limited in what you can do but forgives quite a lot -fairly balanced-
4.     Leopard 1A5 doesn't forgive a own mistake, requires skill to be good -okay balanced-
5.     Type 80 is the strongest and easiest hulldown MBT -slightly OP-
6.     WZ-1224 currently one of the most annoying tanks for the tier -OP-

So we know some tanks are better and some are worse, but one clearly is standing out. The rating that is the result of it, should be marked as "imbalanced" as for a positive aspect if the vehicle is UP or negative if the vehicle is OP compared to everyone else.

Such a value would lower the effectiveness of statpadding with a clearly OP vehicle, as the results needs to be seen on how they gathered them. This would be the same case for the old XM1, who was clearly outstanding compared to everything else, so this value kicks in for that timewindow of imbalance, which effectively should raise the value of the OP vehicle.

Yes it is somewhat of a punishment, but just to those who were in the timewindow of being "OP", so to lower the rating after the change/nerf , your value needs to be raised so you need to do more to maintain on what you gained while being "OP".


* For all those values it is important to note, that tier and classdifference should be counted. Aka damage of any kind vs lower tier, same tier or higher tier and what classes.

Conclusion

I think every value from above is needed to have a basic vehicle rating. If iam missing something, just comment below and I think about it.

Map based values

Yes there are even map based values, as the map design is not mirrored, so players might perform different on each side and spawn for every map.

•     Map

Maps in general are another relatively huge factor for performance, as it either gives you a disadvantage or advantage for the vehicle you are using. Therefore the map itself is not entirely a restricting factor, because it also depends on the distribution between classes, tiers and vehicles who can add some limitation to your own gameplay, but more regarding that a bit later.


If we take the current maps, some of them are limiting you in your efficiency, as for example a wide open area is not good for vehicles that are fairly slow and have a bad vision range next to a even worse camo factor ( MBTs ). On the other hand those vehicles might accelerate in close quarters or areas where you can limit the amount of visionrange to your standards.



This is the case for every class and even vehicle, as the mapdesign sets the pace of the gameplay and what you are able to do. To sum up major points on what value Iam looking for :

1.     where did you got your general damage(spotting and actual damage) done on the map
2.     how did you got your general damage(spotting and actual damage) done
3.     what did you killed or damaged(spotting and actual damage)
4.     where did you receive your damage / where you got killed
5.     where did you blocked damage and from who
6.     what is the range on dealing and receiving damage (spotting and actual damage)

Basically this should result in "hotzones" and "coldzones" for every vehicle you are using, or if the playstyle is similar within the same class, you go for a class summary.
Hotzones would be areas, where you are active for the most time when playing on this map, while coldzones are areas which you are avoiding.


If you get this data, you can give those players a better spawning position, so they can play their playstyle as efficient as they are with their vehicle. What you have in mind when having something like this, is the matchup.
If the enemy team as for example more AFVs than every other class you play the map different, which is the same when they have more MBTs than every other class. This needs to be counted in, as this takes in huge effect on where you can go, and where not .

•     Side

Like i said in the previous general map point, the maps are not mirrored which mean each side has a different approach to your options with your vehicle.
This needs to be considered as the map design might limit you in time to reach certain key points, while the other side might be faster or requires less time to get there.
I won't say that each side makes a huge difference, but with certain vehicles you can gain a lot more on some maps on either sides.


A good example would be Pipelines, when you are on the North spawn in a recon AFV. You basically have the option to deny a lot of the map for the enemy team, while the same map with the same vehicle on the South spawn, has not that option.


And even if we take into count that the South in this case has some good positions as well, there is none that has the same amount of vision pressure than the North side has.
Those are just examples and you will find those limitations on every map with every vehicle, so the value of taking into count that your possible performance might be lower, if you are on a side which you dislike to play, should be mentioned.


I personally might be extreme in this case, but i wage my chances of getting to my preferential key positions to get early spotting or damage done, on every map for every spawn.
You could call it "gameplan", and on some maps iam really limited on where i can be to be effective. Narrows with a AFV would be my example, on where i feel uncomfortable for both sides actually .

1. Sideperformance should be a reason to balance the map
2. Sideperformance should be considered to a certain point as playerperformance up to certain matchups

•     Spawn

Spawning is similar to the request per side and it got slightly covered with the map already. The important part on the right spawn is the spawnlocation itself.
Depending on each map you either have a more grouped spawn or spread out spawn, which means within the latter reason, you might need to drive a lot more to get to your favourite position.

Also the spawn location might be limiting you  in where you can be at a certain time. The previous point is the most important one regarding this.
I'll give you an example from a different game on how different your future actions can be.

Game: Americas Army 2.x version
Map: SF Hospital
Side: none VIP


What you basically need to know is, that there are a number of slots per side, like  10vs10 = 10 slots. Each of those slots has a specific role and weapon, plus a different spawn location.
Now the important part is, that with some slots you get a specific spawn, which saves you like 2-5 seconds if you want to rush a specific area on the map, without having the danger of being shot while going there.

This may sound not like a lot but the difference is, that you either reach your area with full HP and alive, or you are dead, because you were to slow.
This is why the spawnlocation gets important, even in AW, because you reach certain locations earlier, therefore you can  have the chance to do more right from the start. This could be early spots, which adds useful informations to your team or in a best case scenario, you can deal damage without getting seen right from this.


If you want to maximise your effectiveness as a player you need a environment which gives you this option on a reliant basis. Later on in Clan Wars or what ever they plan to do, the spawn location for the vehicle which will add vision is important for another reason.
You don't get stuck in "traffic" when you have a bad spawn location, or if you divide your force , you often had a lot of issues regarding the driving around to reach your area and so on.

Conclusion

The importance of consistency regarding side,spawn and the map is given to get the best possible early result for every player and their playstyle. Besides the obvious positive aspects for the player, another aspect is given, and that is the knowledge over key areas for the map design. Yes the map values offer the chance to get information on player distribution and how well your map design is, and most important you might get knowledge on why the players are doing it.

Class / role based values

Since I find a 3 way class system with different roles in it the best solution, i will point out here, on how the difference is important, either by class or by role and why you need to consider the roles for each side.

• Class

A 3way class system is 3 specific basic attributes, which are SPGs who have the long range support task, MBTs who are the frontline while being the hardest and toughest targets and AFVs who are the mid to close range supports.

• SPG class

Their main task is too provide long range vision, vision denial and damage as it stands currently.
If we keep this short the possible value need to count:

1. singleloader or multiloader
2. potential single shell damage vs fast firing (having mortars in mind)
3. countermeasures for SPGs (PzH 2000 IGEL as rooftop armor for example)
4. each different type needs to be equal per team
5. current availability of support shells for each SPG

To go into some detail on why i think those values need to be considered. The maximum potential damage in a certain amount of team is higher for the multiloader, while the single target damage is higher for the singleloader. Questionable is on how punishing this is if you place both types against each other and not mixed so every side has a equal chance.
Next could be countermeasures as rooftop armor or the amount of support shells available. In future their might be mortars or wheeled SPGs, those need to be balanced or rated differently, because i would say their playstyle might be different to the ones we have right now.
As for the last point, it would be bad for a team to have 2 SPGs with no support options yet, while the other team has those.

Conclusion

Despite the low amount of SPGs, their balance from the MM has some weight, as they provide something unique if they expand the amount of support options for them.

• MBT class

Here it gets a bit tricky as not every MBT is the same nor has the same potential or balance for its specific tier or playstyle. Some are more forgiving than others and the MBTs represent every men's  expectations regarding tanks.

Basic things should be the same amount of MBTs per side to start it. This should be followed by same amount of same MBTs per side to give the best possible balance. Since we will have in my point of view different MBT roles ( Heavy MBT, Light MBT and Support MBT), they should be equal as well per side per tier. Last but not least, the upgrade status needs to be considered.

Heavy MBT would be for example : Challenger series
Light MBT would be for example : Leopard 1A5
Support MBT would be for example : BMPT

Why the same amount of MBTs per side ?

Currently there are maps who are in favour of MBTs, and the team with a lower amount of them, might have a much harder time to do well on it. This is likewise for a map where AFVs and SPGs are favoured, and the team with more MBTs will suffer from it.

Why the same amount of same MBTs per side ?

You might have noticed that MBTs have different strengths and weaknesses by nature or forced by balancing. It would be unfair if one team gets all the heavily armored MBTs and the other side gets all the more squishy MBTs.
There are probably circumstances where being squishy can have the advantage due their different strengths, but the outcome might be really predictable and that would be a worst case scenario for the balance during a game.
Best possible solution would be the same amount of same MBTs per side, to have the maximum equality.

Why the same amount of MBT roles per side ?

This point is similar to the previous point, maybe this one is a better choice overall. The main difference is that each side gets the same amount of different MBT roles, while this is not restricting to the same vehicle actually, but only the same role.
It might be easier to do it this way actually.

Why is the upgrade status important ?

While the difference from a stock vehicle to a elite vehicle is not night and day, like it is in WoT for example, their might be a difference regarding how much tools do you have to do your job/task. This is similar to the SPG point, where one side gets support shells and the other side doesn't. Some upgrades might be crucial and can change the playstyle of a tank drastically, so this should be considered.

Conclusion

You see there are quite some values who can make the difference between a balanced matchup or rather pointless matchup.

• AFV class

This class has most likely the biggest diversity regarding different vehicle types and playstyles, also they are a closer support than SPGs are. A big issue is, that even within the current roles, the value for vision is really different to every vehicle. Most players think that AFVs are recons, while the difference is actually quite huge between dedicated recon vehicles and IFVs for example.
They can do somewhat each others main task, but the team with a dedicated recon vehicle on a open map, might have the edge over a IFV that needs to add vision for his team.

Recon role

The reason why you need to have a difference is the approach of being specialised in a certain area over every other vehicle within the same class. In a ideal MatchMaking you want to have a similar role with a similar possible vision control for each team.
This means the difference in tier gaps should be too big within the same role, therefore this is highly depending on the tierrange like +-0 or +-1 can make the difference.
Important values here for recons:

1. Visionrange
2. Visioneffectiveness
3. Camorating
4. Mobility

Visionrange and visioneffectiveness are as important as the Camorating, as basically the latter one, is visionrange as well. For example you can have 2 vehicles with 500m viewrange and 30% visioneffectiveness due thermal optic upgrade, but 1 vehicle has a camo rating from 0.4(the max) and the other vehicle has 0.2, which is rather bad. This would mean that the vehicle with the higher rating will outspot the other vehicle fairly easy. If the vehicle with the higher camo rating would have only 480m viewrange for example, the other vehicle will have a better chance to compete with him.

Those values need to be considered, either in a separate vehicle role rating to gain a optimal load out or with "flags" so the system knows about the current strength of each of the recon vehicles that are in the 30 player pool.

Light IFV

Basically my current thoughts are, that some IFVs, such as the M2 Bradley are kind of better armored and suit a slightly different role than for example a BMP-3 on the same tier. Western IFVs tend to be more armored and heavier than eastern IFVs, which would result in a different power setting.

That is why i thought about the difference between Light IFVs and Medium IFVs, who's big difference is the armor against same tiered AFVs.
Since this is very specific the main values that matters are:

1. Weapon performance  (usually ATGMs and possibly AC damage)
2. Mobility (they should be more nimble to use)

The reason why these 2 values, is that they need to stick out somewhere and ATGM performance and higher AC damage, next to better mobility should be the niche for this role.

Medium IFV

Like stated before the main difference will be the armor value and the slightly worse mobility against lower armored IFVs. The current ingame design is leading to this different role designation, as they don't use real life armor or weapon penetration values, regarding autocannons, which is somewhat a downside for vehicles that actually can have enough armor to withstand other autocannons, but due the ingame tiering and balancing it is somewhat negated.
Important values to make the difference clear:

1. Armor/resistance vs same tiered autocannons
2. HP pool

Those vehicles should be a tough opponent for other AFVs in general who are using autocannons as their main weapon, with the exception for high caliber AFVs . This doesn't mean that those are invulnerable, but you should not penetrate every shot on them, as they somewhat counter AFVs up to a certain point.

Combat role

This is where i see some vehicles who are using high caliber autocannons, up to real unique weapon system such as the RMK 30 on the Wiesel ( which was the planned armament for the German EC Tiger ). However the main focus for this role is more being a glasscannon with the highest damage output for autocannons or maybe in future ATGMs ( maybe only... ).
Due my overall different approach to classes and roles i would suggest following vehicles to be in this role at the moment.

1. Wiesel
2. Draco
3. BPz 57

Values which are important to make the difference to other roles and classes (ingame, not real life reasons):

1. Clipdamage and Penetration
2. DPM overall

Clipdamage and Penetration, because those will be higher than everything else compared to other AC using AFVs. DPM is mainly the point of having not a huge reload. The downside of those vehicles is the limited survivability compared to for example Medium IFVs who should have a higher HP pool and higher chances of a non penetration than other AFVs.

High Caliber Tracked |High Caliber Wheeled

This will be the former LT and TD class, since i don't see a reason why they need to be in a whole different class, when they will mix those up anyway in future. The reason on why these exist are a lot different in real life than they are in this game, and this makes it kind of complicated as people expect them to be on what they know from other tankgames.
While i see them really close together regarding their task in this game, the only difference between them is, having wheels or being tracked.

Summary for tracked:

1. better hulltraverserate
2. most likely better acceleration
3. worse top speed
4. trackhitpoints

Summary for wheeled:

1. high top speed
2. better camorating
3. more ammunition
4. wheels can't be tracked / better mobility

The weaponry is somewhat the same, as they mainly use either 105mm, 120mm or 125mm gun systems, while the Sheridan might be a exception here at the moment.
While i see the penetration and damage values similar with each other, the main differences are being tracked or wheeled and their advantages over each other. If we take the current active abilities at the moment, the tracked vehicles will get their ECU to boost even further their agility, while the wheeled vehicles keep their ability to snipe as a highly mobile weapon system.
I would tune both abilities a bit to make them fit and suit more their roles, but that will be another topic. The listened differences are the values that you need to have in mind, as they allow different tactics and play style for both roles.

Conclusion TL;DR

Each role has a different focus on what they want and can do on the battlefield. The strength of each of them needs to be considered, either by a overall rating for each role, or a rating for each class, while having in mind that there are different roles with different abilities on the battlefield. What you need to understand when having such values around is the fact, that being in the same vehicle class doesn't mean directly it can do everything that other roles offer.

Recon vs Medium IFV
Heavily armored MBTs vs light armored MBTs

This is happening and the MM needs to see the difference in between each vehicles main task and what they can offer against other roles,classes or vehicles.

MM values for specific balance (Part 1)

Introduction

In my previous post i already pointed out some values which you can use as a MM balance. Therefore there are a lot more values who can have a different effect to the game. 
Basically you can go several ways when you start with a MatchMaker:

• Random with just a tier/class adjustment
• Basic values, like winrate or ratings
• Detailed values
• Conclusion TL;DR at the end of Part 2

Each of those attempts have positive and negative aspects like, increased queue time, worse matchups in a bad tier and vehicle balance situation or short queues and so on.

Random MM

This is basically the easiest out of all 3 MM based codes, as you decide only on to 1-3 values who are creating the matchup. The lower the amount of values the faster should be the MatchMaking. You might ask on what values you usually pick for this:

• Tier balance

Tier balance would be, that every team has the same amount of tiers per side, as for example 5x T9, 5x T8 and 5x T7 per side. This value ignores the type of vehicle and playerskill, but makes sure that each side has the same amount of different tiers spread over both teams.

• Class balance

If i stick with my above example of tiers, this value checks on the classes that are spread over each side. This does make sense, as a class imbalance already makes it harder for one side to fight the other team, as they could not benefit from for example map advantages or key points.
This leads typical to imbalanced matchups, where for example 1 side gets all the vehicles with a high vision range or only heavy armored vehicles and so on.

• Platoon balance

Since platoons can enter the solo queue, they need to have a balance here, since platoons add something indirect to the players that are in it. Usually platooned players are communicating with a VOIP program, which is leading to an advantage over solo players who usually talk or write with each other in a random matchup.
Platoons in general are a hard value of balance, as in a perfect matchup you have both sides with a equal amount of platoons, within the same tier, the same vehicle and most likely within the same skilllevel. This means platoon balance has a lot of influence from the above mentioned values.

Conclusion

If you pick a random MM, you want to use either all 3 values to have a decent balance or you focus on just 1 or 2, while 2 values would make more sense, due the specific types of each code. What you can do is, that you don't use tier balance, due the fact if you have a good balance between the different tiers and a small tierspread, the negative aspect of not having it, would be lower, since the vehicle balance kicks in.

Regarding high tier balance in AW, this is not the case, so you need this one actually. Same goes for Class balance, which is needed due the circumstances of high tier balance, which leads me to platoon balance and their overall influence in a battle.

Basic values

Basic values use a set of different values that determine the skill of each player to get a fair matchup. While this sounds reasonable, it highly depends on how your very own rating works and on how much this rating is representing the actual playerskill in a short amount of time or in the long run.

 

• Playerrating

This is most likely the key factor for having a good or bad code. We all know the ratings which are used in WoT to determine playerskill or give a certain direction on how you can manipulate the rating in your favour. Everyone knows it and everyone done it to a certain point.
Though i know the pro's and con's for it, having a rating is a natural approach to make a difference between players. Chess for example has a ELO system or even football aka the FIFA has a system to represent somewhat a countries strength due recent results.

Even regular sports have to a certain point a rating, which is the time. If you run the 100m in 11 seconds as a male from the USA for example, you are quite good, but not world class. If we stick the the USA and a world class runner, which runs the 100m in 9.7seconds, he would be considered to be world class, just because reaching those times, require a certain amount of training and "skill".


Those are of course different examples on why having a rating is nothing exclusive, but needed if you want to have the difference shown between actual playerskill. The question is on how detailed this rating works out, and if it takes into count that the vehicle/class balance can be really impactful, like for example using illegal drugs to get more physical power, if you are a athlete.
Essential for this kind of MM, is the playerrating and what it does take into count. If this rating doesn't pick up the right data for a player, it can be seen as a flawed rating, due the false displaying of the actual skill of a player.

• Winrate

This is more a simple approach of a value, since it doesn't reflect a lot with a small sample size of games. The reason why it can be seen as a flawed value, is the amount of games you play in a vehicle, next to the fact, that you can be lucky with your teammates more or less, without contributing anything to each of your games.
Another important factor is the amount of wins versus the same tier, higher or lower tier, tierdifference (power creeps) or even classdifference. You can have for example a 60% winrate vs lower tiers, while using a power creeped vehicle, but just a 30% winrate vs same tier.

We could go even further down the road, and say that you have been incredibly lucky with your teammates and you got carried in 40 out of your 70 games for example. This would give you a high winrate, while the actual "winrate" is a lot worse than you are actually.
That is a main reason on why winrate balance doesn't reflect a lot by itself in a small sample size, and even in a larger sample size the chance of getting carried might be rng based high.

• Vehiclerating

You could start using a vehiclerating, next to your playerrating to determine differences in skill. While the playerrating reflects the overall outcome of a player from all his statistics, a vehiclerating is specific and bound to each vehicle you are using.
The advantage of having such a specific rating in your formula is, that it reflects your very own performance at its best. Questionable is, on what values you define this rating.
Reasonable values :

1. Battles in a vehicle up to a max, so you can't stack it endlessly
2. Average spotting damage compared to its role
3. Average damage compared to its role
4. Average reputation earned on win / lose / draw
5. Average damage blocked compared to its role
6. Average assist damage compared to its role

I think there could be some more values, but i think those are a good start for a basic rating. Within the next point (detailed values) i will most likely list up more values which you could even add to a vehiclerating, but those are really specific and might be too much for a basic rating to start off.

Conclusion

Ratings are needed as a part of what determines actual skill between players in any sports. The big question is, if you can identify the right values to clarify "skill" while having enough knowledge on where to cap skill. The latter one means, what i wrote before when mentioning " Battles in a vehicle up to a max ", as you need to set a maximal amount of battles who are influencing the rating for a vehicle in this specific case. 

Overall Obsidian needs to identify, if they are using the right values for their rating and they should get immediately away from a winrate focused MatchMaking, as the value itself displays not the actual playerskill up to a certain point.

MM 2.0 a failure ?

Introduction

As i mentioned before in the Patch 0.13 notes, that i will try and look on how much improvement they made regarding their "new MM 2.0" and if that progress is going into the right direction. A lot of players in the official forum are saying that they dropped a lot of Winrate within the new MM, and that the overall match outcomes are no where near of being good.

For myself nothing has changed regarding on what i need to do to win, well maybe it changed towards doing it all alone now for the most part. Questions that might come up during this post, are if they changed anything ? Would i recommend the game to anyone ? Should you or me invest money into this ? Is the Open Beta a solid and fair excuse for the Devs ? Is the MM 2.0 a success or does it show that it has no practical use, besides their theory aspect ?

MM 2.0 official Patch notes

We've updated our matchmaking system to provide an overall better experience to players looking for more balanced matches. Previously, players would often find themselves placed against full platoons in higher-tiered vehicles without an equal number of equivalently tiered vehicles on their team.

Platoons will now be matched against equally tiered platoons or players who match the top tier in the platoon. For example, a platoon of 3 tier 8s can only get into a match if the match has three other tier 8s (platooned or not). Artillery is also more strictly matched so their tiers are balanced between the teams. While this means platoons will sometimes have to wait longer for a match, solo-queue players should now find themselves in matches with other similarly-tiered players and a balanced number of platoons.Additionally, solo-queue players should also find it easier to get into a match, even at higher tiers.

Finally, the introduction of Matchmaker 2.0 also brings with it new server-side controls which allow us to more easily tweak the matchmaking settings based on individual region needs.

They call something 2.0 while the obviously only new program line, is that they changed something regarding platoons and the overall queue time. I don't even see on why they call it new or a complete new version as within the next screenshots it will show that they improved literally nothing which is worth mentioning a new version of the Match Maker.
The Devs still have no clue about what they are doing or let me put it this way, they still don't play their own game on a decent level to see the downsides of their "theoretical" aspect of their own MM 2.0 and that it is not working.

This screenshot was taken on a Saturday at 16:57 in the afternoon on the EU server. 

Sure every side has an equal amount of platoons and tanks, but i might miss tier 6 in here, or rather why are tier 5 tanks in this matchup ?
According to their MM formula i would matched as a 55%+ player, which means my team will have for sure a 45% player, which can be a T5 but also within a very high chance of  being a T7.

Since we already know that power creeps are strong in this game regarding high tier, what can i do as a high skilled player in the lowest tier against 1000% power creeped vehicles ?
Yes i can try and i did, but we lost , because i have T7 players who can't carry their own weight in this matchup. You might say, losing is part of the game, which is true, but it depends on how you lose.

• Do I enjoy stomping enemies ? No i don't since it is like stealing candy from the kids
• Do I enjoy being stomped without a chance of winning ? No i don't since it is a waste of my own time, as the MM is rigged towards that ?

Regarding the assumption of having a rigged MM or rigged RNG, which we all fairly know from WoT. They said that they match each player to have a relatively equal chance for both teams, which means each side has 50% chance of winning, according to their theory for their MM 2.0 formula.

As you can see it , this screenshot was taken yesterday night, which ain't an excuse for the result. Where do i have here a 50-50 chance of winning the game ?
More than 50% of my team are players who get rewarded for doing nothing, while i was not sitting back and being a sniper, no i played to the task of my tank, but you can't do anything if more than 50% of your team does nothing.

Yet again, does your MM 2.0 or MM in general work ? No it doesn't and all you are doing in your office at the Obsidian Entertainment HQ is jerking off to theory and how it can work, while it doesn't.


How does such issues come around ? For some time they said it is all about the game being really snowball like , but this is just an excuse for like 5% of the games maybe. If you play it smart you can work around a snowball, by snowballing yourself or simply stop the snowball by intelligent play.
Yes i said smart and intelligent, which sadly is not the case for 80% of the players in AW . But to give you an example on how their system doesn't work out.

1. Player A has a average of 50% winrate, on tier 6 with 500 damage per game.
2. Player B has a average of 50% winrate, on tier 6 with 1500 damage per game.

Both players are getting matched towards both teams. Player B will do a decent amount of damage while Player A will provide nothing , but both players can be seen as 50% WR players and so does the MM . Their system takes winrate into count to provide a equal chance for both sides, but as you can see in my short example, the system doesn't work, as they are missing values, which are important and which i recommend to use countless times.



MM is a complex thing and if they want to pull it of, listen to players that have game knowledge which 80% of the playerbase is lacking hard. Sounds rude, but it is like that. You have shown that either your very own testers are clueless and that the own Devs have no skill as well or just don't know on the importance of some values.

Important values: (easy ones | only some from the player)

• average damage for the vehicle
• average spotting damage for the vehicle
• average damage / damage taken ratio for the vehicle
• average kill / death ratio
• average damage for the tier
• average spotting damage for the tier
• average damage / damage taken ratio for the tier
• average damage overall
• average spotting damage overall
• average damage / damage taken ratio
• average performance for the map and spawn
• average damage against higher tiers ( more specific against what vehicles )
• average winrate against higher tiers
• average winrate against same tier
• average winrate against lower tiers

and so on. (will do a detailed post about this)

The MM needs the right values to work as accurate as it should, and winrate itself just doesn't cut it or do you think that me as a good player wants to "work" off every game and feed your flawed system with players who actually doesn't deserve the win, but due your very own MM fail 2.0, i need to carry every fucking
game.

Do you really think that it is fun to carry every game with 5-10 kills and 7-10k combined damage, just because you get punished with a truckload of your "50% winrate plebs" who even get rewarded for doing nothing.

Final Words

Would i recommend the game to anyone ?

No, this game is pure pain to play, while the Devs still have no focus on WHAT they NEED to DO.

Should you or me invest money into this ?

No, since they don't learn out of their mistakes for almost a complete year and like above, they don't focus on the right stuff.

Is the Open Beta a solid and fair excuse for the Devs ?

This "argument" has no value, since they can charge money for their game already and the speed on fixes and real issues is so slow, a 100 year old grandma looks lightning fast.

Is the MM 2.0 a success or does it show that it has no practical use, besides their theory aspect ?

MM 2.0 is a huge failure, and doesn't provide any practical use.

Maybe some people don't know it, but either their Dev team has just a handful people in it, which would a explanation of their slow speed or they still have no dude in charge who sets the right goals, aka focus on the important stuff.

You might ask on what i mean exactly, well they are happy developing tier 10 (which we don't need), pulling out a new Dealer with questionable vehicle tiering (yet again), released a questionable OP T5 Premium tank (it is OP as fuck), release a new map who is designed for MBTs for the most part (they still have a shitty map design) and last but not least the so called MM 2.0, which might work out in theory but has no practical use (they still don't get on what they need to do).

Overall, patch 0.13 has little to no improvement, as the big statements are more incomplete than complete. The new Dealer has a lot of wrong tiered vehicles, the MM 2.0 is a failue, the new map is stupid to play and the PvE SPGs still focus 1 player.

Shishkin reworked Tech Tree up to tier 8.5

Here comes the second part of my reworked dealers.

Sidenotes :

• T-64A added to T5.5
• T-64BV added as i think it could fit (not entirely sure, as i have low intel on T-series)
• T-64BM added as i think it could fit (not entirely sure, as i have low intel on T-series)
• T-84 Oplot added
• T-80 has become the T-80B
• T-80U added
• Olifant MK2 added (may fit better as a tier 5)
• Falcon Turret Challenger added
• XM8 and M8 merged again, as they should have both guns as a option for different gameplays
• CV90-120T replaced the fiction PL-01

Reasoning :
All vehicles that moved up or down a tier, need to be toned up or down, to fit the tier. 

• I split the T-series as they will do in future between the 2 tankplants. Added different versions of the T-64 and T-80, but like i said above , not entirely sure about the possible upgrades and basic strength of those. Someone with more knowledge regarding T-series, might have changed some of them.
• The Olifant MK2 might be aimed a little to high, as it could fit tier 5 better, but for now i think tier 5.5 could be close to its probably estimated performance.
• Falcon Turret should be a nice addition to the series, despite i would rather see it as an ugprade option for the Challenger 1 itself. I think My.com and OBE would have done it as a unique tank and not an upgrade.
• Yes the Ariete is Italian, but the main part is british origin and we need to place the Ariete somewhere.
• Ramka, Terminator(premium) and BMPT 72 are now in the MBT Support role. My reasons are that those are based on MBT hulls, which makes them already stronger than most AFV hulls, and their main purpose is to assist MBTs and Infantry in Urban Warfare.
• Warrior is placed where it should be on tier 6. It is old and has a bad weapon system, and with its armor and armor kits it should be able to survive better on tier 6 against other AFVs, like the Bradley already does.
• BMD-4 is for now tier 6.5, although it could be tier 7 again, but only with the 4M upgrade.
• Stingray in its current state could be at best tier 5.5, but i removed it with the Stingray 2, to give the player a good tracked variant with good survivability options.
• XM8 / M8 will be 1 vehicle again, as they had it before, but with 2 gun options. This should be done parallel and not following, as i think that both gun options could suit different play styles regarding alpha damage or dpm.
• PL-01 got removed as this vehicle is pure fiction with nothing but a mockup and it will be replaced by the original CV90-120T

Conclusion

The main reason why iam not entirely sure about the T-series, is the possible upgrades per vehicle and the possible basic stats from real life, as they need to fit the overall tier , before a buff or nerf. Personally i don't like to research the same upgrades on the same vehicle, just on a different tier then, as it doesn't feel well thought , nor is it fun to research the same ammunition for the 3rd time on the 3rd vehicle. (Leopard series, iam looking at you)

I didn't add another tier 8.5 vehicle ( regarding the Challenger 2 LEP ), because it is yet unknown on who will win the competition for it, nor do i want to drag out the same vehicle just on a different tier then.

Overall i wanted to not add vehicles that are not ingame yet (T-64A for example is, but not enabled), but in the end, i tried to minimize it and just show on how it could be to a certain point. 

There are more vehicles which you could add, but high tier vehicles need a well though moment, as i see only the latest and best variants for that. This means a basic armament which could suit the possible tier and the survivability must be given. (armor and technology)

If you have thoughts on improving both reworked tech tree, just post it in the comments with a small description on why you would do it.

Wölfli's reworked Tech Tree up to tier 8.5

Introduction

I was thinking quite a while, if i do a tech tree or not, and how i would design it within the current available vehicles. Personally I'm against 10 tiers as i don't think that this is necessary and the idea of having half tiers like you have in WTGF seems to be a good solution regarding match making and "power creeps".

My main reason is, that you will effectively boost vehicles to fill up the tech tree, due the nature of the current development of combat vehicles.

If you look closely to the current situation and do some research by yourself, you will notice that almost every AFV in the high tier area, is boosted with no regrets to fill up the tech tree and add some variety besides MBTs.

MBTs are the main engage of every Army, therefore are those the most advanced and used vehicles out there, and that is why it will be hard to find other vehicles that suit the tier.

Wölfi reworked

Sidenotes :

• Leopard C2 Mexas on T5.5
• Leopard 2A4M Can on T7
• M1A2 Tusk on T7.5 (this is mostly a placeholder to something that would fit better)
• M1A2 Sep V3 on T8.5 
• Swingfire removed as i don't know where to put this
• SPGs and Premiums not included due obvious reasons

Reasoning :
All vehicles that moved up or down a tier, need to be toned up or down, to fit the tier. 

• Leopard C2 Mexas follows the Leopard 1A5 as one of the most recent upgrades to the Leopard 1.
• Leopard 2 moved to tier 6.5, because without an armor package (Evo kit which is T8 material) and the current balance situation it is just not worth to be on tier 7.
• M1 Abrams moved to tier 6.5, because it just has a 105mm gun and shouldn't be on tier 7, as that tier should be represented by 120mm and 125mm MBTs.
• BMP-1P replaced the BMP-1, as i think the upgrades are not worth to be a tier 4.
• BMP-3 and BMP-3M are placed on tier 6, because the upgrade is not worth to be on tier 7. I split them into both , to keep both vehicles ingame, but overall i would just add the 3M as an upgrade option.
• Wiesel moved to a new role, which is not primarily spotting like VBL or Crab (viewrange and viewrangeeffectiveness), but to more a combat role. Therefore it should receive a weaker recon package compared to previous mentioned pure recons.
• Draco moved to tier 8 and right after the Wiesel to represent the combat role better. Overall i would say it should be placed into a SPAAG role in the AFV class, but we need more SPAAGs in first place.
• Crab is the successor of the VBL, therefore it should represent the increased firepower, as that tier would suit the maximum capabilities of the 30x113mm autocannon. The Crab represents the current highest tiered recon.
• LAV-600 and M1128 are down tiered , because logic and limits in their weaponry ( 105mm ). Even then the M1128 is boosted to fit tier 7, but not as much as on tier 8.
• You might noticed as well that i put the "TD's" as a role in the AFV class, due i think we just need 3 classes in general with different roles inside that class. MBTs ( Heavy Combat, Light Combat and Support ), AFV's ( Recon, IFV's, High Caliber tracked [LT], High Caliber wheeled [TD], Combat ) and SPG's ( Wheeled, Tracked, Mortar ) 

Conclusion

I think that this is a better approach to high tier and to lower the amount of possible power creeps, just due the technology jump. Using half tiers, might be a good approach for vehicles that are too strong to downtier them for a full tier, but to weak for the current tier. It also allows a better transition to different vehicles without overbuffing them.

Top tier AFV's are reserved for the latest upgrades of  fairly new vehicles. Also i would not put any AFV on tier 8.5, as i think that MBT's are the alpha animals on the battlefield and other classes are not meant to be that in first place, despite the "balance" .

Patch Notes 0.13 *dis vehicle balancing FailFish*

 Introduction

So finally they released some patchnotes for the first big patch this year. Let us have a look on what they did change and if they finally step up their balancing regarding vehicles. Below here is the overall summary out of the patch notes, also i deleted some of the PvE stuff, since i don't care about the fixed maps, unless i have played them again. (Theory vs Practical use)

Basically this update is about the new dealer which adds Chinese Tanks and the new MM 2.0, whom i waited long enough . I just hope that the MM 2.0 delivers , otherwise i don't see me playing this game in future. As for the dealer, well i will try them, but from what i have read, those tanks are most likely boosted to fit tiers again, which make them rather bad, but we'll see.

Update 0.13 does bring several major features that include:

• Third Dealer Zhang Feng with 7 new Chinese MBTs
• New Coastal Threat PvP map
• PvE and PvP Reward System overhaul
• PvE Consumable Cost Changes
• PvE Artillery Changes
• Matchmaker 2.0

New Features


Third Dealer Zhang Feng with 7 new Chinese MBTs

• Type 59 (Tier 3)
• Type 69-II (Tier 4)
• Type 80-II (Tier 5)
• Type 85-IIM (Tier 6)
• Type 90-II (Tier 7)
• Type 98 (Tier 8)
• WZ-1224 (Tier 5 Premium)

Coastal Threat Map

Coastal Threat spans 1200 x 1200 meters in size and is roughly comprised of one third urban areas intermixed with rolling terrain. While designed to offer players several different sections for head on engagements, Coastal Threat primarily focuses on mixed movement - enabling players to find plenty of routes to flank enemies or set up ambushes. More details can be found in our preview.


Conclusion


I played this map during the Alpha and by the looks of it right now, they replaced an accessable area with a great lake in the middle. Although i didn't played this map ever since, but replacing an area which was part of the map, with an area which you can't enter, aka "deadspace" is not that good actually. The bad performance was mostly due the countless objects you put on load for the GPU and replacing it with a lake or an area which you can't access ain't the way to do it, but we'll on how the map will be played now.
I just think that this is another MBT map, just from the looks, and this is what we don't need at the moment.

PvE and PvP Reward System Overhaul



In the previous rewards system, PvE had lower Gross credit earnings than PvP, but had virtually no costs (aside from consumables). While the net results for average matches were similar for players with average performance and no boosts, high performers and players with Premium Accounts or other multipliers didn't have an opportunity to shine.


We considered several options for addressing this, but ultimately, we decided that PvE needed to function more similarly to PvP in order for the systems to be equitable. We considered reintroducing ammo and repair costs, but those didn't scale properly for PvE maps. Instead, we've introduced a new cost - "Logistics Costs" - for PvE missions on Medium or higher difficulty, and vastly increased Gross rewards. This will make Medium or higher rewards more performance dependent, as well as benefit more from any kind of multipliers (such as Premium Accounts and Premium Tanks).


Conclusion

While i agree that PvE needs to be a valid choice, i don't think that raising the income to pvp levels is the way to go. As for example you can farm missions in EVE Online in a 0.9 sec, fairly safe but on a low income base, while doing missions in the deadspace in a -0.5 space rewards you with more income, due the higher risks.
Although this is different than AW PVE, i think that PvE needs either a really high chance to not have success in the higher levels and difficulties than you have in lower difficulty. If we start to give them a similar amount of money for a guaranteed win, this ain't the way to go. This doesn't mean that PvE is worse, but it is by far easier to have a high winrate or successrate than PvP, and therefore it shouldn't have a similar reward at all.


PvE Artillery Changes


AI-controlled artillery was changed to reduce the focus on a single player. More details are available in detailed patchnotes below.

Wow, that they even used this as a valid tactic for the AI is kinda bad. It is one of the worst mechanics you could add in that mode, especially when you are not playing a Brickwall vehicle .


Matchmaker 2.0


We've updated our matchmaking system to provide an overall better experience to players looking for more balanced matches. Previously, players would often find themselves placed against full platoons in higher-tiered vehicles without an equal number of equivalently tiered vehicles on their team.


Platoons will now be matched against equally tiered platoons or players who match the top tier in the platoon. For example, a platoon of 3 tier 8s can only get into a match if the match has three other tier 8s (platooned or not). Artillery is also more strictly matched so their tiers are balanced between the teams. While this means platoons will sometimes have to wait longer for a match, solo-queue players should now find themselves in matches with other similarly-tiered players and a balanced number of platoons.Additionally, solo-queue players should also find it easier to get into a match, even at higher tiers.


Finally, the introduction of Matchmaker 2.0 also brings with it new server-side controls which allow us to more easily tweak the matchmaking settings based on individual region needs.


Conclusion


So i hope for them that these changes are not all changes regarding the MM, otherwise they really need to hire some guys that have some skills in their own game and some sense for solo queue players. I agree that the platoon stuff needs to be done and hopefully this is working out, but if this MM 2.0 is as punishing as the previous MM to higher skilled solo queue players, than this game won't attract solo players, since your game punishes them for being good.
Just saying that i have no problem with a challenge, but having always the worse out of the worst players isn't entertaining, nor can i play vehicles that don't have high carry capabilities, because i would lose in those more often due your MM. However i will check closely if they done their job or not, otherwise i will drop the game most likely.

List of 0.13.1881 Changes


Gameplay Mechanisms

Retrofit and Commander Changes

The commander Freya Højbjerg can now also be unlocked on the BMD-1 and the commander Juan Carlos Miramon can now also be unlocked on the Swingfire. We've added a new retrofit called 'Reinforced Wheels'. As its name suggests, Reinforced Wheels improves the durability of your vehicle's wheels and treads by adding additional hit points to the module. The Reinforced Wheels Retrofits are unlocked on the following vehicles:

• Mk.1 is given out automatically to all players
• Type 69-II (Mk.2)
• Type 90-II (Mk.3) 

Conclusion

It would make sense to have this retrofit, if you feel the difference with a "red" wheel and a "yellow" wheel or a non damaged wheel, but currently you barely feel any difference i would say. And even then, you just stop and repair them to "yellow" and have no drawbacks. You might need to check your balance department here


Component & Crew Damage Adjustments

• Reducing saved component damage percentage from 50% to 30%. However, components will now take less damage if their saving throws succeed
• Saving throws have gone up for all components. All components got a 5% increase except for crew and gas tanks, which got a 10% increase. It will be harder to deal maximum damage to these components
• Hit points have been slightly increased for all components, except for treads, which now take 2 critical hit shots to destroy
• Repair speed has been increased for tracks and engines. Tracks now repair in 6 seconds, engines in 7 seconds
• Destroying an external gas tank now has a 35% chance to start a fire on the vehicle
• Destroying an external gas tank now also causes a 5% penalty to vehicle traverse speed
• While the external gas tank is in the destroyed state, there is a 15% greater chance the engine could catch fire if it is shot
• Fire damage to internal components has been slightly decreased. Fewer components should now enter the damaged state after a fire starts

Conclusion



So in short you get less module damage, but can easier track people, while catching a fire lowers your mobility, but you have an increased repair speed. I think those are important changes and we'll see on how these develop and change the gameplay for some tanks. Low mobility tanks will suffer most from this i would say, especially if you can set them on fire fairly easy.

Vehicles

Armor Rebalance


In order to improve the reward for successfully flanking enemy main battle tanks from behind, a global armor adjustment has been done on all MBTs from Tier 2 to Tier 9. This results in an effective reduction of roughly 20% armor protection on the rear portion of the hull from Tiers 2 through 6 and 40% for Tiers 7 to 9. The nominal values for tank armor will not be changing, only the composition of the steel.
This change is primarily benefits automatic cannons; there should no longer be cases of MBTs being completely impervious to damage regardless of where they are shot - attacking from directly behind should always result in penetration. Behavior amongst TDs, MBTS and LTs should be unaffected. This is the beginning of a broader iteration to normalize MBT weak points, with MBT side armor being the next portion to be evaluated on a vehicle by vehicle basis.




Conclusion


Okay, i think that reducing the rear- and sidearmor of MBT's is a good step forward, but i think it would make more sense to introduce MBT's with their estimated real life armor values for the side and the rear. This would mean that either most MBT's have to be nerfed to do so or some are even below their real life values, which shouldn't be the case i would assume.
Regarding the nerf itself, i think this will hit mostly the MBTs that had great side armor anyways, while the MBT's with a low amount of sidearmors won't get hit by the nerfbat as hard as previous mentioned tanks. My concern would be, if the tanks that lost a lot with this nerf, get something else in return or on how much they will drop in performance.

BMP-1P


The BMP-1P wasn't as clear of an upgrade over the original BMP-1. As such, we've given it several firepower improvements:

• HE damage increased by 10%
• Rate of Fire with all standard rounds increased by 10%
• Rate of Fire with ATGMs increased by 20%
• Aim-time decreased from 2.8 seconds to 2.6 

How is it with just replacing the BMP-1 on tier 3 with this one ? It would make sense and has a lot of potentitial upgrades then, with some different paths as well, but instead they are buffing the firepower even more. Firepower is not the only stat which you can balance, sometimes a vehicle just doesn't fit the tier.

BMP-2


While the BMP-2 isn't suffering quite as much as the BMP-3 and BMP-3M (see below), it's still performing somewhat below standards, and we're giving it some minor improvements that are appropriate for the theme of the line.

• Autocannon clip reload time decreased from 7.5 seconds to 6.5 seconds
• ATGM reload time decreased from 16 seconds to 14.29 seconds

It is basically not easy to play, because the lack of gundepression and the restriction with the ATGM launcher. Though i don't know exactly on how the external launcher works, but iam pretty sure that you can move it up and down a bit, and this should be introduced as well, since your own positioning restricts the usage of ATGMs right now.

BMP-3


The BMP-3 has always been more of a brawler/skirmisher than most AFVs, but it's lacked the efficiency to make that style as viable as it should be. We've made a broad range of improvements focused on increasing its close combat effectiveness.

• 100mm gun damage increased from 314 to 329
• 30mm stock AP damage increased from 68 to 75
• 30mm upgraded AP damage increased from 72 to 78
• 30mm stock HE damage increased from 51 to 56
• 30mm upgraded HE damage increased from 54 to 59
• Stock ATGM damage increased from 597 to 653
• Upgraded ATGM damage increased from 656 to 686
• Autocannon clip reload time decreased from 7.5 seconds to 6.5 seconds
• 100mm gun peak accuracy improved from 0.136 to 0.125
• 30mm gun peak accuracy improved from 0.1466 to 0.125
• ATGM reload time decreased from 13.33 seconds to 11.25 seconds

If you want a "brawler or skirmisher" you need to be able to succesful kite your way in and out, and now tell me if buffing the firepower helps you with brawl or skirmish better ? Whatever those guys are smoking, smoke less please. If you want the BMP-3 to be a brawler you need to buff its survivability, which means hitpoints, a good mobility and the right options for armor kits to survive autocannons of the same tier up front. 
That is how a brawler should be and you describe in your patchnotes something which the BMP-3 will never be unless you make said changes and not just buff its firepower. This just shows that you don't know anything about giving vehicles or a class a identity while buffing something completely different.

BMP-3M


Similar to the BMP-3, we've made some improvements to the BMP-3M to increase its brawling prowess.

• 100mm gun damage increased from 378 to 401
• 30mm stock AP damage increased from 88 to 90
• 30mm upgraded AP damage increased from 92 to 95
• 30mm stock HE damage increased from 66 to 68
• 30mm first upgrade damage increased from 69 to 71
• 30mm second upgrade damage increased from 71 to 73
• Stock ATGM damage increased from 686 to 751
• Autocannon clip reload time decreased from 7.5 seconds to 6.5 seconds
• Upgraded ATGM damage increased from 755 to 789
• Autocannon clip reload time decreased from 7.5 seconds to 6.5 seconds
• 100mm gun peak accuracy improved from 0.129 to 0.12
• 30mm gun peak accuracy improved from 0.139 to 0.12
• ATGM reload time decreased from 11.76 seconds to 11.11 seconds

Same as above, but the BMP-3M should be more another version on tier 6 or an upgrade for the BMP-3. Increasing the firepower for every AFV that "underperforms" will snowball into something really bad. Tiering is important and while we are on this again, YOU need to step this up, unless you want to buff every AFV after some time with some more firepower to make it on par with same tiered vehicles.

This just doesn't cut it.

LAV-300


The LAV-300 is in a pretty good place, but it needs some minor improvements to increase its reliability and ease of use. We've increased its camo factor slightly to make it easier to stay concealed and provide synergy with the Tank Destroyer class ability, as well as given it some minor improvements to gun performance.

• Camo factor improved from 0.25 to 0.28
• Targeting Time decreased from 3.3 seconds to 3 seconds
• Peak accuracy improved from 0.136 to 0.12
• Hit Points increased from 1095 to 1205

A minor improvement would be a buff to gundepression, as this would help the vehicle more than anything else, next to a better upgradetree , regarding the AP shell at the end.

LAV-600


Similar to the LAV-300, the LAV-600 is performing just below average on most statistics. We're giving it a number of minor improvements similar to the ones we're giving the LAV-300, which we feel will help make it easier to use and more fun to play.

• Camo factor improved from 0.25 to 0.28
• Targeting Time decreased from 3 seconds to 2.7 seconds
• Peak accuracy improved from 0.099 to 0.09
• Hit Points increased from 1660 to 1830

Exactly what we need. A tiny bit of camo bonus and hitpoints, since we want to give the enemy the chance to farm more juicy free HP. In all seriousness , buffing the HP and the already worse Camo won't make it better when people have problem to point their gun down, due the lack of gundepression. The Peakaccuracy and aimtime might be a good change, but lets check on my current stats with it. I have like 2.2 seconds of aimtime with a lvl 3 or 4 crew, a booster and crew intercoms. Will the aimtime reduction help me ? Well i still have shitty gundepression, penetration and mediocre camo.

For real OE, people ask for GUNDEPRESSION and penetration or if you don't want to change the latter one, CHANGE THE RETROFITSLOTS. Why do i have to use a armor retrofit on a TD ?

T-64


We've improved the accuracy of the T-64 to be closer to the accuracy of an upgraded T-62

• Peak accuracy improved from 0.164 to 0.148

Uhm why ?


Player versus Player

• Designers have done a pass on the following maps to fix minor audio, terrain, camera, and map asset issues: Pipelines, Reactor, River Point, Lost Island
• Designers have done a global shadow & vegetation pass for consistency and optimization
• Platoon members will now spawn near each other on all PvP maps

Lost Island

• Designers have completed an optimization pass to reduce the performance impact of Lost Island's vegetation when set to low

Just remove this crap map finally

Narrows

• Fixed an issue where capture circles and flares would be the incorrect color after reconnecting to the match

Just remove this crap map finally (it does look fine, but mapdesign is so limited)

River Point

• Fixed an issue where the vehicle range finder was intermittently disappearing
• Fixed an issue at G5 where players were unable to shoot between the building and destroyed airplane wing

Just remove this crap map finally (map rewards base camping, is never a good design)

Pipelines

• Added cover for the North team in order for them to counter the F0/G0 spots
• Adjusted the potential spotting areas on the hill at C6/C7 that allowed players from the north to quickly spot players exiting their spawn from the south
• Added spots of cover to prevent the North team from spotting the South team as they head from the spawn area to the refinery area
• Reduced the amount of cover available to the South team at H8/H9 in order to make it on-par with the North team's equivalent cover

Lets see on how these changes are working out, as i doubt it will help, but i need to play it first


PvE Artillery Adjustments

Reduced the desire for AI Artillery to fixate on just one target during a match. Previously, up to three Artillery were allowed to target a single player. This has been changed to two on hard. On easy/medium, only 1 arty should target a player at once. The only exception to this is if a player gets within 150m of an AI Artillery. Doing so will cause it to "panic" and have an increased chance to fire at the nearby player. Artillery that are panicked do not count towards the maximum number of Artillery allowed to fire at one target. AI Artillery will also still favor player Artillery greatly, but they will not fixate on it to the exclusion of other players. Further Artillery PvE changes:

• Changed the priority weights on SPG AI to encourage it to change targets if it can't see a particular enemy
• Moved Artillery Line-of-Sight checks to the LoS manager and added the current LoS to the SPG targeting logic
• AI will now attempt to target weak points starting with only MBTs on medium
• Added Commander Sight and Gunner Sight as weak points for AI Artillery to target
• Fixed an issue where visibility wasn't being tracked properly for counter-battery targets
• Modified how turret yaw and pitch affected enemy AI spread values to make the AI less accurate while aiming at a moving target
• Fixed an issue with AI Artillery not waiting until it was properly aimed at a target before firing
• Fixed an issue where AI would fire when their target was directly behind the AI's turret
• Fixed an issue where AI would potentially shoot before they were aimed directly at a target
• Fixed an issue that would sometimes cause AI not to fire if it was attempting to target weak points too far away from the center of its target vehicle
• Cleaned up AI weak point targeting code

Sounds like a spaghetti code.


Overall Conclusion

While they fixed a lot and introduced some new stuff, which is absolutely okay and good, i don't think that they understand on what balancing means regarding the vehicles in this game. I will repeat myself again, as this seem to be the biggest struggle for them, tiering is very important and balancing in the right areas of a vehicle is the major part to have a successful techtree. 
Having statistics and understanding those are two different things, and going full fiction mode or balance the game for the worst players won't do it.