Introduction
I couple of weeks ago i talked via Teamspeak with at least for me a good friend who is named Obey (from NA) about the situation in and around Amored Warfare .We both are active since the very first start of the game back in the Alpha phase and despite some different opinions about some classes or vehicles , at the end we had somewhat the same view of the game.
We all want that AW will be a good game and has success, even though lately i think that we can agree here, that they made a few mistakes which could have been avoided actually. Personally i have a more critical point of view and i have no problem in saying or writing that.
This doesn't mean that AW is currently in a bad shape or that it has only flaws , though i don't know the influence of my.com / mail.ru and their possible pressure on Obsidian. Another thing might be the contract and different things that are bound with it .
However to get directly to the reason why iam writing this, is the point of view which Obey had when it came down to the armor upgrades for vehicles.
Topic
The reason why he said it, was that you want mainly a change in the look of the tank when you mount or demount some of the unlock able armor upgrades for vehicles, especially MBT's . By thinking of that, iam came to the conclusion that he is right about that. The vehicles themselves don't change a lot when you update your gunbarrel or install new shells or GLATGM's and so on. This means that the only visual upgrade you have are either smoke launcher (which is currently not working as it should) or armor upgrades for the vehicles.
I know that this might be a small issue, but as we look at the Leopard 1A5 as an example, the visual upgrade is not complete, where it should actually and those small things make the game so much better as you see the progress visualy . There are some vehicles where you have such armor upgrades and see a different visual setting when you mount them. If iam not mistaken the T-72 / T-72A / B1 Centauro / M1A1 / M1A2 / Ariete / M60A3 / T-64A / Stingray 2 / XM8 / MGS1128 Stryker / BMP-3 / BMP-3M ? / Chieftain (even though it is small ) / Challenger 1 and i think Challenger 2 as well .
Those are the ones i can recall in my mind, if i forgot a vehicle i will add it later on . Overall it depends on how much vehicles they want to add and how much they want to split those up to either have a huge number of vehicles or what i would like more, less vehicles but more detailed, but this is my personal opinion as i don't see a reason to have the same tank / vehicle over and over again.
What i really like to see are more upgrade options for the visual change of the vehicle. This can be with working smoke launchers (even if you don't have them, they are on the model which is sad) , armor kits , like the ones mentioned before or even thermal jackets for the gun barrel or customised storage cases for the crew and so on.
The first impression of a vehicle when you have it on elite status, should be the change of the visual design which comes along with upgrading, so you have yourself a satisfying look when you see your progress actually. Like i said before this might be not that important, since your current balance is in many ways not good at all, but you should think about those details and first impression when you introduce new vehicles. Sometimes is less , more and nobody is forcing you to release 10 vehicles a month .
My current example of a missing armor ugprade would be the PzH 2000 with its IGEL armor , even though there are a few options for the T-62 / T-64 or like mentioned in the previous post the Leopard 1 had quite some changes as well or the Falcon Turret for the Chieftain / Challenger and so on .
Conclusion
Go for more quality when you introduce vehicles ( more upgrade options who are changing the visual look ) and less quantity. I have no doubts that most players are looking forward for little details and visual changes with further progress .
Sunday, 29 November 2015
Saturday, 28 November 2015
Leopard 1A5 issue
The issue i mainly have, is that the model is not correct for the Leopard 1A5. While i think it is better to have a option here for both turret version's (A5 and A3 actually) the overall issue are the missing sideskirts.
A short information about the overall look changed within the version.(just the look, not internal stuff)
Leopard 1
Leopard 1A1 : Thermal jacket and sideskirts
Leopard 1A1A1 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and the known additional turret armor
Leopard 1A2 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretarmordesign (Cast turret design)
Leopard 1A3 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretdesign (Welded turret design)
Leopard 1A4 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretdesign (Welded turret design)
Leopard 1A5 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and the known additional turret armor
Leopard 1A1A1
Leopard 1A2
Leopard 1A3
Leopard 1A4
Leopard 1A5
You see all Leopard 1's with the beginning of the A1 Version (sadly hard to find that picture) had sideskirts, though the Belgian Leopard 1's for example had a different design and if i see that correct the sideskirts are out of metal instead of kevlar .
In Armored Warfare the Leopard 1A5 is missing those beautiful looking sideskirts, which should be not the case at all !
In Short :
A short information about the overall look changed within the version.(just the look, not internal stuff)
Leopard 1
Leopard 1A1 : Thermal jacket and sideskirts
Leopard 1A1A1 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and the known additional turret armor
Leopard 1A2 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretarmordesign (Cast turret design)
Leopard 1A3 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretdesign (Welded turret design)
Leopard 1A4 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and a different turretdesign (Welded turret design)
Leopard 1A5 : Thermal jacket, sideskirts and the known additional turret armor
Leopard 1A1A1
You see all Leopard 1's with the beginning of the A1 Version (sadly hard to find that picture) had sideskirts, though the Belgian Leopard 1's for example had a different design and if i see that correct the sideskirts are out of metal instead of kevlar .
In Armored Warfare the Leopard 1A5 is missing those beautiful looking sideskirts, which should be not the case at all !
In Short :
- add the sideskirts to the 1A5
- add the option to have the A3/4 Turret
- add the option to have the BE Army sideskirts + their turretdesign including SABCA
Friday, 27 November 2015
My class and role solution
Personally i don't think that there is a need for 5 classes on its own, as the overall common term for most vehicle's is AFV anyway and within the current "style" which we have there is really not a need to separate more than actually needed.
As you might see, i reduced it to the 3 basic classes which are divided in several roles themselves. In the current game there are already some roles, mainly in the AFV area, naming the Recon bonus or the Troop compartment bonus for IFV's .
My reasoning to put the LT and TD vehicles into the AFV class is fairly simple. Both current classes rely on mobility combined with a higher camo rating than MBT's and SPG's as well as having a high caliber weapon system for the most part. Overall you play LT's and TD's somewhat the same. The main difference between those 2 classes and AFV's is the view range and the camo mechanics .
1) MBT
I divided the MBT's in 2 roles to fit. One will be the heavy armored one and the other is the light armored role. By thinking of that , i tried to divide it by the actual weight, but that won't make a big difference as western MBT's tend to be heavier , even for light armored MBT's.
These role bonuses are just a suggestion on what you can do, while i think that the heavy armored bonus is quite nice as a role bonus inside of the class. The Light armored role bonus should make it, that those MBT's are better at snap shooting when they face heavy armored MBT's . It should be mentioned that this needs a balancing, so heavy armored MBT's don't lose too much for having armor .
However this more likely focused on early cold war / past 2nd WW MBT's , such as the Leopard 1 for example or later on the TAM, which would fit perfectly the light armored role .
2) AFV
IFV are correct ingame and their current role bonus is okay for what they do . I have some ideas for improvement, but those are not necessary at the moment, which is the same for Recon's as well. The main reason is the High Caliber role.
Overall i would give them a steady camo, like the current AFV's have, while this one ain't that high , but it is steady and doesn't increase while standing still as it is at the moment if iam not mistaken .
LT's
TD's
As for LT's iam looking forward to give them a better ECU as at the moment it is not noticeable for most LT's and a better ability to be a "quickscoper" with the option to flank better. You might as well want them to have a higher HP pool or better traverse speeds as well.
TD's is a "class" which i personally don't think is the right name for it. Most people consider something different with that name , while in the current setting, there are no Tankdestroyers anymore, though the vehicle's that have a high caliber gun are most likely to be in a support role with the option to engage in emergency a enemy MBT .
I would increase the ability to be a effective sniper, while you rely on your precision and not the overall damage.
3) SPG
The main reason why i would have a difference in here, is the different agility with a wheeled or tracked SPG system. I was thinking of adding the Mortars as an extra role, but those are tracked or wheeled as well, so it might fit it better with just having that difference .
Wheeled
Tracked
Though iam not sure what to add here, but i'am sure that Obsidian will make enough mistakes in future to jump on the SPG bandwagon. That to be said from what they said in their Q&A i already had a facepalm when i saw future "high tier" SPG choices ....
Conclusion
I think that reducing the classes to 3 and adding one or more roles to the classes itself will be the way to go . This should add a identity to most vehicles that are in game or in the future, as it can be easier to add a role than trying to fit a vehicle into a class itself . However some PJSalt will come tomorrow with a "problem" that bugs me quite often :(
My reasoning to put the LT and TD vehicles into the AFV class is fairly simple. Both current classes rely on mobility combined with a higher camo rating than MBT's and SPG's as well as having a high caliber weapon system for the most part. Overall you play LT's and TD's somewhat the same. The main difference between those 2 classes and AFV's is the view range and the camo mechanics .
1) MBT
I divided the MBT's in 2 roles to fit. One will be the heavy armored one and the other is the light armored role. By thinking of that , i tried to divide it by the actual weight, but that won't make a big difference as western MBT's tend to be heavier , even for light armored MBT's.
- Heavy armored role bonus - HP Bonus | Higher Crew Resilience
- Light armored role bonus - Penetration and damage bonus vs same class | (less bloom when traversing compared to the same class)
These role bonuses are just a suggestion on what you can do, while i think that the heavy armored bonus is quite nice as a role bonus inside of the class. The Light armored role bonus should make it, that those MBT's are better at snap shooting when they face heavy armored MBT's . It should be mentioned that this needs a balancing, so heavy armored MBT's don't lose too much for having armor .
However this more likely focused on early cold war / past 2nd WW MBT's , such as the Leopard 1 for example or later on the TAM, which would fit perfectly the light armored role .
2) AFV
IFV are correct ingame and their current role bonus is okay for what they do . I have some ideas for improvement, but those are not necessary at the moment, which is the same for Recon's as well. The main reason is the High Caliber role.
Overall i would give them a steady camo, like the current AFV's have, while this one ain't that high , but it is steady and doesn't increase while standing still as it is at the moment if iam not mistaken .
LT's
- medium camo rating
- ECU should increase the max speed for the time and the "boost" should be noticeable like it is on the Exp. Tank
- If ECU is not used, you have a higher hull traverse and turret traverse ... maybe ?! (active the boost and passive the agility for the ECU aka NOS setup)
- vision range should be higher than MBT's , but lower than IFV's and Recons
- add higher shell velocity speeds (1400ms+) as a role bonus
TD's
- medium to slightly better camo rating
- instead of damage while fully aimed, it should reduce the normalisation and increase the accuracy
- when spotted you gain increased acceleration for 2 seconds ... maybe ?!
- vision range should be higher than MBT's , but lower than IFV's and Recons
As for LT's iam looking forward to give them a better ECU as at the moment it is not noticeable for most LT's and a better ability to be a "quickscoper" with the option to flank better. You might as well want them to have a higher HP pool or better traverse speeds as well.
TD's is a "class" which i personally don't think is the right name for it. Most people consider something different with that name , while in the current setting, there are no Tankdestroyers anymore, though the vehicle's that have a high caliber gun are most likely to be in a support role with the option to engage in emergency a enemy MBT .
I would increase the ability to be a effective sniper, while you rely on your precision and not the overall damage.
3) SPG
The main reason why i would have a difference in here, is the different agility with a wheeled or tracked SPG system. I was thinking of adding the Mortars as an extra role, but those are tracked or wheeled as well, so it might fit it better with just having that difference .
Wheeled
- Increased gun arcs for the "turret" / "weapon system"
- higher recoil feedback after the shot (bigger bloom)
- better mobility
- worse rate of fire / maybe slower shell speed as well
Tracked
- no 3 shot magazine loader, but single loader ! :^)
Though iam not sure what to add here, but i'am sure that Obsidian will make enough mistakes in future to jump on the SPG bandwagon. That to be said from what they said in their Q&A i already had a facepalm when i saw future "high tier" SPG choices ....
Conclusion
I think that reducing the classes to 3 and adding one or more roles to the classes itself will be the way to go . This should add a identity to most vehicles that are in game or in the future, as it can be easier to add a role than trying to fit a vehicle into a class itself . However some PJSalt will come tomorrow with a "problem" that bugs me quite often :(
Tuesday, 24 November 2015
Playerbase and Patch / Update progress
- Short Introduction
Within the recent Patch , where they introduced tier 9 the forum went somewhat upside down as far as i can read it, though iam not that active in the My.com forum at the moment. For the most part i already expected this to happen as well as the balancing issues that were introduced with it.
From my point of view there are a couple of reasonable points which my.com (they select the patch actually) didn't expected or calculated well, as for example the Player base or the failed balancing in high tier battles .
- In depth Player base
Even before the Open Beta, the RU cluster had more interest in a tank game or higher numbers than both EU and NA together. I guess this never changed regarding the playernumbers , even though the interest is good in both western regions as well, maybe not that hyped up like on the RU server.
This is not an excuse of course, since we have a most likely direct contact with the Dev's and to a certain point a lot of influence which player's didn't had in both other tank games i would say.
However i think that the Player's need to understand that there is a difference in gaming culture between RU and EU/NA , and that certain moves like the Super Test is on RU cluster (they have a lot less problems with having bugs, while NA is from what I've seen in the forum really picky, while EU isn't that strict) or being ahead in terms of releasing patches (about 1-2 weeks), so they can "test" it live, is somewhat okay for me and should be accepted by the western audience, at least for the part of being ahead with the patches, not so much about the Supertest.
Opinion
On the other hand, Obsidian should check to what people they are listening and what the results are. There is no doubt about the current result, that there was clearly a forum influence to favor certain parts of the community, at least it looks like that to me. This means as well that the current population which seems to be stagnating on EU and NA, by quite a margin , is not that good for the future of the game and Obsidian itself.
- Patch / Update progress
At the moment the RU server gets Patch 1-2 weeks before EU and NA , which i would say is okay, not a problem itself. A problem is, that the Russians obviously want their toys as fast as possible, meaning the T-14 needs to be available to them. This could be either a requirement from mail.ru / my.com or the player base over there itself. I can't tell you which of these 2 points is the problem, but going down that road, will be a problem for the EU and NA server, as mentioned before, both have not a very high player count compared to the RU server.
What this means is, that the few player's on the EU and NA server who have a tier 8, will have a tier 9 with a included PowerCreep and a even longer queue time with even more frustration for those who are still grinding . Competition is nice, as for games and ingame , but with such high PowerCreeps in between some of those tiers, it will end up in a downhill for the game itself on both mentioned servers.
EU and NA just don't have the player's to back up such tier difference, as for the RU server, it doesn't seem to be a problem , because they just have more players available. Another thing is, that from my knowledge the Russian's like to test their own stuff, meaning T-series all over the place, which is fine, but not if you count that into your statistics for balancing. If i'am not that mistaken , the current best T9 you can have is a T-90MS, which might be a wrong signal to most players who had bad experience's with such things, or otherwise called RU BIAS all over again . If the western audience is critical about stuff, then it is about BIAS, especially Russian bias again, due the bad past experience .
I guess you can take this all with a grain of salt, but you can do it fairly easy to avoid this. Literally you have 2 options.
- First you just develop the game for the Russian market, so the western audience is not there to be the cow.
- Second you don't focus the Russian market as your main audience.
If we see this with a realistic point of view, both options are not available. While the first one would be the easiest way to develop a game without having the western audience and their requirements for a good game, you won't earn a lot of money that way, at least i would assume that, since in WoT it is somewhat the same . To mention another point, Obsidian wouldn't be hired in that case.
The 2nd reason is probably the most favored one by the western audience, but not possible since the Company which makes this Project able to work is from Russia and they probably have requirements to what the game needs to have (T-14 ...... ).
Opinion
I know this will be a lot more work and might have some toxic replies, but in the current state of the game, they need to have different game versions and progress. Meaning add those tier's when the player base is healthy on EU and NA , and not only on RU, which is the current case. Next to that you really need to work on your Basic game itself before adding tiers.
At the moment you don't have a healthy player base on EU and NA, nor is there a balance for tier 6, tier 7, tier 8 and tier 9 now.
Monday, 23 November 2015
Balance Parameters which i find important (Part 3)
As for the last part, i will go more into a general section about different balance parameters, which are important nonetheless , but not the first or second step from my point of view . Those parameters will be Gunhandling and Retrofit slots .
Gundhandling is one important part when it comes down to give the vehicle a identity , or a certain playstyle. There are quite a few steps to improve a vehicle via the gundhandling, some are hidden stats (might be less important or for balancing reasons or for not having a overload of data) and some are shown. It also depends on the class itself and the overall vehicle design and its capabilities .
My favorites in order of importance
Bloom - can be really annoying, as for example in SPG's and your slightly rotate your turret the circle goes wide and the re aim takes ages. Some regular vehicles have similar "issues" as it is clearly a balancing case, at least i would see it like that.
Shell velocity - Some may ask on why i rate it higher than aim time, well accuracy and shell velocity go hand in hand actually. The reason why i would like to see more often different shell speeds, is that some vehicles would be really good with a higher speed, as it would fit their playstyle a lot, while on the other hand not every class should have it to be fair. If you rely on sniping, shell velocity is a huge improvement to fit that role even better , so it should be considered that some classes get a higher velocity as a basic setting for all type of shells .
Aim time - is really important as it effectively lowers the time you are vulnerable or showing yourself the enemy. Though you can slightly work around a high aim time on some vehicles and classes with stopping beforehand and move slowly forward, so the bloom (look what is 2nd :) ) gets minimized . As mentioned for accuracy, this stat can be improved with retrofits.
Penetration Power - is a value which should be based of its caliber, shelldesign, shellmaterials, other factors like weather influence as a passive influence . Next to the real life points it should be considered, that there needs to be room for boosting it , to either fit the class or tier, but just to a certain point. Overall penetration power defines your actual role in a vehicle, as it limits you in your actions on the map itself. With low PP you need to be picky about your targets and have possibly more outplays to be good, while high PP just needs the right shell choice .
Shell variety - This is more a general and nice to have point, as this game promotes all its 3 general shell types , besides the 4th time, which are the support shells. KE, SC and HE are the 3 main options you have and depending on how they are put in the tech tree you will need all 3 of them to be good in almost every situation . For me it is important as different targets and situations require a different shell to use, so having these options is always a + for me.
Magazine Size / time - A really tricky part when it comes down to balance are vehicles that use a magazine, even though if i were Obsidian, i would limit this as much as i can, due the fact that magazine's are hard to balance. (either OP or UP, rarely I've seen the middle)
The reason why that is so, is the output in damage you can deal in a short amount of time. Either you pull out a ton of damage or you reach the point where the tradeoff is in a best case scenario good and in most cases equal or worse . Eitherway you balance it with the size and time, and latter one is the most important part here. And because of that, i still suggest to limit this kind of weapon system as much as you can, which means, don't transform vehicle's to be a magazine loader , while they are not in real life. (Abbot , Palmaria, Akatsiya, PzH 2000)
Damage - Why is damage the last ? Well Obsidian shouldn't promote a vehicle because it can one or two shot other vehicle's. This kind of playstyle isn't funny for the receiving end and will promote a rather one sided game itself, which should not be the goal . Though damage is an important stat, the focus on it, might be not as important as people might think. In the current state the difference is really big while the caliber difference isn't or as another example the difference in between the tier's and the damage increase to justify a improvements is not given, but sadly ignored to give people a reason to unlock that. The Power Creep is real at the moment .
Thoughts
This is just a general opinion and each class needs a clear identity, not only on paper and in the description, but shown in gun stats as well, as they do it with camo rating and vision. As this is meant to be a more general point, some vehicle's might need some extra love besides a class identity.
Retrofit slots
With the introduction of the retrofit system, Obsidian made a good call and another parameter to balance a vehicle. Some people might not see this potential, but if you take a closer look, retrofit slots can change a vehicle by quite a lot .
The reason on why that is so, are the retrofits itself, which give you certain bonuses too either boost a stat to be better, like adding a higher damage potential or view range, while it can negate somewhat bad stats, like a high aim time or bad accuracy . This potential is quite big and having 2 rfs or 4 rfs is a difference in power you can add. However rfs need to fit the class and vehicle, though Obsidian needs to figure out on what rfs fit it. I don't want to have a armor rfs on my TD in first place, as the possible boost is not big enough of an improvement , even though why would i boost this area of a vehicle anyway ?
Regarding that "problem", Obsidian needs to test those things out before they release a vehicle. Player's usually looking forward to get the maximum out of 1 vehicle, meaning they want to have a high efficiency or the best possible performance. Sure different player's have a different point of view and focus on certain stats, but overall they build similar things as they detect weak and strong parts of a vehicle .
The number of rfs decides on how much you can change the vehicle performance. The more slots you have , the more different load outs you can try and figure out strong and weak parts to be boost worthy.
The kind of rfs you can add is important as well, as this one limits you down to the 4 areas ( Armor / Firepower / Mobility / Technology ) or if they are generous you get universal slots, which are the best case scenario by far . For myself i would say, that limiting classes or vehicles to certain retrofits, shows the focus they should go down with the playstyle or if you want to say it like this, you define the direction .
Thoughts
Overall retrofits add another part of balancing, which is really good, but they need to be aware of the influence with the rfs themselves .
Gundhandling is one important part when it comes down to give the vehicle a identity , or a certain playstyle. There are quite a few steps to improve a vehicle via the gundhandling, some are hidden stats (might be less important or for balancing reasons or for not having a overload of data) and some are shown. It also depends on the class itself and the overall vehicle design and its capabilities .
My favorites in order of importance
- Accuracy
- Bloom
- Shell velocity
- Aim time
- Penetration Power
- Shell variety
- Magazine Size / time
- Damage
Bloom - can be really annoying, as for example in SPG's and your slightly rotate your turret the circle goes wide and the re aim takes ages. Some regular vehicles have similar "issues" as it is clearly a balancing case, at least i would see it like that.
Shell velocity - Some may ask on why i rate it higher than aim time, well accuracy and shell velocity go hand in hand actually. The reason why i would like to see more often different shell speeds, is that some vehicles would be really good with a higher speed, as it would fit their playstyle a lot, while on the other hand not every class should have it to be fair. If you rely on sniping, shell velocity is a huge improvement to fit that role even better , so it should be considered that some classes get a higher velocity as a basic setting for all type of shells .
Aim time - is really important as it effectively lowers the time you are vulnerable or showing yourself the enemy. Though you can slightly work around a high aim time on some vehicles and classes with stopping beforehand and move slowly forward, so the bloom (look what is 2nd :) ) gets minimized . As mentioned for accuracy, this stat can be improved with retrofits.
Penetration Power - is a value which should be based of its caliber, shelldesign, shellmaterials, other factors like weather influence as a passive influence . Next to the real life points it should be considered, that there needs to be room for boosting it , to either fit the class or tier, but just to a certain point. Overall penetration power defines your actual role in a vehicle, as it limits you in your actions on the map itself. With low PP you need to be picky about your targets and have possibly more outplays to be good, while high PP just needs the right shell choice .
Shell variety - This is more a general and nice to have point, as this game promotes all its 3 general shell types , besides the 4th time, which are the support shells. KE, SC and HE are the 3 main options you have and depending on how they are put in the tech tree you will need all 3 of them to be good in almost every situation . For me it is important as different targets and situations require a different shell to use, so having these options is always a + for me.
Magazine Size / time - A really tricky part when it comes down to balance are vehicles that use a magazine, even though if i were Obsidian, i would limit this as much as i can, due the fact that magazine's are hard to balance. (either OP or UP, rarely I've seen the middle)
The reason why that is so, is the output in damage you can deal in a short amount of time. Either you pull out a ton of damage or you reach the point where the tradeoff is in a best case scenario good and in most cases equal or worse . Eitherway you balance it with the size and time, and latter one is the most important part here. And because of that, i still suggest to limit this kind of weapon system as much as you can, which means, don't transform vehicle's to be a magazine loader , while they are not in real life. (Abbot , Palmaria, Akatsiya, PzH 2000)
Damage - Why is damage the last ? Well Obsidian shouldn't promote a vehicle because it can one or two shot other vehicle's. This kind of playstyle isn't funny for the receiving end and will promote a rather one sided game itself, which should not be the goal . Though damage is an important stat, the focus on it, might be not as important as people might think. In the current state the difference is really big while the caliber difference isn't or as another example the difference in between the tier's and the damage increase to justify a improvements is not given, but sadly ignored to give people a reason to unlock that. The Power Creep is real at the moment .
Thoughts
This is just a general opinion and each class needs a clear identity, not only on paper and in the description, but shown in gun stats as well, as they do it with camo rating and vision. As this is meant to be a more general point, some vehicle's might need some extra love besides a class identity.
Retrofit slots
With the introduction of the retrofit system, Obsidian made a good call and another parameter to balance a vehicle. Some people might not see this potential, but if you take a closer look, retrofit slots can change a vehicle by quite a lot .
The reason on why that is so, are the retrofits itself, which give you certain bonuses too either boost a stat to be better, like adding a higher damage potential or view range, while it can negate somewhat bad stats, like a high aim time or bad accuracy . This potential is quite big and having 2 rfs or 4 rfs is a difference in power you can add. However rfs need to fit the class and vehicle, though Obsidian needs to figure out on what rfs fit it. I don't want to have a armor rfs on my TD in first place, as the possible boost is not big enough of an improvement , even though why would i boost this area of a vehicle anyway ?
Regarding that "problem", Obsidian needs to test those things out before they release a vehicle. Player's usually looking forward to get the maximum out of 1 vehicle, meaning they want to have a high efficiency or the best possible performance. Sure different player's have a different point of view and focus on certain stats, but overall they build similar things as they detect weak and strong parts of a vehicle .
- number of rfs
- the kind of rfs
The number of rfs decides on how much you can change the vehicle performance. The more slots you have , the more different load outs you can try and figure out strong and weak parts to be boost worthy.
The kind of rfs you can add is important as well, as this one limits you down to the 4 areas ( Armor / Firepower / Mobility / Technology ) or if they are generous you get universal slots, which are the best case scenario by far . For myself i would say, that limiting classes or vehicles to certain retrofits, shows the focus they should go down with the playstyle or if you want to say it like this, you define the direction .
Thoughts
Overall retrofits add another part of balancing, which is really good, but they need to be aware of the influence with the rfs themselves .
Friday, 20 November 2015
Balance Parameters which i find important (Part 2)
Well sorry for no update, but Fallout 4 is a great game and recent mistakes in Armored Warfare , didn't make me want to play or test it , sadly.
However let's continue with balancing parameter's. The first part was about the view range, as vision is the key factor to be successful, which means seen or don't be seen will make a difference . The following point is somewhat big and important, as it should change the outcome for classes and the tier .
Tier and Classification will decide if you get different bonuses like "designated target" or ECU or more damage when fully aimed, so picking the right class is important for a vehicle to fulfil it's task . What comes as well is the tier, as in the current game some vehicles are "boosted"^10 to fit a tier, while doing this, the balancing will be even harder without losing their logical approach to the game.
Tier
1)
To start things off, the possible upgrades is a big point, as it will somewhat decide on what tier you will end up. For example a engine or armor change can be huge, depending on the tech which is used, and this can change a vehicle to put in up or down a tier . A good example could be the Leopard 2A4 here, which can be tier 6 and if rated high, tier 7, but if you add for example the Evolution Armor kit or the RUAG kit ( should be same level as the Evo kit, but not that sure), it should be rated tier 7 minimum, better tier 8, due the performance of the kit itself and the upgrades which are available to those kits.
2)
Not every vehicle is basically designed to be friendly to upgrade, as some are just developed to either skip a time window or overextend the time window while suffering mechanical problems or being rather fast obsolete in terms or armor, weapon system etc. . Production start , age and the options decide on what tier you should start looking for. If a vehicle is developed in the same ERA / AGE as other vehicles , it should be in the same tierrange , depending on upgrade capabilities.
For the last point it is important to notice that the time of introduction of the upgrade is important as well.
3)
Within the time of service vehicles have most likely some downsides next to their up's, those should be reflected as a balancing parameter and a reason on why you do so. Most vehicles have downsides and with further upgrades you will add some downsides as well. For example if you add additional armor kits without upgrading the engine, the vehicle gets heavier by nature and slower, which should be reflected in game .
4)
Last but not least the weapon system is a major decider on weather it goes up or down a tier. If a vehicle starts with a 20mm cannon and with newer upgrades you can add a 40mm cannon, the result should be either, make 2 vehicles out of it or balance the vehicle to fit a higher tier, which means if you start with the 20mm cannon you will be somewhat restricted to what you can do, till you end up having the 40mm cannon, on which the vehicle itself is balanced for.
Both decisions have downsides, as if you split it up, you will have almost 2 identical vehicles , where the difference might be the weapon system + some armor upgrades, which is the best case scenario, though the worst is, you just have the weapon system as a step up. On the other hand if you balance it for the 40mm cannon in this case, the vehicle will have a tough grind and most likely result a free EP to the 40mm to be useful .
I'd like to see the 2 vehicle variant more often, but make sure you get a lot of upgrades ready for this type of choice, as researching the same things over and over again, might be boring .
Classification
1)
The real life role and task of the vehicle should be shown in game, while it is clear for most vehicle's , for some it might be different. Yes iam looking at you IKV 91 / 105 . Its classification is a Tank Destroyer, but for me it is more a Light Tank regarding the game. Another one is the Centauro 155/39 LW , which is designated as a SPH , but in game it was a TD as the developers said the limited arc of turret rotation , made them believe it is better to be a TD .
While iam clearly against this choice, as i don't see a reason to not "buff" the arc a bit to make it viable as a Arty as they have "fixed" other vehicles as well to fit tiers etc. , so i don't see a problem with that. Another reason on why i'm strictly against this choice, is the caliber which will cause a more "nuke" style of play, which is not fun to play against .
2)
This point is somewhat difficult to explain, as for example a "wrong" classification would be the Leopard 1, while for me it is clearly a MBT, it's play style and maneuverability should be classified as a LT in this case. However i wouldn't mind if the MBT class itself gets at least 2 roles like "light MBT's and heavy MBT's" or something like that. (AFV's have for example IFV's and Recons as a role)
Size itself is a good indicator on what camo value you have, though it seems it is not like that at the moment, sadly. I mean it is not that important as a point, but a box looking vehicle has a better camo rating than a vehicle that is half the size of the box looking vehicle, makes me feel awkward.
3)
A really big decider and like mentioned before in the tier section , it will decide not only what class you will end up, but the tier as well. If we break it down i would handle it like this, at least for the most part.(mid to high tier)
My thoughts
In general the weapon system is just a part of the whole thing for the classification, but it should be reflected in the class and later on in the tier. I don't want to see things like i need to see right now with the CRAB (30x113mm) vs the DRACO (76x636mm)[not sure actually about the cartridge length but it is a naval gun] , while the only difference is that the DRACO deals more damage. For me this is just the reason why these points should be considered and checked before picking anything for the vehicle .
Their current balance of tiers and probably some class choices (Cent.155 maybe) doesn't make sense or has any logic, due i question the guys who are in charge of this, since they really need a clear direction of what they want to have on what tier in what class and how they want to have the high tier game play . Reading the forum from time to time and the current feedback is exactly what i have foreseen and said before, but i guess we are all humans and like to do mistakes even if we told so, that we shouldn't do it :^)
However let's continue with balancing parameter's. The first part was about the view range, as vision is the key factor to be successful, which means seen or don't be seen will make a difference . The following point is somewhat big and important, as it should change the outcome for classes and the tier .
Tier and Classification will decide if you get different bonuses like "designated target" or ECU or more damage when fully aimed, so picking the right class is important for a vehicle to fulfil it's task . What comes as well is the tier, as in the current game some vehicles are "boosted"^10 to fit a tier, while doing this, the balancing will be even harder without losing their logical approach to the game.
Tier
- capabilities of the vehicle (possible upgrades and version)
- production start / age / upgrade capabilities
- in real life downsides of the vehicle
- weapon system
1)
To start things off, the possible upgrades is a big point, as it will somewhat decide on what tier you will end up. For example a engine or armor change can be huge, depending on the tech which is used, and this can change a vehicle to put in up or down a tier . A good example could be the Leopard 2A4 here, which can be tier 6 and if rated high, tier 7, but if you add for example the Evolution Armor kit or the RUAG kit ( should be same level as the Evo kit, but not that sure), it should be rated tier 7 minimum, better tier 8, due the performance of the kit itself and the upgrades which are available to those kits.
2)
Not every vehicle is basically designed to be friendly to upgrade, as some are just developed to either skip a time window or overextend the time window while suffering mechanical problems or being rather fast obsolete in terms or armor, weapon system etc. . Production start , age and the options decide on what tier you should start looking for. If a vehicle is developed in the same ERA / AGE as other vehicles , it should be in the same tierrange , depending on upgrade capabilities.
For the last point it is important to notice that the time of introduction of the upgrade is important as well.
3)
Within the time of service vehicles have most likely some downsides next to their up's, those should be reflected as a balancing parameter and a reason on why you do so. Most vehicles have downsides and with further upgrades you will add some downsides as well. For example if you add additional armor kits without upgrading the engine, the vehicle gets heavier by nature and slower, which should be reflected in game .
4)
Last but not least the weapon system is a major decider on weather it goes up or down a tier. If a vehicle starts with a 20mm cannon and with newer upgrades you can add a 40mm cannon, the result should be either, make 2 vehicles out of it or balance the vehicle to fit a higher tier, which means if you start with the 20mm cannon you will be somewhat restricted to what you can do, till you end up having the 40mm cannon, on which the vehicle itself is balanced for.
Both decisions have downsides, as if you split it up, you will have almost 2 identical vehicles , where the difference might be the weapon system + some armor upgrades, which is the best case scenario, though the worst is, you just have the weapon system as a step up. On the other hand if you balance it for the 40mm cannon in this case, the vehicle will have a tough grind and most likely result a free EP to the 40mm to be useful .
I'd like to see the 2 vehicle variant more often, but make sure you get a lot of upgrades ready for this type of choice, as researching the same things over and over again, might be boring .
Classification
- in real life role / task
- size / armor / maneuverability
- weapon system
1)
The real life role and task of the vehicle should be shown in game, while it is clear for most vehicle's , for some it might be different. Yes iam looking at you IKV 91 / 105 . Its classification is a Tank Destroyer, but for me it is more a Light Tank regarding the game. Another one is the Centauro 155/39 LW , which is designated as a SPH , but in game it was a TD as the developers said the limited arc of turret rotation , made them believe it is better to be a TD .
While iam clearly against this choice, as i don't see a reason to not "buff" the arc a bit to make it viable as a Arty as they have "fixed" other vehicles as well to fit tiers etc. , so i don't see a problem with that. Another reason on why i'm strictly against this choice, is the caliber which will cause a more "nuke" style of play, which is not fun to play against .
2)
This point is somewhat difficult to explain, as for example a "wrong" classification would be the Leopard 1, while for me it is clearly a MBT, it's play style and maneuverability should be classified as a LT in this case. However i wouldn't mind if the MBT class itself gets at least 2 roles like "light MBT's and heavy MBT's" or something like that. (AFV's have for example IFV's and Recons as a role)
Size itself is a good indicator on what camo value you have, though it seems it is not like that at the moment, sadly. I mean it is not that important as a point, but a box looking vehicle has a better camo rating than a vehicle that is half the size of the box looking vehicle, makes me feel awkward.
3)
A really big decider and like mentioned before in the tier section , it will decide not only what class you will end up, but the tier as well. If we break it down i would handle it like this, at least for the most part.(mid to high tier)
- 105mm, 115mm, 120mm and 125mm should be MBT caliber, while i would like to see 120mm and 125mm only in high tier. (bye bye M1 Abrams on tier 7)
- 90mm, 105mm, 120mm and 125mm should be the range for TD's, while the 90mm stuff should be ending on tier 5 like it is now. Though i don't know about the 105mm and 120mm LRF performance, but it shouldn't be less than a 60 year old 105mm rifled one :^)
- 90mm, 105mm, 120mm and 125mm is the range for LT's, even though i would say , depending on the vehicle the 90mm could go up to tier 6 max, due the overall play style maybe . The 120mm and 125mm should be high tier only ,as for reasons.
- AFV's are different as most of them come with a ATGM, which actually decides on what tier they can be . However only bigger calibers like 35mm / 40mm + etc. should be seen in high tier for the Autocannon , with the exception of having a ATGM which is capable of the tier in a dual weapon system. (AC+ATGM and not AC or ATGM )
My thoughts
In general the weapon system is just a part of the whole thing for the classification, but it should be reflected in the class and later on in the tier. I don't want to see things like i need to see right now with the CRAB (30x113mm) vs the DRACO (76x636mm)[not sure actually about the cartridge length but it is a naval gun] , while the only difference is that the DRACO deals more damage. For me this is just the reason why these points should be considered and checked before picking anything for the vehicle .
Their current balance of tiers and probably some class choices (Cent.155 maybe) doesn't make sense or has any logic, due i question the guys who are in charge of this, since they really need a clear direction of what they want to have on what tier in what class and how they want to have the high tier game play . Reading the forum from time to time and the current feedback is exactly what i have foreseen and said before, but i guess we are all humans and like to do mistakes even if we told so, that we shouldn't do it :^)
Tuesday, 10 November 2015
Balance Parameters which i find important (Part 1)
Balancing is the main goal for having a great game and a good balance in between the classes, though every class has somewhat a different focus on them or approach and reasoning. In the past i was wondering why they buff certain areas for a vehicle, while it doesn't change that much the outcome, at least from the first point of view.
My general parameters of importance for balancing .
View range - in this game it is all about the vision itself. Usually AFV's have the highest view range, since they are supposed to scout, even if they are not recons in this case. View range can be balanced with a couple of things:
The basic value is giving you somewhat of a direction and a possible choice on weather you want to invest in vision retrofits or not, as well as unlocking upgrades which add vision range or visioneffectiveness .
A big thing which makes this part hard to balance in high tier is the tier boost itself, though if you "gain" a tier, aka you buy a higher tiered vehicle, you want it to be an improvement to its predecessor, so you keep adding the basic value in view range. This can lead to the unfortunate problem that higher tiers reach vision range levels which are far beyond lower tiers, even in classes who are not supposed to scout / or have high view range in general .
The only difference will be the vehicle's own camorating then.
My focus :
I would focus on 2 things actually, the basic value and the vision upgrades for the vehicle. Basic view range is the most important one, as you set here the role basically, while vision upgrades are a bonus to either give you a advantage within the same class or to boost the basic value .
My general parameters of importance for balancing .
View range - in this game it is all about the vision itself. Usually AFV's have the highest view range, since they are supposed to scout, even if they are not recons in this case. View range can be balanced with a couple of things:
- basic value
- kit ( recon kit on AFVs for example )
- vision upgrades which extend the range
- vision upgrades which make your vision more effective (thermal view)
- retrofits ( universal or technology slots)
The basic value is giving you somewhat of a direction and a possible choice on weather you want to invest in vision retrofits or not, as well as unlocking upgrades which add vision range or visioneffectiveness .
A big thing which makes this part hard to balance in high tier is the tier boost itself, though if you "gain" a tier, aka you buy a higher tiered vehicle, you want it to be an improvement to its predecessor, so you keep adding the basic value in view range. This can lead to the unfortunate problem that higher tiers reach vision range levels which are far beyond lower tiers, even in classes who are not supposed to scout / or have high view range in general .
The only difference will be the vehicle's own camorating then.
My focus :
I would focus on 2 things actually, the basic value and the vision upgrades for the vehicle. Basic view range is the most important one, as you set here the role basically, while vision upgrades are a bonus to either give you a advantage within the same class or to boost the basic value .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)