Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
westybig

open letter to armoured warfare

Recommended Posts

if you could write an open letter to the devs of AW what you like to say?

ive been contemplating making a thread like this for a while but it took for me to see what the latest patch is bringing to realise the need to try and get some kind of message to the Devs.

firstly id like to open on my own personnel position about the game: i feel that the game was launched on a solid foundation but little, if anything has been done to improve since then. every new patch that comes with more direct/ non direct mbts buffs (the only class that really dosent need much touching for the time bieng) 

how was AW released on a solid foundation?

- primarily arty, while there is one or two shitloard pieces that probably need a look at in the near future for the most part arty is much better in this game, not only that but it forces you to relocate if you get hit by an arty because there is meaningful arty cover in most maps and bieng forced to move around is good for pubbies.

- scouts/AFV's was made an incredibly viable way to play tanks in this game, not only is spotting damage made way more exp beneficial in this game but AFV's (played well mind) can be a true threat on the battlefield (not so much high tiers) , not just relegated to some gimped class that gets shafted with crap mm and rewarded with WN8 padding

maps- MAPS ARE BIGGER, and this means a lot for me as far as gameplay for tanks is concerned, no matter how OP the view range on some AFV's is, it means that pursuing flanking opportunities can pay off while at the same time taking key positions is still a key factor in winning games.

class balance below tier 8 - aside from the challenger 1, BMD 4, cent 120 i feel for the most part playing in this mm range the game sits pretty well with me, most class's except light tanks work really well and the overall cohesion of the game fits pretty well with what i would like a tank game to be

retrofits - are by and large a huge mess, while crew skill stack maybe OP and need to be nerfed a little, what i dont understand is the retrofit slots given to vehicles tier by tier, premium vehicles by and large get more retrofit slots to use and tanks like the stingray 2 only get two slots at tier 7 ( what the actual fuck obsidian?)

where do we go from here?

that is the question i have been asking myself for a while now, the last couple patches plus the one coming in near future are not in the direction that i would like to see the game go

- there has been literally no effort to give tiers 8+ MBTS meaningful weakspots outside of getting around their their rear sides/ asses (hello viewport, properly modeled drivers hatches)

- lights tanks are pretty much not worth at all playing in this game, while the bagel is well identified as an "OP" tank, and it rightfully is. aside from that lights in general just suck ass. the VFM is passable but is suffers against mbts and the EXP tank died with crew skill buiffs, what is the point in playing this class?

TL DR: what im saying here is that i feel OE has released their game on a solid foundation but clearly lack direction in where they want their game to go, their knee jerk buffs/ nerfs are the exact opposite of WG and while WG takes to long to deliver meaningful changes OE makes changes on the fly and dosent properly consider the implications of certain changes before proper mechanics are in place (case in point stingray 1, 2 nerfs in closed beta) not only their main directive from patch to patch is buffing MBTS while handing out the odd other class biscuits every now and then,

like seriously a tree wide buff to the T series of tanks? at least the game might survive in russia i suppose

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, let me just correct the normal forum pubby mistake here right off the bat: OBSIDIAN HAS NOT RELEASED ANYTHING...THE GAME IS NOT RELEASED.

That said, there are a few things that would immediately improve game balance, while actually having very minor backlash.

1. Retrofits done on a case by case basis are stupid, especially given the track record of OE balancing things without playing the game apparently. First off, get rid of specific retrofit type slots. keep the types, by all means, but every slot on a vehicle should be a universal. With this, every vehicle should have the same amount of slots, based on tier. 1 and 2, 1 slot, 3 4 and 5 2 slots, 6 and 7 3 slots, 8 and up 4 slots. The end. Before you go off the handle about stacking and whatnot, think about it for a minute. The T series tanks would continue to be a rate of fire disadvantage; they don't have loaders and therefore can't stack reload even close to the level that NATO tanks can. They then have a choice of stacking raw damage or stacking something else, like gun handling or mobility. Whatever they choose, they retain the same advantages and disadvantages to other vehicles. the same goes for NATO tanks. Stack reload cuz you can, like a boss? Go for it, but you will still have an alpha and pen deficit compared to glorious tanks. This also brings the leo's back in to competition, which they sorely need, and makes the C1 worth playing for any reason beyond just getting a token. The Leo 2 suddenly isn't the shitlord of tier 7 anymore. Light tanks, like the Deathrays can actually be Deathrays again, with mobility as well as firepower buffs that actually matter, and can be stacked based on the preference of the player. Not saying that this magically fixes balance problems in the high tiers, but it's a huge step in the right direction, and makes a huge difference in the effort to keep everything relevant.

2. Put light tanks back to EA values. Including the no bloom while moving thing. The knee-jerk nerfing in to the dirst that was done to them was on the fucking hilarious side of premature, since the only people playing them in any sizable numbers were the early adopter unicums from WoT anyway. the numbers of whatever class we chose at the start were always going to be skewed in to uselessness, even if it had been arty. Revert them, and get some meaningful data. Except the AP on the Sheridan. That was dumb.

3. The solution to MBT dominance is NOT bigger pixels in the pixel hunt. Seriously, shut the actual fuck up with nonsense and think about it for a minute. MBT's are supposed to be the front line meat shields and close range brawlers of the game. Let them be that. How do you do that without ruining them? You nerf the shit out of mobility and fire power. They should not be the highest damage dealers AND the most survivable. They need their damage output nerfed slightly, and their mobility reworked completely. The Leo 2A6 should be fast compared to the Challenger....not compared to the Terminator 2.  hard cap on max speed and some acceleration tweaks are badly needed. The M1A1 and A2 should not even be capable of hitting 80 on level ground, but they do quite easily. No MBT should be moving above 60, and that speed should be reserved for the Leopards and maybe the C1. The Abrams and T-series should be roughly the same speed as each other, derping around at a reasonable 50-ish with OK acceleration. The Challengers should be an exercise patience, with a max speed of 45-ish. Turret traverse needs to be slashed across the board on MBT's. As far as firepower goes, everything but gun handling is out of control right now. Everything needs to be reduced. Pen is whatever; the effective difference between the pen on the M1A2 and the T-90MS is actually just about nothing. The only thing it actually matters for is fighting Challenger 2's frontally. Rate of fire and alpha need to be reduced. The MS taking half the HP of anything other than another MBT with AP is just retarded. 600 alpha should be the cap, and only the MS should have it. Slightly longer reloads with less influence by loader skill would be helpful. For example, a max reduced reload on the A2 of maybe 5.5 secs would be reasonable; the current sub 4.3 sec reload needs to die in a fire along with the 800 alpha AP on the Russian. 

4. Physical vehicle size needs to be a balancing factor. The BMP-3M should have monstrous fire power, because it's bigger than half the MBT's it has to fight. It should have a view range of fuckyou+700. It should vomit missiles at twice the rate it does. Why? Because it is HUGE and has zero armor unless someone is actually stupid enough to fire shaped charges at it. It's also slow.

5. Certain vehicle concepts DO NOT WORK without proper implementation. For example, the Terminator series vehicles. The tier 6 is still viable, for now, because most of the people that sit in tier 6 all day because they think it's balanced (lol?) don't really know how to deal with them. There's also a metric shit ton less APS and ERA at tier 6, so the missiles matter. The sides and rear of MBT's at tier 6 can usually be penned with autocannon AP. The Ramka is fucked, because everything at tier 8 has APS, composite armor layered with ERA, and 200MM of side and rear armor which does nothing for normal cannon AP but is pretty much just there as a giant dirty hairy middle finger to AFV's. The Terminator 2 would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad facing things like the MS. All MBT's need to get their side and rear armor shit on. The big AFV's should have EITHER much better mobility, or much better armor. Another feature I think would make them much more viable but would need extensive testing is the ability for the ones with dedicated ATGM launchers (Terminators, VBL, Bradley type deals, not the shared barrel ones on the BMP's and BMD's) to fire missiles on the move. Guidance would remain the same, and in fact you can currently guide missiles while on the move, in case you never tried it. It works. I'm just talking about the ability to fire them on the move. Who doesn't think that a BMPT-72 having the ability to 4-missile-salvo drive-by a Challenger would make it competitive? Cuz the auto cannon sure doesn't.

6. Arty will forever be broken while it is a one sided damage dealing player interaction. Maybe it's as good as it's going to get in AW right now, and maybe most people are fine with it. But it's still just a watered down version of the bullshit from WoT; it's nothing new. "Not as bad ass" is still not even fucking close to "good" or even "acceptable".

7. people need to actually fucking play the high tiers. That 500+ reply threadnought about how tier 6 is the light and the way and everything above sucks is literally killing this game. How the hell would any of you that just sit in tier 6 and play tier 8 or 9 once in a blue moon which results in a 7v7 on the NA server have any fucking clue how the top tiers are balanced? Hint: you don't because they are a barren wasteland. Fill them up, and TEST THEM. I think you'll find that the balance there is actually quite a bit more dynamic and interesting than tier 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

7. people need to actually fucking play the high tiers. That 500+ replay threadnought about how tier 6 is the light and the way and everything above sucks is literally killing this game. How the hell would any of you that just sit in tier 6 and play tier 8 or 9 once in a blue moon which results in a 7v7 on the NA server have any fucking clue how the top tiers are balanced? Hint: you don't because they are a barren wasteland. Fill them up, and TEST THEM. I think you'll find that the balance there is actually quite a bit more dynamic and interesting than tier 6.

Most WoT pubs and shitters stop at tier 5-6-7, that is AW's core desired demographic, this should not be a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get a team of people who want to help balance the game. Not people who think they know how to balance, people who want to balance the game.
A group of 200-300 super testers who run tests for Obsidian might help them get their head out of their ass. Slap NDA's all over the place if you have to, just do something to involve players who actually want the game to be playable for all classes, not for a select few who got their game balance degree from the Discovery channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

First off, let me just correct the normal forum pubby mistake here right off the bat: OBSIDIAN HAS NOT RELEASED ANYTHING...THE GAME IS NOT RELEASED.

That said, there are a few things that would immediately improve game balance, while actually having very minor backlash.

1. Retrofits done on a case by case basis are stupid, especially given the track record of OE balancing things without playing the game apparently. First off, get rid of specific retrofit type slots. keep the types, by all means, but every slot on a vehicle should be a universal. With this, every vehicle should have the same amount of slots, based on tier. 1 and 2, 1 slot, 3 4 and 5 2 slots, 6 and 7 3 slots, 8 and up 4 slots. The end. Before you go off the handle about stacking and whatnot, think about it for a minute. The T series tanks would continue to be a rate of fire disadvantage; they don't have loaders and therefore can't stack reload even close to the level that NATO tanks can. They then have a choice of stacking raw damage or stacking something else, like gun handling or mobility. Whatever they choose, they retain the same advantages and disadvantages to other vehicles. the same goes for NATO tanks. Stack reload cuz you can, like a boss? Go for it, but you will still have an alpha and pen deficit compared to glorious tanks. This also brings the leo's back in to competition, which they sorely need, and makes the C1 worth playing for any reason beyond just getting a token. The Leo 2 suddenly isn't the shitlord of tier 7 anymore. Light tanks, like the Deathrays can actually be Deathrays again, with mobility as well as firepower buffs that actually matter, and can be stacked based on the preference of the player. Not saying that this magically fixes balance problems in the high tiers, but it's a huge step in the right direction, and makes a huge difference in the effort to keep everything relevant.

2. Put light tanks back to EA values. Including the no bloom while moving thing. The knee-jerk nerfing in to the dirst that was done to them was on the fucking hilarious side of premature, since the only people playing them in any sizable numbers were the early adopter unicums from WoT anyway. the numbers of whatever class we chose at the start were always going to be skewed in to uselessness, even if it had been arty. Revert them, and get some meaningful data. Except the AP on the Sheridan. That was dumb.

3. The solution to MBT dominance is NOT bigger pixels in the pixel hunt. Seriously, shut the actual fuck up with nonsense and think about it for a minute. MBT's are supposed to be the front line meat shields and close range brawlers of the game. Let them be that. How do you do that without ruining them? You nerf the shit out of mobility and fire power. They should not be the highest damage dealers AND the most survivable. They need their damage output nerfed slightly, and their mobility reworked completely. The Leo 2A6 should be fast compared to the Challenger....not compared to the Terminator 2.  hard cap on max speed and some acceleration tweaks are badly needed. The M1A1 and A2 should not even be capable of hitting 80 on level ground, but they do quite easily. No MBT should be moving above 60, and that speed should be reserved for the Leopards and maybe the C1. The Abrams and T-series should be roughly the same speed as each other, derping around at a reasonable 50-ish with OK acceleration. The Challengers should be an exercise patience, with a max speed of 45-ish. Turret traverse needs to be slashed across the board on MBT's. As far as firepower goes, everything but gun handling is out of control right now. Everything needs to be reduced. Pen is whatever; the effective difference between the pen on the M1A2 and the T-90MS is actually just about nothing. The only thing it actually matters for is fighting Challenger 2's frontally. Rate of fire and alpha need to be reduced. The MS taking half the HP of anything other than another MBT with AP is just retarded. 600 alpha should be the cap, and only the MS should have it. Slightly longer reloads with less influence by loader skill would be helpful. For example, a max reduced reload on the A2 of maybe 5.5 secs would be reasonable; the current sub 4.3 sec reload needs to die in a fire along with the 800 alpha AP on the Russian. 

4. Physical vehicle size needs to be a balancing factor. The BMP-3M should have monstrous fire power, because it's bigger than half the MBT's it has to fight. It should have a view range of fuckyou+700. It should vomit missiles at twice the rate it does. Why? Because it is HUGE and has zero armor unless someone is actually stupid enough to fire shaped charges at it. It's also slow.

5. Certain vehicle concepts DO NOT WORK without proper implementation. For example, the Terminator series vehicles. The tier 6 is still viable, for now, because most of the people that sit in tier 6 all day because they think it's balanced (lol?) don't really know how to deal with them. There's also a metric shit ton less APS and ERA at tier 6, so the missiles matter. The sides and rear of MBT's at tier 6 can usually be penned with autocannon AP. The Ramka is fucked, because everything at tier 8 has APS, composite armor layered with ERA, and 200MM of side and rear armor which does nothing for normal cannon AP but is pretty much just there as a giant dirty hairy middle finger to AFV's. The Terminator 2 would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad facing things like the MS. All MBT's need to get their side and rear armor shit on. The big AFV's should have EITHER much better mobility, or much better armor. Another feature I think would make them much more viable but would need extensive testing is the ability for the ones with dedicated ATGM launchers (Terminators, VBL, Bradley type deals, not the shared barrel ones on the BMP's and BMD's) to fire missiles on the move. Guidance would remain the same, and in fact you can currently guide missiles while on the move, in case you never tried it. It works. I'm just talking about the ability to fire them on the move. Who doesn't think that a BMPT-72 having the ability to 4-missile-salvo drive-by a Challenger would make it competitive? Cuz the auto cannon sure doesn't.

6. Arty will forever be broken while it is a one sided damage dealing player interaction. Maybe it's as good as it's going to get in AW right now, and maybe most people are fine with it. But it's still just a watered down version of the bullshit from WoT; it's nothing new. "Not as bad ass" is still not even fucking close to "good" or even "acceptable".

7. people need to actually fucking play the high tiers. That 500+ reply threadnought about how tier 6 is the light and the way and everything above sucks is literally killing this game. How the hell would any of you that just sit in tier 6 and play tier 8 or 9 once in a blue moon which results in a 7v7 on the NA server have any fucking clue how the top tiers are balanced? Hint: you don't because they are a barren wasteland. Fill them up, and TEST THEM. I think you'll find that the balance there is actually quite a bit more dynamic and interesting than tier 6.

 

Pixel sniping is not the answer to high tier balance.  You don't need god-mode unbeatable armor to be a front line brawler.  The MBT-70 is pretty close to what an MBT should play like as far I am concerned.  It has the right balanced of characteristics, the only thing I would change on it would be hull traverse speed so it can actually be circled a bit.  It has very good frontal armor but not invulnerable frontal armor.  The lower front plate will deflect most shots, such as those front a Stingray/VFM/Expeditionary tank/autocannons/etc. but it won't be immune to same tier MBT's frontally and most same tier ATGM's.  The turret has like two or so tiny weak spots on each side but is otherwise immune frontally.  The gun has a higher alpha in comparison to tank destroyers and light tanks, not excessively higher, but a long reload time with mediocre DPM and not-quite-perfect accuracy.  The acceleration is great and it can keep pace with AFV's/Light tanks in some situations so it isn't wholly dependent on friendly AFV's/Light tanks to take out the enemy AFV's, if it gets down to a situation where something like a Bradley has 200 HP vs. a full HP MBT-70 the MBT-70 stands a fairly solid chance of not being camo-sniped to death.  The same goes for XM1 and Leopard 2AV but those two are somewhat easier to flank.  Tier 6 MBT's are pretty close to being balanced in comparison to the other classes in the tier.  The Stingray and Centauro 105 need a bit of love, the VBL's ATGMs need a buff to be viable, and the Bradley is due to be given a few buffs next patch which will make it competitive.  As a whole, the tier is really what I think the game should be in terms of balance.  

BMP-3M does have monstrous firepower?  Its ATGM's are only slightly less damaging than BMD-4's and have slightly higher penetration (BMD-4 can penetrate the LFP of an M1 Abrams, so it's pretty damn good) and its autocannon is more potent. In addition it has 100mm HE-FRAG which is pretty good to have in pixel sniping meta.  Also, shaped charges work very well against it considering it has no ERA/spaced armor like its predecessor.  With 435m view range stock its view range is solid.  The only thing I'd do to the vehicle is bump its base camo up from 0.27 to at least 0.30.  It's not the easiest vehicle to use but that's due more in part to the absolute dominance of the BMD-4 which is due for a nerf.  I'd say the BMP-3M stacks up pretty well against everything else in its tier.  I do get what you're saying though with size being a balancing factor, the BMP-3M just isn't quite the best example.  Vehicles like the Draco/LAV-600/Centauro 105/etc. do need some balancing to account for their size and awkward handling. 

The higher tier 8/9 AFV's are what really need some love.  As you said, fire on the move and the ability to fire ATGM's in salvos/ripple fire is what they need.  They also need far better penetration.  Not all AFV's should have the fire-on-the-move ability.  It should be an either/or situation.  If it is something with multiple launchers like a BMPT-72/Terminator/Ramka-99/Bradley/VBL it should be able to fire salvos but not fire on the move.  If it is something like a BMP-3/BMP-3M/BMD-4 with a single launcher it should be able to fire-on-the-move at tier 7 and up.  Of course lower tiers like a BMP-2 or BMD-1 shouldn't fire on the move.

Light tanks absolutely need their no-bloom while moving ability from EA in my opinion but the developers are still a bit hesitant to revert them back to that state given how insanely powerful they were at the time.  A lot has changed since then, but there is a reluctance on their part because of the negative PR it may bring both because it was once OP and because it really isn't realistic for light tanks to have far better stabilization than MBT's (aka shitlord VIP / military adviser group probably is influencing that design choice).  Sheridan just needs its reload buffed in addition to a standard no-bloom light tank feature.

The retrofit system is due for a massive overhaul in the near future (new retrofits coming in addition to changes for the current retrofits. Plus, all retrofits may be obtained from any vehicle class).  I wouldn't even bother buying any high tier retrofits atm unless I just hundreds of millions of credits to blow.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a part of the limited alpha. They tried using good players, recruited from top NA and EU clans. It ended in arty TKs, cancer wishes in chat and the bans of A LOT of assholes. Sure, use top players, but damned if we need those guys back.

 

4. Physical vehicle size needs to be a balancing factor. The BMP-3M should have monstrous fire power, because it's bigger than half the MBT's it has to fight. It should have a view range of fuckyou+700. It should vomit missiles at twice the rate it does. Why? Because it is HUGE and has zero armor unless someone is actually stupid enough to fire shaped charges at it. It's also slow.

:QBFlip:

A game with nothing but fake tanks, invented by AW, from the 2200s, I can live with tank size being balancing. This game pretends to have realism in it, and a big damn part of it is actually making the tanks look real. Believe it or not, size matters. Where do you then stop? If you think AW makes bad decisions now, imagine a 1x1x1 M1 Fox because MUH BALANCE. Although vehicles have a =-5% size because STRONK OUTSOURCINK COMRADE, we do not need to aspire for that.

 

Considering the BMP-3M only has slightly more penetration and damage (and less damage with its missile) than the BMD-4 it should be pretty obvious its firepower is pretty shit.

Its more of an issue of them not being able to balance, than needing size. Think about it. They have camo, damage, gun stats, terrain resistance, armor, view range, tier... how can it be so bad as to needed SIZE to balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I wasn't saying the BMP-3M should be smaller, I was just correcting shwedor because for the extra size the BMP-3M gets it gets a firepower sidegrade AT BEST.

Just because it's a sidegrade doesn't mean it doesn't have monstrous firepower.  The BMD-4 has been quite overpowered for some time now and there should be BMD-4 nerfs, not BMP-3M buffs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I wasn't saying the BMP-3M should be smaller, I was just correcting shwedor because for the extra size the BMP-3M gets it gets a firepower sidegrade AT BEST.

ahh. I see. I agree that stats should make up for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BMD-4 is not overpowered, every other AFV is just shit by comparison. No, I'm not joking.
The BMP-3M is just a gimped BMD-4 in every aspect, the least they can do is buff its HP and firepower. It should only have a little bit less penetration and damage than the CRAB's 30mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

snip-

i agree with everything exept that mbts dont need frontal weak spots, they do and they need viable ones because high tier are completely Broken because of them, if you cant see that then i dont know what to say

 

The BMD-4 is not overpowered, every other AFV is just shit by comparison. No, I'm not joking.
The BMP-3M is just a gimped BMD-4 in every aspect, the least they can do is buff its HP and firepower. It should only have a little bit less penetration and damage than the CRAB's 30mm.

basically this, the problem with the crab however is that it is quite OP against a lot of tanks it sees in current mm (which for NA is rather favorable for it) a good example for a AFV like the crab shouldnt have the dpm that it does against the mm it currently faces

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

basically this, the problem with the crab however is that it is quite OP against a lot of tanks it sees in current mm (which for NA is rather favorable for it) a good example for a AFV like the crab shouldnt have the dpm that it does against the mm it currently faces

Uhh, what? Is the CRAB OP, or is the matchmaker shit and makes it face vehicles which get stomped by it?
In the latter case, any tier 9 AFV would be OP in that case.
The next patch is about to make the CRAB probably the weakest tier 9 AFV. The Terminator 2 will become a bit more prominent and the Draco might just become good. The CRAB will still handle like a drunk horse, its scouting abilities will still be useless, its lack of missiles will still be painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Uhh, what? Is the CRAB OP, or is the matchmaker shit and makes it face vehicles which get stomped by it?
In the latter case, any tier 9 AFV would be OP in that case.
The next patch is about to make the CRAB probably the weakest tier 9 AFV. The Terminator 2 will become a bit more prominent and the Draco might just become good. The CRAB will still handle like a drunk horse, its scouting abilities will still be useless, its lack of missiles will still be painful.

i disagree on both accounts

ive fought crabs in my t80 on the NA sver and they wreck games in that MM, which was the specifically the point i was trying to get across. im not saying their OP im just saying some of the games they get on NA they wreck left, right and centre because of their DPM, am i to blame for stating that?

well then i guess the mm is just shit and NA clearly dosent have the pop to sustain high tier games, as far as i know the crab still will have its absurd dpm to club with so i guess all is not lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what this "absurd DPM" you're talking about is or how the CRAB clubs with it.
I'll repeat myself: if NA CRABs get into a lot of matches where they're top tier or the match isn't full or there's a bunch of 7s or 8s then any tier 9 AFV would be OP.
Does the Warrior club with this same kind of DPM? Will the Draco club even harder thanks to its superior penetration and DPM next patch?
Doesn't any tier 9 MBT club infinitely better than even the most DPM shitting AFV does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I have no idea what this "absurd DPM" you're talking about is or how the CRAB clubs with it.
I'll repeat myself: if NA CRABs get into a lot of matches where they're top tier or the match isn't full or there's a bunch of 7s or 8s then any tier 9 AFV would be OP.
Does the Warrior club with this same kind of DPM? Will the Draco club even harder thanks to its superior penetration and DPM next patch?
Doesn't any tier 9 MBT club infinitely better than even the most DPM shitting AFV does?

1. general DPM in relation to the mm it currently typically faces, once again im not saying the crab is OP just not properly balanced for what it currently faces (once again NA server mm)

2. not really to be fair nobody in their right mind plays the ramka/warrior and if they do they suck hard, not fault on the tanks part just the people crazy enough to drive them in current mm

3, possibly i dont know, do you know why? because the only high tier AFV on NA server is crab once again i will state im not saying the crab is op im just saying its the only high tier people with a sane mind play in the mm i have experienced (again this is purely subjective if the you have decent pop on your server opinions may change)

4. for sure but have i ever not said that tier 9 mbts arnt op?

ill say it plainly i honeslty think for proper mm the CRAB will likely need buffs but for the mm it currently faces in NA it dosent fit the bill, its simply apart of a general amount of high tier tanks that shouldnt be in the mm they currently are
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're using your T-80 games as a reference point on the balance of tier 9 vehicles like the CRAB, then that's your problem, and you're missing the actual issue at work here; tier 7 is an exercise in masochism because pref MM tier 6's are apparently a good idea on a tiny population game. The vast majority of the tier 6 queue is premiums, all of which have pref MM of a sort, making them far less likely to ever be in tier 7 or 8 matches. They do once in a while, but never more than maybe 2 per team. So playing tier 7 means you get shit on by 8's and 9's about 80% of the time you click battle, because you are bottom tier. In that case, the CRAB certainly does shit on the T-80. But I can tell you, as someone who owns it, it does not fare well against tier 9 or even 8 MBT's. If it were the dominant vehicle in the screwy MM you make it out to be, then I would play the shit out of the Terminator 2 and farm them in to oblivion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah fair enough i probably just have more confirmation bias with the crab than other high tiers because of how fast it kills you, its not really easy to forget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

yeah fair enough i probably just have more confirmation bias with the crab than other high tiers because of how fast it kills you, its not really easy to forget

That reminds me, there was a mention in this weeks Q&A about "issues with the T-80 are known and will be fixed"...what's that all about? I haven't played it in maybe a month, but last I touched it, it was the monster of tier 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That reminds me, there was a mention in this weeks Q&A about "issues with the T-80 are known and will be fixed"...what's that all about? I haven't played it in maybe a month, but last I touched it, it was the monster of tier 7.

its still a beast, all i know is that they were saying it should have reactive armour as the t80 in game is actually supposed to be the t80U or so they say, OE said they will be putting reactive armour on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One suggestion I would include would be to have the AFV target designation ability allow ATGM's to be launched as fire and forget missiles as long as the missile itself is capable of tracking the designator and for as long as the designation is active. Once a missile has locked on it can be fired and the launcher can move on or ripple fire as they like.
The technology for this has existed for a long time and could be added into the game.
The caveat here is that the target must be in LOS of the missile for the entire time of flight or the missile breaks lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do I want from OE? More creative scenarios in PvE instead of "X took over this facility, kill them all" or "Y is attacking this village" instead of an convoy mission or an battle against an actual boss than an officer's upgraded tank. And enemy radio chatter wouldn't hurt either. As for balance, I don't have an stake in that argument; aside from making ATGMs easier to aim.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...