Dev Q&A for Armored Warfare

Written by Joseph Banks no comments
Classified in : Armored Warfare Tags : none

Following the release of Moscow Calling, the AW Devs take to the forums to answer questions about the future of the game...

With the Moscow Calling season now well underway, the devs of Armored Warfare took to the forums to answer player's questions about the future of the game. This was the result:

The Requirements for the v3 Retrofit, introduced with the Leclerc Line, can only be completed in PvP. Are there any plans for making it possible to complete in PvE?

The idea behind the achievements that we used as the requirements is for them to;
-Require repeated skilled play, not being lucky that one time or grinding through them. Dealing damage to 7 opponents in PvP while surviving is no joke.
-Possible to complete while playing alone (platoons can help but are not required).
-Difficult to rig.
-Fitting the commander's play style (For example, Vincent Girard is a commander suitable for tanking damage).

Unfortunately, in PvE, the logic of "repel damage and damage enemies at the same time" would be prone to abuse since bots are just AIs that are nowhere near as challenging as playing against actual players. Players in PvE would be able to tank practically any amount of damage and if a player is in a pre-made platoon, he can damage any number of opponents with little to no effort as his teammates would give him the opportunity to do so. Therefore, if we added conditions such as "repel 20k damage and damage 30 opponents in PvE," all the PvE players who have access to full platoons (Battalions and such) would complete it in one day while PvP, Global Ops and solo PvE players would suffer.

However, we are planning to address the situation once all four Moscow Calling Special Operation maps are active and balanced by requiring players to complete a "tanking" achievement there on Insane or Heroic difficulty. 

What happened with the mobility of Tier 10 MBTs?

In short, we introduced a change that made these tanks accelerate faster up to 32 km/h, and slower afterwards. The goal of this change was to make MBTs more different mobility wise from LTs and AFVs, and to make these classes more viable, while making it easier for the affected MBTs to execute fast sharp maneuvers at low speeds.

Speaking of which, in the last few updates, the LT class is capable of some pretty nice drifts. Is this intended?

The Light Tank class should, by design, feel "lighter" than MBTs. This includes slight oversteer when turning-it's one of the pillars of the intended feeling of "lightness". We are not, however, planning to turn our Light Tanks into drifting monsters. If they skid too much, let us know and we'll take a look at it.

Why does the War Games mode affect statistics? It's supposed to be a "fun" mode as the name suggests

The mode might be fun to play, but War Games are no joke. The Labyrinth is a fully fledged PvE mode on par with normal PvE and Special Ops.

With the removal of Friendly Fire in PvE, some Special Operations achievements became impossible. For example, in the Black Sea Incursion Chapter 2 (To protect CI Tanks), the standard MO was to immobilise the AI friendlies to stop them suicidally rushing the enemy. Can these review the achievements and overhaul them so that they are possible to complete?

Yes, we will review these achievements.

MBPT Mod. 2017 is seriously overperforming. It is much more powerful than other Terminators at the same tier due to having very thick side armour. Are there any adjustments planned?
Yes, we are planning to review the characteristics of this vehicle.

There seems to be a major power gap between Tier VI and VII, more than usual. Are there any plans to address this?

There are no such plans for the immediate future because we are currently focusing on high-end gameplay, tiers XI and X. Based on previous feedback, high-tier vehicles need more love while mid-tiers are already popular. Of course, we'll get to these lower tiers in time, but it's worth noting that the jump in power at this tier is to a degree "natural" as especially with NATO tanks at this tier, the real-life generation also switches, including higher calibre guns and improved armour levels (which we want to keep relatively realistic).

Two MBT lines seem to struggle at the moment-the Leopard and Abrams series. Is this correct, and if so, what are your plans to fix it?

After taking a look at their stats, it seems that the Leopard line is-with some exceptions-doing quite fine. Leopard 1A5 and 2A6 are not doing very well, but the rest is okay and we'll focus on these two culprits with some partial tweaks. The Abrams line is another story and definitely needs some improvements. We have some planned for the future but for now, its saving grace is the Tier 10 XM1A3-a well performing MBT with solid characteristics.

Are there any planned adjustments for Wilk's PELE round? It's a total crew killer and there is little defence against it?
We don't have any such plans for the forseeable future, mostly because the PELE round is the only trick that vehicle has up its sleeve. 

The Chinese MBT ECU override special ability does not grant any traverse bonuses. Are there plans for adding these?

We do not currently have plans for that specifically. However, the entire list of Active Abilities is subject to tweaks and improvements. For example, as part of the Mastery system, and additional end-game progression that was shown in the French branch, we are planning to improve existing vehicles including possible additional Active Abilities.

Any plans to add Premium or Battle-Hardened status to skins in general to make them more valuable?

Players with progression vehicles that have skins can also purchase Battle-Hardened independently of the skins. Those are two separate things, you can have either or both. However, at this moment, tying Battle-Hardened to skins is an unnecessary complication. For one, the prices of skins would have to rise to reflect their new utility, but we'd also have to introduce a mechanism to compensate players who purchase one while still owning the other.

Would it be possible to allow a full platoon of players to choose what PvE mission they want to run?

We have no such plans. This could lead to serious abuses, especially when completing specific missions. A part of this game's charm is in its battlefield diversity-repeating the same map over and over for maximum Credits is neither fun in the long run nor does it require any skill to perform well.

Are there some plans for more end-game PvP?

Not for the near future. After all, there is an end game PvP mode in place already-Battalion Ranked Battles are alive and well and are tied with Battalion Contract Missions so every player in a Battalion benefits from them. [They continue on espousing the benefits of Battalion play].

Have you ever considered any solution to the issue of high latency for E.Russia, Asia and Oceania players?

We have no solution at present that would satisfy everyone.

With objectives now more important than ever, could PvE missions be made to wait for secondaries if the primary is already complete the way it currently works in Operation Scorpio?

No. The way it works in the Op. Scorpio PvE mission deviates from what is currently the norm, which is for all secondary tasks to have to be completed when the main tasks are active. If we introduced what you propose, the secondaries would cease to work as intended.

Is a Nordic/Swedish line planned for the mid-long term, and would the S-Tank be classified as an MBT or a TD?

We do have plans for a Scandinavian line, but it is quite far away. As for the S-Tank, we'll consider that when we get there.

Can you add the ability to create several different commander skill profiles? For example, with Ioannis Sanna, creating a profile with boosted fire chance, and another with boosted camo?

We have considered several different variants of such a feature, however the issue is that it would see only limited use by a small group of players, and thus has a low priority. 

What's the issue with the current ramming model? Combined with the recent MBT mobility nerf, the Battle Path and other Ramming contracts have been made unnecessarily hard.

We are planning to improve ramming, its damage calculations and its effect on internal modules in one of the upcoming updates. However, the Battle Path and other missions can still be completed with the current model

Would it make sense to disable Global Chat? It's never used for anything and its just trolling and spam.

We are considering several solutions for the situation. For now, you can disable the Global Chat in your settings or blacklist toxic players manually.

Are there any plans to allow the sales of every single Inventory item for currency? My inventory is stuffed with things I'll never use and would like to get rid of.

There are no plans for such in the immediate future.

It's no secret that most players in AW play standard PvE. Can you add more maps to this mode?

It's something we are looking at for the future while taking our experience with Special Ops and the features developed for that mode into account. At this moment, this is all however in the design phase and will take time to develop.

Lately we've had all sorts of trouble launching the game, for example the Microsoft Redistributables bug. Isn't this too much even for a F2P game?

In Update 0.29, a rather important internal change took place – we switched to a new developer toolkit that required the installation of certain Microsoft redistributable software. This was, unfortunately, unavoidable, as some players didn't have it installed or it didn't work properly. On the upside, this was basically a one-time problem that, in the end, helped improve the product quality for all. Such updates take place very rarely and, in the future, you will likely not notice them at all since Microsoft is switching to a universal redistributable package that will support different versions and will be updated using the Windows Update service.

What's the status of the reverse steering inversion settings, is it working as intended now?

Yes, working as intended.

We've seen Moscow destroyed in the Spec.Ops mode, will we also fight in Washington? This is a clear case of American bias!

Why so serious? Alright, we won't promise you Washington, but I think you'll like the next SpecOps series.

About the T-15 Armata weapons systems-what about the AU-220M Baykal combat module with a 57mm autocannon, or the Kinzhal module with similar? Will you introduce those for the T-15?

We're considering it, but not for the near future.

 

This is it for the Q&A this time around. If you want to participate in the next round, feel free to ask them on the offical AW Discord and their Community Managers may be able to help.

Original Article

Write a comment

What is the first letter of the word zizt?

Rss feed of the article's comments