Jump to content

New Armored Warfare Artillery Model  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Is this new model by Obsidian better than the previous?

    • Worse than before
      0
    • Better than before
    • No change


Recommended Posts

Note: Group analysis, since I'm likely too retarded to do this by myself.

 

For those of you that have seen the new artillery model in Armored Warfare, what do you think of it? My thoughts are:

 

1. It looks more fun to play against. It's less bursty but more cumulative damage if you neglect awareness of it.

 

2. It looks more engaging. You don't have to wait a solid 50 seconds to miss your shot on a stationary target.

 

3. Much more skill indexed. It grants a risk/reward concept. You can fire from a good position at risk of being countered or pay off.

 

Thoughts? I'm posting from a phone so I can't link a video, sorry if you haven't seen the features. I'll try and have a serious discussion but I said the A-word so I doubt it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to participate in the analysis but as an alpha tester it's hard to tell what exactly I am allowed to say and what is under NDA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to participate in the analysis but as an alpha tester it's hard to tell what exactly I am allowed to say and what is under NDA.

Jingles has a video out with the latest test stuff, so I'd assume you're okay to at the very least talk about that stuff

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the fact that it tells you when arty is aiming at you and where they are when they fire is a HUGE +1 in my book.

 

And the low alpha is good. It finally become a real support vehicle, like it was supposed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's better than before, but I still don't really like arty that much.  If camping is a problem I'd rather see re-designed maps that minimize the rewards for camping (e.g., hulldown/building locations are far from caps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well 'before' was basically WoT artillery, so anything is better than that, so yeah is there even a choice here :)

 

(and 'funner'....rip English :P )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's better than before, but I still don't really like arty that much.  If camping is a problem I'd rather see re-designed maps that minimize the rewards for camping (e.g., hulldown/building locations are far from caps).

You cannot even compare the WoT and AW arty models. WoT arty sucks and the AW model, in its current and planned forms, is a world apart and tonnes better.

To sum up from Jingles' video

 

- Arty is well placed in the typically fast flowing AW games.

- You are far less RNG dependent when you fire

- When firing HE you do no more damage to your target than a tank firing HE directly so no instagib from full health.

- If being targeted by Arty you get a very visible and audible warning: move or get shot at

- When Arty fires it is lit up to enemy Arty on the minimap and makes counter battery very viable

- Arty get a 3 shot autoloader (may be more or less depending on the SPG, I didn't get a chance to play all of them), aim times are low which means you can switch targets easily. Note that SPG aim times are still higher than direct fire guns but not absurdly high.

 

Camping in AW is not a viable tactic. Apart from Arty you have ATGMs that can winkle campers out and the tanks in AW are far too mobile and have too much firepower to allow camping to be a viable option.

Even MBTs are too fast and well protected to burn down when rushing a camp.

Playing this and the previous Alpha focus test I cannot remember seeing a lot of cap camping going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read on the status report and how WG tends to shamelessly steal content it thinks good an make it "Original Russian Tonks Great Idea" we should see some adaptation of SPG's in their current form. So many people are discontent with the current metagame that arty forces players to play around and how it punished not based on skill (to a certain extent) but mainly due to luck. Now that financial influence is going to directly reflect their decision going forward, I would not be surprised to see WG listening to the player base significantly more.

 

At the end of the day it's going to boil down to players not having fun with artillery and the map design/balancing solutions being rolled out in WoT.

 

They will potentially have fun with the design decisions and things the AW devs have learned from the strengths and weaknesses of the WoT design model.

 

People are going to invest in the game they have fun playing, bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the
 
The more issues identified that AW addresses, the better.

 

The TL;DR Version

 

1: Respawning accomplishes three things which takes the frustration out of random sky-oneshots.
- It distracts players from frustration by getting them back into the fight
- t gives players a chance to generate counterplay against the artillery (read: hunting the heavy down);
- It lessens the opportunity cost of taking risks (therefore encouraging better and more dynamic play instead of static rock-humping).

2: Maneuvering is a critical part of the game. The fact that bads can still do somewhat well in TX arty simply by sitting and clicking needs to be changed.

3: High-Reward, Low Risk is just plain wrong, nothing else needs to be said.

4: Rock-Paper-Scissors Mechanics are alright as long as they can be overturned reliably by skill, world of tanks fails in this

5: Building a cool map with no regard to game mechanics is bad. Build your mechanics first, then build a map that suits it. The problem is that each class in WoT having precisely one optimal playstyle means that it's a game of how closely the map conforms to that playstyle

6: Unilateral interaction is bad for games, WoT arty is the pinnacle of unilateral interaction.

7: One class should not get to break the rules that everybody else abides by, depth is only depth when it's understood by players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better than WG arty? yes, it makes the class more interesting, less RNG, slightly more skill-based and a lot less frustrating and unpredictable than WoT arty.

Is it a perfect solution? I don't think so, indirect fire is bad no matter how it is implemented, no arty would always be better, but at least it is miles better than what we have here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's better than before, but I still don't really like arty that much.  If camping is a problem I'd rather see re-designed maps that minimize the rewards for camping (e.g., hulldown/building locations are far from caps).

 

That means you can't have any buildings in draw range of the bases, or any bumps in the ground, because even the side of a hill is hull down useable, and if it's a cliff or a rock you can't drive over (unlike a typical hillside where you can use the curve and angles of the ground to use gun depression, it can be used to peek at an angle to improve front armour and make you harder to pen (have to aim hard for that drive wheel that may or may not show)

...

...

...

That sounds like the Ocean map in WOWS. You should go take a look at it and take a long, long think about how good it would be to play tanks on a completely flat field without so much as a bomb crater to hide in, driving anything that's not an MBT.

 

It is impossible to prevent effective camping as long as one can show his weapon with minimal risk of getting damaged much in return (ATGMs can help if the players are skilled and can vector for a diving shot), and that will ALWAYS be possible unless you literally have a flat board for the entier areas within draw range of cap. Draw range of cap seems to be like almost the whole map if you count from both caps on AW maps like Ghost Fields.

 

Better than WG arty? yes, it makes the class more interesting, less RNG, slightly more skill-based and a lot less frustrating and unpredictable than WoT arty.

Is it a perfect solution? I don't think so, indirect fire is bad no matter how it is implemented, no arty would always be better, but at least it is miles better than what we have here.

 

1. Removes indirect fire

2. Enemy base has any solid cover within 1 draw range of it or even a decent bump in the ground.

3. Hull down MBTs/TDs behind said rocks or bunker tops or whatever, or even the side of a hill/cliff (see above).

4. Have fun digging them out with your ATGMs or charging them.

5. ?????

6. Whine

7. Gets tanks equivalent of Ocean map from WOWS, completely flat ground.

8. ?????

9. All non-MBT drivers whine harder.

 

AW does it right, functionally no more frustration while keeping the shovel that will eventually dig you out if you sit there for 10 minutes hull down farming damage... which I suspect most of us here on WoTLabs would like personally, but which is bad for business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the way AW is doing arty.  Much less rage inducing.

 

But what I like best about this is that it forces WG to finally do something about their arty implementation.  Which is comfirmed by Storm (as read on Rita's blog) that WG is "rebalancing" arties completely ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, WG's arty will always be a damage dealer. AW arty is going to get a variety of special rounds to make it a true support unit. That's one thing WG will never be able to copy. Good move by Obsidian, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...