Our next set of answers from the development team is in - learn about the development of the game in this round of questions and answers!
Question: Are we ever going to see Tier 9 Tank Destroyers?
Answer: Yes, both Tier 9 and Tier 10 TDs are planned.
Question: Are there any plans to implement +/-1 matchmaker spread? Especially in PvE.
Answer: +/-1 Matchmaking (2 tiers of vehicles in 1 team, such as Tier 4 and 5) is the intended goal for the Matchmaker mechanism and the ideal match format the Matchmaker attempts to put together every time. Unfortunately, this is not always possible and battles are usually a compromise between the tier composition and waiting time. We are planning to optimize the Matchmaker so that +/-1 battles occur more often and queue waiting time is reduced at the same time.
Question: Tell us something about the upcoming Base changes?
Answer: The Base mechanism will be improved when new mechanisms are added to the game. The Base feature might seem as if it has been "abandoned" right now, but that is due to the fact that the mechanisms that allow the base owners to receive more unique and interesting rewards (not just simple multipliers to existing reward system) are not yet implemented into the game. For example, the Loot system will be implemented in one of the upcoming patches, which will allow the base to produce interesting single-use bonuses. The same applies to the crew system overhaul – implementing that feature will allow for other interesting base bonuses as well.
Question: How the 140 mm cannons will affect the game, especially versus Tier 9 – aren't you afraid of excessive power creep?
Answer: We plan to carefully monitor the statistics and fix any issues found. For example, in the testing phase of Update 0.15, the single shot damage of 140mm and 152mm guns was reduced several times. However, we are also planning an overhaul to fix the high-level power creep. We will disclose more details about that in the future.
Question: Are there any plans of making a premium AFV in the style of Fox/VBL/Wiesel? Small, fast and armed with an autocannon?
Answer: Yes, we do have such plans. In fact, as there is no such premium vehicle now, it is planned for the foreseeable future.
Question: For autocannons, any plans of allowing a mixed load clip? For example, 50:50 HE/AP or 25:75 HE/AP? That'd make ACs more effective against MBTs.
Answer: This is an interesting proposal, but it could potentially make the interface more complicated. We are actually interested in simplifying the interface – for example, in Update 0.15 the player is only charged for consumables and ammunition after the battle and everything can be seen on one screen. Nevertheless, we will consider it.
Question: Any thoughts on adding different options for the smoke grenade launchers, such as the ability to fire frag grenades?
Answer: Such ideas (for example, FRAG rounds for the M1A1) have been discussed internally several times. The problem with them is that they are only effective against infantry, which we do not currently have in the game, and against very specific vehicles – the extremely lightly armored AFVs (such as the VBL). The armor of other vehicles is sufficiently thick to protect it against such rounds. Therefore, such ammunition would only be usable in very specific cases.
Question: Any plans to have the machine guns functional?
Answer: Here the situation is similar to that of the FRAG shells. The machine guns would only by usable in very specific cases. Another thing to consider is that the class that would benefit the most from their introduction would be MBTs – and those are strong enough already.
Question: Are there any plans to adjust high tier Light Tanks to set them apart? Right now they feel almost like MBTs without any armor but with just a slight speed boost.
Answer: Yes, we are planning to rebalance this class as a whole. The first step towards this will be the Light Tank active ability buff in Update 0.15, but there are other plans as well.
Question: Now that we have 2 ATGM-only vehicles in the game, is it possible to create a TD line from Tier 3 to Tier 10 consisting of only ATGM vehicles?
Answer: This is technically possible. There are enough candidates for such a branch. It is in our long-term plans.
Question: Are there plans for more SPGs such as the Russian Msta-S or the Czech Dana?
Answer: Yes. There are plans to add more artillery vehicles within the current artillery tiers (1 to 8). Other things being considered artillery-wise are the introduction of tier 10 artillery vehicles and the introduction of self-propelled mortars (for example the Russian Nona-S).
Question: For players like myself who are getting fatigued trying to keep up with the constant changing meta of the game with each patch, we are wondering when the developers will feel the game is close to where they want it to be.
Answer: The current plans revolve around high tier changes, where gameplay is being significantly modified based on both statistics and player feedback. We are focusing on the power level of the MBT class due to its strong armor, exceedingly powerful APS and other factors, causing the high tier class balance and the meta-game to be significantly different from lower tiers. The rebalances, however, are a continuous process. The most important task for us is to solve the current key game issues – the reduction of the infamous "pixel hunting" and class role rebalance. After these key issues have been addressed, the speed of changes might change.
Question: Are there any plans for "Tank Company" type of battles?
Answer: Yes, in the near future. We are planning an interesting team mode for players. The details of which will be disclosed soon.
Question: Have propellant types been considered for modifying the arc/trajectory of SPG shells as additional mechanism, active skill, or shell types?
Answer: Yes. Moreover, the trajectories of armor-piercing and other shells are already somewhat different. The main issue with this proposal is that if we introduce such a feature, there might not be a suitable niche left for the self-propelled mortar class and hiding from artillery could become impossible. A separate mortar class would be easier to balance – for example, the ability to hit targets even behind cover would be compensated by a low firing range and reduced damage and accuracy.
Question: How integral (or dispensable) is proximity spotting (the 50 meter limit) as a mechanic?
Answer: In reality, this rule almost doesn't influence regular spotting. The viewranges and camouflage factors are set so that almost every vehicle will be discovered by "regular" means at 70+ meters. It mostly comes into play during urban combat and when fighting around a lot of cover, where it allows the game to bypass several gameplay issues that would occur otherwise. We have considered disabling it as part of an idea for a spotting system overhaul; we have even considered improving it, for example by introducing modules that would extend its range or reduce this range for opponents (like the thermal sights modules do with vegetation cover).
Question: As a Spanish player I would like to ask whether you have plans to introduce some Spanish vehicles such as the ASCOD Ulan/Pizarro or the Leopard 2E?
Answer: Yes, we do have such plans.
Question: Do you think SPG versus AFV one-on-one gameplay is balanced? Currently, if an AFV gets close to a SPG, the SPG is dead 99% of the time.
Answer: The vulnerability of artillery in close combat is the price it pays for its ability to attack other vehicles by indirect fire without risking exposure. It's worth noting that artillery has its ways of protecting itself to a certain degree – for example, firing a smoke shell at close range provides cover against an approaching AFV.
Question: Will you add more carousel options, more rows and filters?
Answer: Yes. After the garage UI overhaul in Update 0.15, we plan to introduce further improvements.
Question: Have you changed your position regarding player modifications?
Answer: This is a question we periodically return to. We do not want players to modify battle User Interface and vehicle textures. However, other elements, such as the Garage UI, may be more suitable for modding.
Question: Will you add maximum rendering range to the minimap, since we already have max view and current view range?
Answer: We are currently planning to remove the maximum render range limit altogether (the maximum spotting range, however, will stay). This change requires extensive testing, which is why we have no final decision on the matter yet.
Question: Will the AMX-30 in Armored Warfare have the ability to use its coaxial 20mm autocannon?
Answer: Yes, the improved versions (such as the AMX-30B2) with automatic cannon installed will have this option. This feature will use the standard mechanism for vehicles with multiple weapon systems.
Question: Is a tracked Tank Destroyer branch being developed or planned?
Answer: Yes, there are such plans for the future.
Question: Will we see the German variant of the MBT-70 in the game?
Answer: There are no plans to introduce this vehicle right now, but it could appear in the future.
Question: Will we possibly be seeing more hybrid vehicles with characteristics of two classes like the M1134?
Answer: Yes, this is possible – some of the currently planned vehicles will be quite unusual.
Question: Why do vehicles that are amphibious such as the BMP/BMD series drown in rivers?
Answer: The swimming mechanism has not been developed yet. To compensate, vehicles that would be normally able to swim can stay under water longer than usual before they drown. We plan to introduce the swimming system in the future.
Question: Are you happy with the current physics for fast vehicles? Some vehicles feel "bumpy" and are hard to control.
Answer: We are planning various fixes to the physics system, including improved control of wheeled and fast vehicles. We are also planning to fix the speed loss when running into trees.
Question: Has there been any consideration for "historical" skins for certain tank models that the player would purchase, such as "Operation Enduring Freedom M1A2" or "1991 Iraqi Republican Guard T-72" with appropriate markings and skins?
Answer: Yes, this is something we are considering, but no decision has been made on this matter yet.
Question: Will you implement specific rewards for vehicle types? For example, rewarding MBTs for deflected damage or AFVs for taking out other AFVs?
Answer: We have discussed this idea several times. The main issue is that, to keep the rewards for all classes balanced, we need to introduce such bonuses for all classes at once – and currently we have more pressing balancing matters to tend to. But we do have some ideas on how to reward players for fulfilling the "class role" that we can introduce later on.
That's it for today, stay tuned for the next part!