Commanders!
Following our call to submit your questions to the CEO of Wishlist Games Alexey Larionov, we have prepared the second batch of answers for you.
The previous issue can be found under this link.
SamSerious: Will there be more tech trees in the future? Maybe rocket artillery or mortars?
We’ve already mentioned our plans to add more progression vehicles in the future, including the long-awaited T-80BVM. But that’s not the core of the question – that would be new vehicle classes, right?
The answer is, yes and no. The current class system, while somewhat clunky, basically covers pretty much every armored vehicle there is. Why would rocket launchers have a separate class when you can add them as Tank Destroyers? Same goes for self-propelled mortars which could easily count as SPGs. Adding an entire new class is incredibly complicated (we looked into it, actually) and, to a degree, pointless when vehicles with vastly different gameplay can be added within the current system. And that’s what it’s all about – to offer you different and diverse gameplay mechanics.
And that will definitely happen. For example, we are working on several interesting vehicles, the mechanics for which currently don’t exist. These will very likely come next year but the first glimpses of the ideas we have will be visible in the next Battle Path.
Wild_Butter: Is the game dying? Are there more players every month or less?
That entirely depends on the month of the year :) I am quite serious. Games in general feel strong seasonal influences – the highest amount of players play around Christmas while the lowest amount of players play when the weather is nice, during summer holidays. Now, in summer, we are at our lowest and it’ll just go up from now until roughly January. The circle of life, so to say. So, the answer to your initial question is “no”; in fact we are planning to stay for a long time and are expanding our team and playerbase both.
Razar1: Are there any plans to separate some PvE and PvP game mechanics so when things are balanced for PvP, the PvE players stop getting screwed over?
I am not aware of any mechanics where players are getting “screwed over” in PvE. Some vehicles carry limited ammunition to compensate for their powerful weapons, which is partially addressed by having a special “replenish” function in PvE (Q key) or by using repair zones during longer missions such as Rate of Decay. With that being said, we currently have no plans to separate PvP and PvE balance. Instead, we’ll offer you the opportunity to use your vehicle’s abilities to the max in the future.
MilanoMiliz: With the Buffs coming to Russian Vehicles, will other vehicles like the Leopards and Leclercs also get buffed in the near future?
Yes, we are planning to take a close look at the Abrams series in the near future, for example.
WolfGuardian: Can we expect an update where amphibious vehicles actually float and move like amphibious vehicles along with 2-3 maps that allow for this sort of gameplay?
We briefly looked into this matter as it periodically comes up as a player suggestion. This is one of those things that look very easy to do but really are not because they change one of the most basic pieces of code of the game – the movement system. To do this would require a massive overhaul (including all maps that feature water) and the tactical benefit would be negligible. That is why we are not planning to do this.
Shok2103: Will you develop the Global Operations mode further?
At this very moment we don’t have any plans for this mode. While Armored Warfare does feature two full PvP modes (Random Battles and Global Operations), it’s no secret we’re currently focusing more on improving the PvE experience. We do have plans to improve the PvP experience as well (via a comprehensive rebalance patch, for example) but the actual core concept of Global Operations is partially flawed as it acts as a multiplier for some vehicles that are balanced around single life. The second thing about this mode is that it hasn’t changed for many years and even if we update some things or add more maps – without a total overhaul (effectively a new mode), it won’t offer new gameplay as it’ll stay more of the same thing. When it comes to PvP, we’d much prefer to replace this old, stale feature with something fresh. On the other hand, we like the concept of a large battlefield and will definitely look into that in the future.
Tankman16476: Are you planning any changes to existing vehicle branches to make them more logical? For example, the Type 96B MBT (Type 96 being a PLA service tank) is currently a Premium while an export tank called VT-4 is a progression one. Wouldn’t it make sense to switch their places?
While you are technically correct, both tanks work the way they are just fine – they could use some polishing to be sure, but switching Tiers or statuses from Progression to Premium (and vice versa) is a massive can of worms. What of players who like things the way they are? What of players who invested into upgrades and such? Well, if you’ve been around long enough, you are surely aware of Balance 2.0 where we did the same thing and given the complexity of such changes, we’d have to have a very good reason to do so again.
And, as you might have guessed already, “it would improve the historicity” isn’t really a sufficient one because, after all, this is a game about mercenaries. In this sense, having “export” tanks more widely available to PMCs than “service” ones is much more logical.
Long story short – we are open to various vehicle suggestions from all players but anything that includes moving progression and Premium vehicles around is almost certainly a “no”.
Ghost_Mk1: When will we get a Tier 10 balance overhaul? Especially addressing the Buratino and Boxer deal too much damage, or the ZTZ-20 MBT overperforming overall.
We’re currently testing several iterations of TOS-1M changes. The TOS-1M is a great example why both our statistics and your feedback matter. It has a slightly above average winrate, not that great damage dealt per match, poor survival time per match – on paper, it looks fine at first glance. But, at the same time, it’s quite nasty because in most PvP matches, it drives forward, fires one or two rockets at most and then dies, which makes it not a lot of fun to play against. The third aspect of the matter is that we definitely do not want to nerf it to the ground. So, the general directions we’re considering are:
- Reducing the armor of the “small turret” below the launcher, thus creating a massive and easily accessible weakspot, easily exploitable against rushers (plus nerfing the APS charges and limiting its zone of operations to forward only)
- Or, alternatively, adding an ammo rack module to the launcher (for obvious reasons), but this might make the vehicle too vulnerable and testing is required
At the same time, we’d like to increase the accuracy of 122mm rockets as they are now flying all over the place and, with HE mechanic adjustments, they are nowhere near as destructive as they were at launch.
The ZTZ-20 is another matter where we need to tread carefully. Like the TOS-1M, the ZTZ-20 does not have extremely high statistics (the pre-nerf Object 640 behaved considerably better, for example) but we do recognize the toxicity of its armor. We’ll come up with a suitable solution.
ЦСНРФ: Are you planning a sound overhaul?
Yes. We are currently almost done with a diesel engine overhaul and with a 125mm gun sound overhaul. We’ll go on from there.
Tcarrq_SBEY: Are you planning to overhaul Battle Paths to become easier?
We already took steps in that direction by increasing the duration of the Tales from the Dark Battle Path from 3 to 4 months and by introducing events to win more Battle Coins such as the recent Desert Wind one. The bundles available on the Market or via the Web Shop are also cheaper than they were and we are glad you, the players, were happy about these changes.
Statys-Qou: Are you planning to overhaul the MBT weakspot system? Right now, all tanks have essentially homogenized armor where the weakspots are pretty much everywhere the same. We’d like some diversity.
This is a very double-edged sword. There are basically two approaches to the matter, as you correctly noted. On one hand, there’s the general armor homogeneity. On the other side, there’s the individual weakspot approach or, in its more extreme form, “pixel hunting” (where these zones are not only diverse but also small, a logical extrapolation of the concept).
It’s important to note that neither approach is the “right” one or even “better for the game” as each has its own advantages and issues. The “homogenized” approach is far easier for new players to grasp. Lower frontal plate is a weakspot and the rest of the tank typically is not. This makes the game easier to learn (but difficult to master as there are so many other mechanics to think of), which was the point of its introduction. If the armor layout is too complicated, new players are easily deterred and simply leave, which might sound great for the “git gud'' crowd but definitely isn’t a good thing for the game overall.
And, vice versa, the diversity approach is great for experienced players because it adds another layer of complexity where you have to know your opponents in detail to have a fighting chance against them. This can sometimes be great – just look at Elden Ring, and that’s a very difficult game – but, in free-to-play games that are essentially meant for casual audiences, you have to carefully balance the interests of each group. And that’s our goal – to balance things while keeping them fun.
With that being said, the current situation is by no means perfect and changes are in fact coming, but the point of this answer is to explain why such a system exists in the first place and that making something more complex isn’t always better.
That’s all the answers that could be fitted in this issue. We are already working on the next one. Until then:
See you on the battlefield!
