Welcome to another part of the Q&A series where players ask about the future of Armored Warfare and developers answer!
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 be:
- That is, requiring repeated skilled play, not just 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 really required)
- Difficult to rig your way through reliably
- Fitting the commander's play style (that is, Vincent Girard is a commander suitable for protecting your allies with your MBT armor, also known as "tanking")
Unfortunately, in PvE, the logic of "repel damage and damage enemies at the same time" would be obviously prone to abuses 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 full pre-made platoon, he can damage any number of opponents with little to no real effort as his teammates would give him the opportunity to do so.
So, if we added some conditions such as "repel 20.000 points of damage and damage 30 opponents in PvE", all the PvE players who have access to full platoons (Battalions and such) would complete the achievement in one day while the PvP, Global Operations and solo PvE players would suffer.
With that being said, we are planning to address the situation once all four Moscow Calling Special Operation maps are active and properly balanced by requiring players to complete a "tanking" achievement there on the Insane or Heroic difficulty levels. There are no specific details available though (yet). We obviously do care about PvE players being able to complete those hard achievements but we don't want to reward PvE abuses either.
What happened with the mobility of Tier 10 Main Battle Tanks?
In short, we've introduced a change that makes these tanks accelerate faster until 32 km/h and slower after that. The goal of this change was to make MBTs more different mobility-wise from Light Tanks and AFVs (and to make those two classes more viable) and, at the same time, to make it easier for the affected MBTs to execute fast, sharp maneuvers at low speeds.
Speaking of which, in the several last updates, the Light Tank class is capable of some pretty nice drifts. Is this something that's intended?
The Light Tank class should, by design, feel "lighter" than the MBT class. 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 some of them skid too much, let us know and we'll take a look at it.
Why does the War Games mode affect player statistics? It's supposed to be a "fun" mode, as its 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 standard PvE and Special Operations.
With the removal of friendly fire in PvE, some Special Operations achievements became impossible. For example, in the Black Sea Incursion Chapter 2 (protect CI tanks), the standard modus operandi was to immobilize the AI friendlies to keep them from suicide rushing towards the enemy. Can you review these achievements and overhaul them so that they are possible to complete?
Yes. We will review these achievements.
BMPT Mod. 2017 is seriously over-performing. It is much more powerful than the other Terminators of the same Tier due to its very thick side armor. Are there any adjustments planned for it?
Yes, we are planning to review the characteristics of this vehicle.
There seems to be a major gap in power between Tiers 6 and 7, more so than usual. Are you planning to do anything with it?
There are no such plans for the immediate future because we are currently focusing on high-end gameplay (that is, Tier 9 and Tier 10). Based on your previous feedback, high-Tier vehicles need more love while the Tiers you mention are popular as they are.
We'll of course get to these lower Tiers in time, but it's also worth noting that the jump in power between those Tiers is, to a degree, "natural" because especially the NATO tanks in the game switch to a new (real-life) generation between those Tiers. This includes higher caliber guns (105mm to 120mm) as well as improved armor levels (which we do want to keep at least relatively realistic).
Two MBT lines seem to struggle at the moment - the Leopard series and the Abrams series. Is this perception correct? And if so, what are your plans to fix it?
After taking a look at their statistics, it seems that the Leopard line is – with some exceptions – doing quite fine. Leopard 1A5 and Leopard 2A6 are not doing very well but the rest is okay and we'll focus on those two culprits with some partial tweaks. The Abrams line is another story and definitely needs some improvements. We have some improvements planned for the future but, for now, its saving grace is the Tier 10 XM1A3 – once you get to it, you'll have a very well performing MBT with solid characteristics, definitely a Tier 10 vehicle worthy of your attention.
Are there any planned adjustments for Wilk's PELE round? It is a total crew killer and there is little defense against it.
We don't have any such plans for the foreseeable future, mostly because the PELE round is basically the only trick that vehicle has up its sleeve.
The Chinese MBT ECU override special ability does not grant any traverse bonuses. Any plans for adding those?
We do not currently have any plans for that specifically. However, the entire list of Active Abilities is subject to tweaks and improvements. For example, as a part of the Mastery system and additional end-game progression that was first shown in the French branch, we are also planning to improve the already existing vehicles, which includes 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 available can also purchase the Battle-Hardened status independently on the skins – those are two separate things, you can have one, the other, or both. But, at this moment, we are considering tying the Battle-Hardened status to skins an unnecessary complication. For once, the prices of skins would have to rise to reflect this new ability, but we'd also have to introduce a new mechanism to compensate the Battle-Hardened status cost to players who already have it and purchase a skin on top of it etc.
Would it be possible to allow a full platoon of players actually choosing which PvE mission they want to run?
We have no such plans. This would potentially lead to some serious abuses, especially when completing specific missions. A part of this game's charm is 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 some more end-game PvP?
Not for the near future. After all, there is an end-game PvP mode in place already – the Battalion Ranked Battles are alive and well in Armored Warfare and are tied in with the Battalion Contract Missions so that every active Battalion player benefits from them. If you want to show the world of Armored Warfare that you are the best, get that permanent Hades tank series. Those are perhaps the ultimate badge of player skill (along with rare Heroic camouflages and difficult Spec Ops achievement rewards).
Have you ever considered any solution to the issue of high latency for eastern Russia, Asia and Oceania players?
We have no solutions at this moment that would satisfy all players.
With objectives now more important than ever, could PvE missions be made to wait for the secondary objectives if the primary is already complete the way it currently works in Operation Scorpio?
No. The way it works in the Operation 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 secondary objectives would cease to work as intended.
Is a Nordic/Swedish line planned for the medium/long term? And would the S-tank be classed as an MBT or TD?
We do have plans for a Scandinavian line, but it is quite far away. As for the S-Tank, we'll think about it when we get there.
Can you add the ability to create several different commander skill profiles? For example, with Ioannis Sanna, create a profile with skills that increase fire chance and a different profile with skills that improve camouflage.
We have considered several different variants of such a feature in the past. However, the problem with it is that such a feature would see only very limited use by a small group of players, it only has low priority for now.
What's the problem with the current ramming model? Combining it with the recent MBT mobility nerf has made the Battle Path and other ramming contracts unnecessarily hard.
We are planning to improve the ramming mechanic, its damage calculations and its effect on internal modules in one of the upcoming updates. But when it comes to the current Battle Path and other missions, they can be completed in the current state of things.
Would it make sense to disable the Global Chat? It is never useful for anything and there is just a lot of trolling and spam going on.
We are considering several solutions for the situation. For now, you can disable the Global Chat in your Settings or blacklist (ignore) toxic players by right-clicking on their names and selecting the appropriate button.
Are there any plans to allow the sales of every single Inventory item for (any) currency? My inventory is stuffed with things I will never use and I would like to get rid of them.
There are no such plans for the immediate future.
It's no secret that most players in Armored Warfare 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 Operations and the features developed for that mode into account. At this moment, this all is still, however, in the design phase of things and will take some time to develop.
Lately, we've had all sorts of trouble launching the game – for example, there was this bug that required the reinstallation of Microsoft redistributables and whatnot. Don't you think it's a bit too much, even for a free-to-play 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 Special Operations 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 Special Operation series.
About the T-15 Armata weapon systems – what about the AU-220M Baykal combat module with a 57mm autocannon or the Kinzhal module with similar armament? Will you introduce those for the T-15?
We're considering it, but not for the near future.
That's all for today. Do you have any more questions? Feel free to ask them on Discord and our Community Managers will collect them for the next round.
See you on the battlefield!