DEVELOPER QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 17

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: The other tank game has a damage multiplayer applied to the drive sprocket (front/rear depending on the tank) that allows easy tracking of tanks if the player is skilled enough with his shots. Are you planning to add this or similar mechanics to give more depth to your gameplay?
Answer: Armored Warfare has such a mechanic. By shooting at the front and rear drive sprockets players can deal more damage to the enemy’s tracks. That being said, keeping opponents permanently tracked is something we are actively trying to avoid. As such, it’s harder to track players continuously as we don’t want to place players into a position in which they are rendered indefinitely immobile and are at the full mercy of a circling AFV or LT.

Question: Are there any plans to make PvP more rewarding to players than PvE? For example trough the upcoming loot system? The whole "PvE is equal to PvP" thing is a huge mistake.
Answer: Our goal is not to inherently treat PvP as the more difficult mode and thus, reward it more. We want both PvE and PvP to feel rewarding based on each mode’s unique gameplay elements and loot will certainly help boost that feeling. With the new Loot system, players can expect to have equal opportunities to earn great rewards by playing whichever mode they enjoy the most.

Question: Are there any plans for a single player or co-op campaign?
Answer: Armored Warfare is first and foremost a multiplayer experience. As such, we currently have no plans to introduce a single player campaign. A co-operative PvE campaign is more likely, but we are not ready to discuss any formal plans yet.

Question: Is there any chance to have player statistics or battle score tables for all players accessible through internet browser?
Answer: No. Displaying individual player statistics to the public will always remain optional.

Question: Will there be some in-game visual features, similar to "Mark of Excellence", available to see in battle?
Answer: This is something we would like to introduce in the future, but it’s currently not scheduled.

Question: Will the game Economy be changed at the Official start of the game? Current game grinding progress is way too fast and easy. Players do not have time to learn the tanks and maps before the next vehicle tier opens up and becomes available to purchase.
Answer: We are not considering slowing down the overall progress rate at this moment, but we might make some adjustments to make it a bit more linear (with the overall time to reach Tier 10 remaining the same).

Question: Will you consider adding an option to completely disable some demanding game effects like shadows for the sake of low-end computers?
Answer: Yes, we will have the option to completely disable shadows in 0.16. At the same time, however we are being careful to make sure players who opt to play the game on low graphics do not have an inherent gameplay advantage over those who want to run the game at a higher graphical fidelity.

Question: Are there any plans to allow sound mods, such as the famous World of Tanks mod by Gnomefather?
Answer: We are interested in allowing sound mods but we need to invest a bit of time into technology to make it possible so we do not have an ETA on when this will be added yet.

Question: Are there any plans to add more artillery vehicles? What about Tier 9 and 10 artillery?
Answer: We do want to add more artillery vehicles, but they are currently some ways off from being implemented. Right now, we are focusing on adding more iconic LT, AFV, TD and MBT vehicles. We do want to hold off on adding more SPG vehicles until we feel the class as a whole is more feature complete than it is currently.

Question: Will the loot system include purely cosmetic objects to put on tanks, like sandbags, antennae, or logs (in case of Russian tanks)?
Answer: Not these features specifically, but the Loot system will eventually contain unique decals or camouflage patterns – we’ve got some pretty cool ones in the works.

Question: Can we finally customize our profile picture in-game?
Answer: This change is unfortunately not planned due to the potential for players to abuse the system. However, we do intend to extend the library of portraits available extensively in an upcoming update.

Question: Are there any plans to remove the retrofit unlock system from tank line, and put it next to it or in base? Using rep / raw material to unlock them without playing a full line?
Answer: An alternative retrofit progression system which doesn’t rely on unlocking specific vehicles is something we’ve been thinking about, but at the moment we do not have any definitive implementation plans.

Question: Are you planning to add Virtual Reality support to Armored Warfare?
Answer: While it would be awesome to play Armored Warfare in VR, at this moment we want to focus on improving the game’s overall graphics quality and optimization. Once we are satisfied with where the game is at overall, we will consider adding more specialized features such as VR support.

Question: Will the real velocity of shells be implemented?
Answer: Due to server timing, we are unlikely to make AP shells travel any faster than they currently do. Once projectiles exceed a certain speed, they would need to become hitscan projectiles or else the physics simulation on the server would suffer. That said, we are going to be changing the shell velocities of projectiles throughout the game as we work on a significant balance pass coming up so players can expect to see more shell velocity variety across the shell types and across different vehicles depending on what ammunition the vehicles are using.

Question: Are there any plans to add the Tier 10 Leclerc "Scorpion" with a 140mm gun? What about the AMX-30?
Answer: We are currently developing a full French MBT line, but it is too early to disclose any specific details.

Question: Are there any ideas for making artillery even more "support" oriented, and less a damage dealer?
Answer: We have several ideas for improving the support nature of artillery in order to make arty feel more useful outside of just simply dealing indirect damage, although these changes are not scheduled to be released soon. For example, we’ve been exploring ideas for different round types like EMP, which would disrupt enemy team minimaps. That being said, it’s “fun” to deal damage as your impact can immediately be felt on the battlefield. By providing artillery with more support options, we would not at the same time directly take away from their damaging capabilities unless their damage was over-performing.

Question: Which future line of tanks will come next?
Answer: As we announced already, the next major line will be a combination of Polish and Czechoslovak AFVs.

Question: Will we have the ranking system – the same one used on the RU server?
Answer: This is a question for the western publisher (My.com). With that being said, at this moment they are closely evaluating this feature and its impact on the RU community. Depending on player feedback on how it feels, it stands a good chance of being added to the western servers.

Question: Will you consider changing the AI vehicle Tier spread in PvE? Fighting an Armata while driving a T-72A is just plain silly.
Answer: Changing the PvE matchmaker is in our plans. However, under normal circumstances a tier 6 vehicle should not see Tier 10 AI opponents in battle. We recently changed the potential platoon spread from 2+ tier difference to just 1+ in order to prevent this situation from occurring while grouping. When solo-queuing, the system will automatically place you with teammates who are all within a 1 tier spread difference.

Question: Why developers are insisting on introducing tiny, cluttered PvE maps?
Answer: We are not insisting on small maps – in fact, we will be overhauling the older small PvE Missions to make them larger and cover more area. Future PvE Missions will continue to take place on maps with more useable space.

Question: Have you considered adding small rewards to player achievements? For example, getting blue star in PvE should reward the player with a little extra. Will you also expand the achievements?
Answer: Account-wide achievements already have rewards, for example the Tank Collector achievements awards the players with credits for each 10 vehicles owned. This list of achievements will be expanded in the future to be more rewarding and more interesting overall. Additionally, with the upcoming introduction of loot, players will be able to earn additional rewards through supply boxes based on their match performance.

Question: What are the plans regarding future map design?
Answer: We are developing two rather big PvP maps at the moment. One will be fairly open (with some urban areas), based on a warzone destroyed by conflict. The second is a large desert map which will set a new record in terms of map size.

Question: How do you see high tier AFV and TD roles in the future, as their place on the field gets blurred after tier 7?
Answer: Regarding the Tank Destroyer class – we would like to improve its role on the battlefield, the first step are the changes present in Update 0.16, which allow the TD to use its gun suppression ability while on the move. Additionally, we would like to see them be able to fire their first shot without getting spotted, but at the same time we do not want to improve their camouflage factor too much in order to avoid situations where players can’t find the “invisible” vehicle shooting at them from close range. For AFVs, we are currently planning to split them into sub-groups; namely “scouts” (tasked with pure recon such as the CRAB) and heavy IFVs (such as the Terminator or BMP). This way, the matchmaker can ensure both teams have an equal number of comparable scout AFVs so they can properly scope out enemy positions.

Question: What are the plans for high tier MBT balance?
Answer: We are exploring introducing additional weak spots for MBTs to reduce their frontal damage immunity as a short term adjustment. This is something we would want to test on a PTS to collect player feedback on how the changes feel. In the long term, we have plans for changing how the armor simulation works to add more complexity to it which will allow us to return some of the immunity but make it decay depending on the amount of shelling it is taking.

Question: Why do high tier MBT's have a view range comparable to an equal tier LT or AFV?
Answer: Vehicle view ranges across different classes are something we are currently working on and plan to rebalance.

Question: Will AW introduce futuristic gun systems like Railgun or Electro Thermal Chemical Gun?
Answer: There are no such plans at the moment.

Question: Can we expect South Korean T-80U and BMP-3 as premium vehicles?
Answer: There are no immediate plans for those specific vehicle variants, but anything can happen in the future!

Question: Are there plans for competitive PvE modes?
Answer: More PvE mode variants are definitely planned. One such mode is currently planned for this year. More details will be unveiled in the future.

Question: Is there any chance for the PvP and PvE modes to be separated into their own games? Or at least separate the progress?
Answer: There are no such plans. Both the PvP and PvE mode are core components of the Armored Warfare experience. We want to give each player the option to choose which mode they want to play at any time.

Question: What about Tier 9 and Tier 10 Tank Destroyers?
Answer: We are planning to add a Tier 9 and a Tier 10 Tank Destroyer relatively soon as a part of the Czechoslovak/Polish line.

Question: Is there any plan to add variable shell ballistics (flight curve, muzzle velocity) for artillery so that it can be used on all maps?
Answer: Giving the existing artillery vehicles the ability to modify their shell trajectories in order to hit targets behind cover would make them overpowered. We are however considering adding a Self-Propelled Mortar class that would feature rapid fire vehicles with high shell arcs but low range and shot damage.

Question: Are you planning or have you considered adding a mission or missions where in the team is split in half and they have their own objectives, separate from the rest of the team, to complete simultaneously to ensure mission completion?
Answer: We have considered such missions but having the success depend on every single player’s performance would for example make such a mission an automatic failure if one of the players was AFK. Such content would be viable for organized teams of 5 and indeed, it is something we are working on. For random PvE missions such an approach is unfortunately not easily viable.

Question: Aren’t you worried that Tier 10 vehicles will be too identical, making high tier battles into what we call a “clone fest”?
Answer: Not really. There are a large number of interesting projects and prototypes that once added, will make high-tier gameplay more diverse. We do have plans to make additional stat adjustments to high tier vehicles in order to push their soft stats farther apart and make their individual strengths/weaknesses more pronounced.

Question: Are there any plans to improve the visual camouflage in the future?
Answer: We are planning to add a large number of camouflage patterns, some of which will be available through the Loot system.

Question: Are you considering doing some kind of "trilogy" like WG did with warplanes and ships?
Answer: Not at the moment. We are 100% focused on Armored Warfare.

Question: Can we expect a feature allowing players to change their in-game name for gold or credits?
Answer: This is something My.com would like to introduce in the future.

Question: When can we expect a more realistic implementation of AP shell impact and ricochets? It feels very unrealistic that a modern 120mm APFSDS shell cannot penetrate 50mm of armor at 40-60° (for example the roofs).
Answer: We currently have no plans to change the ricochet angles for now. It is important to understand that “realistic” approach would make for a very poor game and would – amongst other things – introduce a much higher degree of randomness. Modern kinetic shells do indeed have little trouble penetrating angled surfaces, but at the same time a shell with poor nominal values can penetrate even MBT frontal armor, as demonstrated during recent conflicts. We do not want MBTs to be randomly penetrated from frontal angles; such an effect would not make the game more fun, despite being more “realistic”. That said, we are reviewing our current shell mechanics as a whole for adjustments with some of the changes bringing the mechanics more in line with their real world characteristics.

Question: When can we expect shell trajectory physics improvements or at least implementation? At the moment, a deflected shell simply disappears instead of traveling in its new trajectory.
Answer: Unlike old WW2-era shells, modern kinetic shells often shatter upon initial impact instead of continuing on in a new direction. As a result, we currently have no plans to add shell trajectory physics based on ricochet angles. That said, there is a small amount of shell ricocheting with AP shells in that they can deflect off a surface into another location on the same vehicle with reduced penetration. They just can't hit vehicles other than the initial target at this time.

That's it for today, stay tuned for the next part!