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.

How to not launch an Event and how to do it better

The recent Mercenary Showdown event is a good idea and probably a reason on why more players are playing the game, due the rewards you can get. Whoever side you have picked you will get some Premium Days and if you are in the top 100 ranking you will get some gold as well.


There are 3 major flaws on how they launched this event.

1. even if this is fiction the background of the faction is quite badly chosen
2. showing the current reputation earned for each side
3. Top 100 can be easy achieved by just playing T9 or high tier in general (basic rep gain)

Point 1 

What we got here is the typical good vs evil with a history background from ~ 70 years ago. Bad germans all the way, this could have been some propaganda from the 2nd WW actually. As for the other side we have the white knights that are fighting for the good and probably against the evil.
 This is some of the worst cliché I've seen lately and i need to say, that i never would have expected something like this as a "fictional background story". If you play titles like RTCW , you can expect it, and you won't wonder about it, but here... ? I mean really .... ?

What they need to change !

They need to change the background to be not biased to past historical events, or in other words, Mercenary Corp A has its origin in Germany and has base out of german speakers, as well as they use german manufactured vehicles for the most part. Their Commander likes to use their large numbers of MBT'S to  force a quick win or flanking maneuver and also has no problem in losing material on the field, but that counts only for the Tanks not the Crew as he sees them as part of the family.
Mercenary Corp B has  their origin in the former eastern europe and consists mostly out of polish or cze/sk speaking members. They do like to use fast and lightly armored vehicles and have a small number of MBTs as well, next to their Commander who is a calm and smart regarding the best tactic to lower the amount of casualties.

This is just an example on how you can do it, but this way no one is the straight up bad  or good one, but they use different tactics to achieve their goal as well as they have a different opinion regarding material overall.

My.com really needs to step up and go away from historical actions and overall bad prejudgement.


Point 2

If you start an event where 2 factions compete with each other for the win and the better bonus you want to not show on who is the winning side. The result is if you let people know on who is winning or losing, people will pick the faction who is winning and not losing.
If people would not know on who is winning currently, until the results are posted at the end of the event, they will pick the faction which either fits their mindset or point of view regarding good vs evil, or if they like specific types of vehicles which has been given out as background or if they just like the symbol or colours.

Those thoughts come directly to my mind, and therefore this should be prevented in the next event as this is just a bad choice overall for all players.

What they need to change !  

Just not show the earned reputation for the whole faction until the event has ended. This basically denies win team joiners and every player can the pick faction which he likes most. What you need to have in mind here, is that even showing your current amount of earned reputation for the player can be somewhat bad, as players might show on how much they earned right now and sum it up to give a direction, maybe.

Another way could be, that the reward itself is the same for both the winning and losing team. Therefore this shouldn't be your choice when you can prevent easy, this situation with the previous mentioned idea.

Point 3

If you are in the Top 100 for either side you will get rewarded with some extra gold. This is how they advertise it, and actually this sounds reasonable to try to go for it. What they didn't had in mind is their "reward" system for each tier, which clearly favours those who are playing only high tier.
You might ask on why this is bad ?
Well if they considered to push high tier battles or numbers of players, i guess this is the way to do it, but what is with those players that don't have high tier vehicles ?
The basic reputation in high tier battles is way higher than you have in low or mid tier, due their tiering and tech tree system which requires more reputation the higher you go. To maintain a decent speed of progress the basic reward is higher than it is on lower tiers. This means simply, you just need to play T8/9 and gain even in a bad game more reputation than a player in the mid tier area who had a good game.

The result is, the Top 100 will be most likely only players that played high tier during the event. There might be players in the mid tier bracket, due the sheer amount of games, most likely, but overall i see 90% only high tier players in that.

What they need to change !

The top 20 players for a dual tier bracket (tier 1+2 , 3+4, 5+6, 7+8) and the top 10 players for the single bracket (tier 9) will get the extra reward for contributing a lot for the faction.
What you can do as well is making a difference between PvP and PvE, so the top 10 players for a dual bracket and the top 5 players for the single bracket for each gametype (pvp | pve) will get the extra rewards etc. .
This is one way to do it, and already better than just saying the Top 100 player for each faction will get something extra. Your current system will punish all none high tier players the most.


Conclusion

I just hope that they learn out of their mistakes this time :^)

My.com fails and OE's attempt for balance

 My.com and events

Since the playerbase seems to be stagnating to a certain point, my.com had the feeling that they need to roll out some events which attract some players for a certain timeframe, and probably hope that they stick to the game a bit longer. The event(s) itself are quite good, as you can grind relatively fast during the given timeframe, but as it is, there is already a drawback.

Suiciders in PvP and stupidness in PvE, to get as much "doubles" or vehicles with reputation and money out of the event. Well you can't do anything against that, except making these kind of tactics inefficient, but as we know within the current system, this won't happen in future.

This is just an example, and maybe they got a bit spotting damage, but overall you get a lot for doing nothing. I could post another one, where a player done some intentional teamdamage / teamkills and still gone out with more EP than someone who done 1 shot with damage.

However to get to my point which i find pretty amusing and awful at the same time is their planning of events and how they perform those. I can understand if you launch your first event for a game, you will get experience from that and hopefully learn out of your mistakes. Obviously this is not the case for My.com employees or the overall staff that is involved in that.

First they have problems with the timezones, as they obviously were confused on what they said and what setting they used to launch the events.
Second part which is funny, is that they have problems with the right event gifts, as for some they are shown and for some other they are not.
Third is interesting as well, which affects the my.com launcher. You can claim a daily bonus, but that seems to be bugged without a doubt. Sometimes you can claim, sometimes you can not, or you get an error message and so on .

I don't know if they are learning out of their mistakes, but iam honest here, as it does not seem that they have the right persons in charge of those events or they are simply not capable of learning out of their fails and mistakes. I'm not picky when it comes down to customer service, but for sure these constant fails are a bit embarrassing to be honest.

OE's attempt to balance high tier

Lately they posted some pictures of their shiny tier 10 tanks, who are a combination of various upgrades from different periods of time with a cool new name.

There are two things we need to bear in mind when considering a vehicle for Armored Warfare:

• Its role in the game and any possible issues connected to it
• Historical accuracy

Inventing a new Version of a Tank seems really historical accurate, but as SilentStalker already said, those are not fantasy tanks, as in the past some of the upgrades were tested, but never reached the final production stage, so it is valid and historical accurate. I think WGN had the same argumentation when they introduced some of their tanks.
Guess we have some

here. :)

A nice coincidence i would say.

However most of them will have a high caliber , like 140mm or 152mm most likely. I find it really interesting when i have read their FAQ about the game and the their intention of balance.

We try to avoid vehicles that potentially represent a balance risk. Perhaps the most obvious of these would be the various tank destroyers or self-propelled guns of extreme calibers such as the British FV215b with its 183mm gun.

Yes there is still a difference between 140mm, 152mm and 183mm or 170mm, but overall the result will be the same. I would think of the lovely ISU with the BL-10 in WoT, where you can cripple almost every tank of the same tier for the whole match with just 1 penetrating shot.

we want to specifically avoid having such unbalanced weapons with potentially too high single shot damage (damage generally increases with gun caliber).

Interesting isn't it ?

Well Obsidian is probably aware of the tier 10 situation with the assembly kit vehicles, and they choose to try to balance them to the previous tier. I would have quoted that part, but i can't find it in the forum and i'm not that much willing to search for it . From what i have in mind, they don't want to have a power creep again, or maybe not an obvious one, therefore i don't see tier 10 anyway in the close / near future nor is it good anyway.

I don't know if they or even most of the community that can't even wait for another tier of imbalance, are aware that spreading a small playerbase even further is a good thing, but they should think about it. Another big item is the tier imbalance overall , which needs to be solved before adding a new tier. I know this is a logical move and i fully understand that Obsidian and My.com are not thinking logical when it comes down to map design, tiering and tier balance, but we can not give up here.

In short on why tier 10 and tier 9 are bad :

• small playerbase -> spreading the players even further, resulting in less players (EU and NA, RU maybe not so much )
• no balance to the next higher tier, starting at tier 6 and up
• balance starts at the bottom, not the top of the table (T7 needs balance, T8 needs balance)
• Introduce T9 and T10 when all western servers have enough players
• T10 is pure prototypes and fiction, based on "future" projects (your game won't last long enough to see actual T10 tanks for all other nations)

Conclusion

My.com does not learn out of mistakes when running events and OE tries to balance from the top to the bottom. The only reason why i "play" AW are those events, otherwise this is the first game for me, where you get punished for being interested in it. I really wonder on how long OE can resist the pressure from Mail.ru in releasing T10. (SS and his spaming mod Crew, said that this part is not true, but we know that already when they introduced T9)