Short AW moneygrab

This won't be a long or good formated post since I write from my mobile, I do hope it is somewhat readable.

So I've been checking out the forum more or less often and even a bit reddit. Probably all the people who reading this blog more or less, are critical and hopefully in full control of their wallet. AW recently and I mean for me it seems like every week,had at least 1 money grab. Spending money on something you like is fine,but AW has nothing to offer and especially nothing new for a few more month.

No content, same xp or gold events to shorten the friend for content which ain't released yet. I mean they want you to spent money on aepnd product that has no new content for month. All they do is offer cash grabs in one or another way.
They kick out one dev team to replace with another while no one knew about it.
They say we are equal on all servers yet we have still a shitty forum which is run in a dictator like manner nor do we have anything close in events as the Russians.
They have no official statement for their dev team change, yet they claim that they have a post somewhere in a 100 page thread which explains it.

I mean seriously what kind of people are working there. Totally incompetent over the past 2 years with no improvement in regard learning out of mistakes.

What you read a lot is, it is beta, well it is, that is why they charge money relatively often, or 0.19 and 0.20 will be good quality patches, well I can read following excuse when 0.19 after working on it for several months has a ton of bugs. "Was due the development team change"

Usually I agree that if you work longer on something the quality gets higher, but as of now I doubt that we won't have problems with said patch.
Now they even said that they want to cut it down in content to release it earlier. What the fuck is this please? Less content for a patch which should be released last year and now it might come maybe or eventually in March.

I've said it before their planning is a disaster, they are incapable of learning out of mistakes and the blunt way to present cash grabs every couple of weeks is the only thing they are good at.


In all seriousness this is one of the worst ways I saw a game die due sheer incompetence.

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.