Jump to content


Mathematics Contributor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Xelos

  1. Could just be... trolling you 40k plus games vs 4k games, 6000 hrs vs. 700 hrs hm why doesn't he git gud.
  2. Considering what it took to get things like indirect fire removed I'm curious what mail was saying behind the scenes in response to these types of changes. AW and MWO are case studies for devs to beware the dev/publisher divide. If you don't control the monetization scheme of the game you are developing then you'll be more likely to run into design issues. Do you have those 40+ pages of notes available?
  3. You are joking right? RU published games are terribly monetized relative to NA bucket. Why buy gold, premium, insignias, ect ect when I can go buy Smite, CSGO, Overwatch for a flat fee and not deal with the janky monetization meant to slow people down and buy stupid stuff. If any departing OE devs want to share the cryengine code now would be the time.
  4. TLDR: New reloading mechanics adds variability. Autoloader mag being discussed hotly on forums due to potential firepower. Ready rack (lap loading also considered) gives some number of rounds a bonus to load speed but then your reload speed is reduced until rack is full. Everyone gets smoke charges now. APS limitations implemented, no longer 360 degree coverage. Not sure what HE changes mean gameplay-wise. Ammo-rack changed to damage over time fire-effect. Hiding in bushes more powerful, light tanks get a big buff to camo overall based upon my reading.
  5. RAPID FIRE MECHANISM To introduce more diversity to high Tier gameplay, we have decided to add the Rapid Fire mechanism to several vehicles in Armored Warfare. Vehicles equipped with Rapid Fire will be able to fire several shots in quick succession but then will have to wait for a longer time for the crews to fill the magazine with shells again. There will be two types of Rapid Fire mechanism: Autoloader Magazine Ready Rack Autoloader Magazine is basically just a clip. The vehicle can fire the shells in the clip but then has to wait for them to reload for an extended period of time. Ready Rack is a bit more complicated. Vehicle equipped with Ready Rack has several shells stored for quick use and can fire them in rapid succession before having to wait for a long for the Ready Rack to load again. Unlike the autoloader magazine, however, the vehicle does not have to wait for the entire Ready Rack to fill and can fire immediately after the next shot is loaded. Only once two shots or more are loaded in the Ready Rack can the vehicle fire in rapid succession again – in other cases the loading time is significantly lower. Rapid Fire mechanism will initially be introduced to the following vehicles: T-14 Armata (Autoloader Magazine, 4 rounds) T-90MS (Autoloader Magazine, 4 rounds) Merkava IID (Ready Rack, 3 rounds) SMOKE MECHANISM CHANGES In order to introduce more diversity between classes, we have decided to update the Upgraded smoke grenades and smoke discharger mechanisms. All classes will be able to fire a number of smoke grenade rounds or discharger charges in quick succession before having to wait for an extended period of time for them to reload. Additionally, the total amount of smoke grenades or discharges available will be limited for come classes. MBT Class – 1 round, 80 seconds reload time, 5 rounds in total AFV Class – 2 rounds, 80 seconds reload time after both are spent, 8 rounds in total TD Class – 2 rounds, 80 seconds reload time after both are spent, 8 rounds in total LT Class – 3 rounds, 60 seconds reload time after all 3 are spent, 9 rounds in total REDUCED GUN AND CUPOLA DAMAGE Based on both the community feedback and our own internal discussions, we have decided to change the way the Commander Cupola weakspot works, especially on high Tiers. In the future, Commander Cupolas (if present) will only take 10% of damage from armor-piercing rounds and 25% of damage from HEAT and HE rounds. The HEAT damage bonus versus thin armor will, however, remain active. Exposed gun components on vehicles with externally mounted guns will take the same reduced damage as Commander Cupolas – this applies for example to the BMPT series, the T-15 or the M113 ACAV. It does, however, not apply to unmanned turrets (like the Armata has) or to the armored base of Remote-Controlled Weapons Station. APS CHANGES Another way to introduce more varied gameplay to Armored Warfare is the changes to various APS systems on different tanks. In Update 0.19, each APS will be fine-tuned individually. For example, the Armata hard-kill APS will have the following properties: Cooldown: 30 seconds Arc: 180 degrees Minimum range: 200 meters Magazine: 10 rounds HIGH EXPLOSIVE AMMO CHANGES In Balance 2.0, we changed the way the HE “splash” works. “Splash” is not triggered by ground explosions anymore, it only activates when the shell hits a vehicle. Upon hit, the Splash will “spill” over the vehicle doing damage to the thinnest armor it encounters. Thermobaric guided missiles such as the Russian Ataka-F will use the HESH mechanism rather than HE. AMMO-RACKING Ammo rack explosions are coming back in Update 0.19. Instead of causing an instant explosion, the affected ammo rack will instead blaze away, doing massive damage per second that can destroy any vehicle if not extinguished quickly. Vehicles with blow-out panels such as the Abrams series will be immune to ammo-racking or will have the damage caused by ammo-racking significantly reduced. SPOTTING MECHANISM CHANGES Update 0.19 is introducing a number of spotting mechanism and camouflage changes. Bushes will no longer lose full camouflage bonus when firing while hidden behind them (they will retain 33% of it). In Update 0.19, firing automatically reduces the camouflage bonus of all bushes within 15 meters to 33%. Additionally, the bush bonus itself was changed as well – in Update 0.18, the bushes gave 0.2 camouflage rating bonus that could stack with multiple bushes to 0.3. In Update 0.19, the bush bonus is increased from 0.2 to 0.3 and can stack up to 0.6 for multiple bushes covering your vehicle. Camouflage loss from firing was considerably reduced to 0.2 for Tank Destroyers and ATGM launches and to 0.25 for every other type of weapon and class. The duration of this penalty is also being reduced from up to 75 seconds (depending on circumstances) to 5 seconds flat. Additionally, players will have a roughly 0.25 second delay before the penalty kicks in in order to be able to start moving after firing without getting spotted instantly. The duration after which your tank will fade from enemy sights if spotting conditions are no longer met is reduced from 8 seconds to 5 seconds. To offset some of these changes, scout AFVs will receive a 30 meter viewrange bonus when standing still and will only lose 0.05 camouflage rating when moving. Light Tanks do not lose any camouflage rating when moving at all. https://aw.my.com/gb/news/general/balance-20-high-tier-vehicle-gameplay
  6. I didn't either when I was younger but as I became older it all just became a big time waste to get to "end game" content. The last game I played with my two friends who I game with was Neverwinter and we laughed at the content. Literally running through levels to get to end game content that was boring. I'd rather paid to skip to end content to find out it was garbage. My time is worth way more which is why i've mostly stayed away from multiplayer pve games. Aside if a dev could come up with an rpg somehow that involved dark souls type combat mechanics and hardcore permadeath/afflictions that made losing mean something I'd try it. For PvP I've been playing smite lately and their monetization model is one of the best I've seen. They have a low cost full unlock options to play the game without any grinding or you may grind to unlock characters/gods. They make most of their money on skins and pseudo-gambling (which I don't completely agree with but if I'm saving time so be it). If AW just had a P2P full unlock for the PvP game at least you'd see a lot more people in the game than this grinder model that really is just a pointless time suck.
  7. I've seen you around I know you are not but it is just how it came across based upon my reading. I think belorussian game design just aligns too closely to asian markets (grind grind grind) when I'd rather just pay2play. Personally if i had capital i'd build a flat mostly tier-less vehicular shooter, like csgo with vehicles.
  8. As a general rule of thumb if your DMG based metric isn't around your WR a proportion of that dmg is not effective. If your WR isn't around your DMG based metric there's a few explanations (platoon effect, non-damage plays that turn the game such as tracking and spotting, sharing HPs). In general I lean toward WR metrics as the purpose is to win but when trying to do a deep analysis of a particular player's skill then you need to use other metrics to supplement.
  9. I think you have an unrealistic view of the iterative game dev process like most gamers. You come across as a bit of a WoT fanboy based upon you analysis of the changes and dismiss the arty change as minor when in fact it is huge when compared to WoT. Alpha/Beta WoT was garbage and it survived, though market was a lot less competitive then. T-50-2s pulling F1 car level Gs, 10 artillery per side, extremely unbalanced vehicles for their tier (KV1s, KV1, KV2) sitting that way for too long and no physics to the effect you could tip your tank off a sheer cliff like a seesaw and shoot through the roof then back up to prevent falling.
  10. Coming from someone who for the most part wrote the game off I'll give them another shot especially if arty goes bye bye for good.
  11. Character-skill designed games (gear/vehicle) are garbage design for PvP compared to player-skill driven games. The more emphasis they put on collecting next tier the more people are driven to do just that instead of winning. This results in people derping to "farm" exp to get more powerful instead of getting gud. People play DOTA, Smite, CSGO, overwatch over and over and over not because they collect some useless piece of gear that makes them super powerful but because of the competitive design.Tier 5s won't fight tier 9s anyways so I don't get where you are going with this.
  12. It looks promising. Having played mostly smite for past year as my main competitive title I have wanted something more vehicular shooter that isn't WoT and hoped AW would be it. Cellphone companies regularly invoke their competitor's name to get people to switch. It isn't anything new. Who cares about "fails" at whatever tier, they'll get there either way and still probably fail if they after 45k games still are terrible. Go play any game out there and tomatoes are abound but that doesn't stop them nor should we want to because they are effectively better than average bots for people like me. That's what separates a yellow, green, purple in whatever game you play that relies more on player-skill than character-skill.
  13. The reason is to increase playerbase. Reason why games like csgo, overwatch, smite are so popular is because it is so easy to pickup and play a few games without ever thinking about progression. How would they implement it? Depends on how generous they want to be. I'd do something simple such as linking each WoT national progression line to dealer. If you've reached a tier 10 russian direct fire vehicle give a set of tokens pertaining to that dealer from tier 1 to tier 10. Only allow it once though of course. I'd rather there just be a pay2play option ala overwatch / csgo / smite than forced grind method.
  14. Given these changes I'll definitely give them another chance. My biggest remaining complaint is still the whole repeat of WoT grinding with no pay2play options. Allowing people to transfer progress from WoT accounts in some way by logging in and verifying the account would allow people to get into the game much easier.
  15. So as I play around with lumberyard tools (amazon's free version of cryengine), why not just remake AW as a ground up grind-less esport ala CSGO or MOBA-ish. The vehicle models AW bought aren't super expensive and need to be configured but overall this doesn't look that complex to build a game such as WoT in cryengine. Especially if you don't need to deal with creating overly complicated corridor maps or ai logic. And of course no arty.
  16. They need to do what would be akin to regression testing with vehicles. How many tier 8 X is equal to a tier 9 Y and so forth.
  17. In my opinion the game isn't really in a condition that deserves much of my leisure time. I'm checking back intermittently between patches but the game-play just hasn't stuck as being interesting and differentiated enough from WoT.
  18. (Repost from /r/armoredwarfare) Been some talk about MBT mobility. I did some testing, feel free to replicate it or expand upon it with other vehicles and terrains. Test Vehicle: Leo. 2AV (Tier6) Map: Ghost Field Commander: Sabrina Driver: 4% (Acceleration, Traverse Speed, Terrain Resistance) No retrofits applicable. Summary: What was tested was the hull traverse speed for on and off-road conditions. On-road was the runway and off-road is flat grass next to the runway. To estimate the hull traverse I completed ten 360 degree turns with turret locked (right mouse depressed). A full 360 degrees was completed using something from the map (like a painted line or rock) as a reference object relative to the front right track crossing the reference object. After 10 full hull turns are completed I calculated hull traverse as time(seconds)/3600. On-road: 117 seconds for 10 turns, or about 30.77 degrees per second. Off-road (grass): 127 seconds for 10 turns, or about 28.35 degrees per second. Conclusion: In this example there's a penalty of about 8% for Leo. 2AV hull traverse in degrees per second for off-road (grass) compared to on-road. I think Devs need to take a look at mobility on differing terrains, if this is about 8% then it seems a bit too low in my opinion. Other questions: Is sand and snow different? Does vehicle weight affect traverse? Let me know if you think something is wrong with this experimental setup. Followup testing done with same methodology but different tank. Tester: NatNat666 Leo 2A6 Street 41.5 °/s Grass 40.5 °/s Only 2.4% Penalty
  19. I think the premium terminator is a good example. Play it as a surprise vehicle, follow the strong force and stay hidden until you see a good opening. Push past the enemies and cause some havok and hope your team commits simultaneously.
  20. For a start, winrate's generally too inaccurate to be useful per-tank. Secondly, if you have a maximum to mitigate the platoon padding, it'll be applied on almost every tank with their method, so there would be no real per-tank or even per-tier adjustment. There are methods to do tank-adjusted winrate, but xTE isn't going to work because of its dependence on the maximum. Spotting damage is interesting because it should be accessible in-client. Ideally you'd use it for per-game stat mods at least, rather than those horrible per-game WN8 ratings. I'm not sure whether xTE is reading client stats or pure API. Not really here to pick a fight (retired from tanks) but how is win-rate too inaccurate (whatever you mean by that) to be useful per-tank but damage and kills doesn't have an issue?
  21. Wow, actually went to a per vehicle rating. Considering it is per vehicle why not include win rate (with some max to mitigate platoon effect) and spotting damage?
  22. What? You have the map, battle mode, battle duration and distance traveled by class and tank in individual battle data, this should be enough. When the movement happens shouldn't matter. In say 1000 games with 0, 1, 2, and 3 arty the distance traveled holding other important movement related variables constant, there should be some coefficient attached to the number of arty. The arty increases campiness hypothesis would argue that each additional arty induces campiness by reducing travel distance (battle duration may work too).
  • Create New...