The developer team answers for the Q&A session about balance in Crossout. Part 1

Survivors! 

Recently, we held a Q&A session with the development team to answer your questions and address your suggestions regarding balance in Crossout. Here are the answers. There will be a lot of them, there are 56 answers in this part.

Q: Ripper is not playable in CW and on high PS. In its current form, Ripper is not playable at all. A minelayer that does not do damage with “mines” is a bit illogical. I propose to give the opportunity to use the Tormentor module (70% damage boost for a period of time / increased flight speed), so that there is an opportunity to effectively spend free energy.

A: We agree that the efficiency of the “Ripper” is insufficient. We cannot change the interaction of disks stuck in the ground with wheels at the moment due to technical reasons. We like your suggestion on the interaction of the “Tormentor” module with this weapon, and we will try to implement and test it, as well as increasing the ram damage of a stuck disk in one of the next planned balance changes.

Q: Unplayable (non-competitive) relics “Ripper”, “Typhoon”, “Firebug”, “Porcupine”, “Punisher”, “Jormungandr”. Why does the balance department ignore the problems in the relic segment for whole months, years?

A: Thank you for such a detailed comment, we’ll answer in order:

• Ripper: see the answer to the previous question;
• CC-18 Typhoon: the weapon itself has a fair amount of efficiency at the moment. We know it's relatively unpopular, but changing one enemy-weakening perk to another isn’t going to make a difference. We have plans to change the perk from weakening enemies to increasing the damage dealt by the weapon itself;
• Firebug: we will test the changes to the range and flamethrower jet speed, but it should be noted that the parameters still will be lower than those of “Skadi”;
• Porcupine: after changes to hovers and the weapon itself, its popularity has decreased but still remains at a fairly high level, as well as efficiency. There are no plans to cancel previous changes at this time;
• Punisher: changes to this weapon will be considered after the release of the last announced changes for “hitscan” weapons and the collection of relevant efficiency data;
• Jormungandr: your proposed changes for this weapon only would look inappropriate in view of the whole branch of single-shot shotguns. As with the announced cannon changes, we will consider changing all such shotguns in the future.

Q: Due to the current way of how builds behave on contact, melee builds are overly effective, since the build that is pushed in melee combat is completely unable to move anywhere except in the direction of the push.

A: We are aware of this problem. Unfortunately, at the moment we have no solutions that don’t entail a global redesign of the physics of builds interaction and control, but we will try to find them.

Q: Low efficiency of the “Kami” cabin. The perk of this cabin is too narrowly focused, weak and ineffective compared to the perks of other epic and legendary rarity cabins.

A: As part of one of the next balance changes, we will try to improve the perk according to your first suggestion (on cables) and revise the perk’s duration and reload time.

Q: The speed boost from engines to heavy cabins is too high. Recently, there has been a problem with the “brick” builds that use heavy cabins, have a lot of durability and at the same time have inadequately high speed by the standards of heavy builds

A: We are aware of the speed inflation issue, which is exacerbated as new parts and mechanics are added. We have plans to comprehensively rework both base speeds and speed bonuses acquired from various sources. Your solution overlaps with ours in part, but does not address all the issues we would like to resolve. We are planning these changes for next year.

Q: Augers. This movement part is superior to every single one in the game, to hovers, to legs.... Not to mention “Omni” and others.

A: For the first time in a long time, “Meat Grinder” has become a competitive movement part. We do not plan to weaken the parameters of the movement part itself, but in the next update we will remove the influence of bonuses from other parts on its damage. If this is not enough, we will consider additional changes.

Q: In my opinion, the last balance change of the Tachi perk was disastrous for this weapon. Due to the complete rework of the perk, the weapon is almost never seen in battles, as the damage has been cut down quite a bit.

A: Statistically, “Tachi” is currently at a medium level and does not require changes. Compared to the excessive efficiency previously, the weapon is now used as originally intended.

Q: Problem: hidden Gravastars on heavy builds. High efficiency and difficult to shoot them off 

A: “Gravastar” efficiency is at a medium level no matter where it is mounted. We have no plans to make changes in the near future.

Q: Spider legs are dead. It’s almost impossible to play with them in Clan wars, almost any wheeled build with medium/heavy cabin will push over a spider or neither spider nor wheeled build can push the other.

A: We are aware of the decline in popularity of mechanical legs in “Clan wars”, but it has remained at a sufficient level in other game modes. We have no plans to make changes until we make their direct opponents more “friendly”.

Q: Low efficiency of the ST-M26 Tackler (hard times require changes in the perks of weapons that are not popular and not effective). I think this machine gun has low popularity among players and shows unsatisfactory results in battles.

A: First, we will gather statistical data after the changes announced for “hitscan” weapons, and then we will plan additional changes. The problem with long activation time of the perk will be addressed in one of the future balance changes.

Q: MLs are significantly inferior to Bigfoots and Titans in terms of durability and traction. Bigrams at 45 km/h are significantly less maneuverable than hovers after rebalance, as well as easily pushed over even by medium vehicles.

A: We don’t plan to make such changes to mechanical legs in the near future. We would like to make some comments on the parameters of the mechanical legs themselves:

• Their mass values are reflective of the fact that they act as side armour and defend the space below the frame level, as well as increase the height of the armoured car for more convenient shooting at enemies with other movement parts;
• “ML 200” has sufficient traction. The “Bigram” has a reduced traction parameter due to the fact that it has two modes of operation and is more versatile;
• We do not plan to change the parameter of power consumption, because there are builds with a different number of these movement parts.

Q: Legs survivability against flame weapons. Legs cannot compete with Dracos and Firebugs.

A: We have no plans to increase the rotation speed of mechanical legs around the radial axis, but we will consider adding damage resistance to fire damage in a future update.

Q: Bigrams and Gerridas have low tonnage given their mass.

A: We will look into increasing the tonnage of mechanical legs in one of the future balance changes. This may require changes to other parameters of these movement parts.

Q: Active melee weapons lose in efficiency to bullet weapons when used in contact battle. Most weapons that can be placed under the cabin or in a bunker for point-blank shooting will be more effective than saws. 

A: Your proposal makes melee weapons absolute best in contact fights with the enemy, completely removing the ability to counter these types of builds. At the moment, we are gradually making changes to the weapons that can be placed under the cabin (such as the “Yongwang” changes). If other weapons show increased efficiency when mounted this way, we will make additional changes to them as well.

Q: Uselessness of most turquoise modules, compared to their purple counterparts. Excessive efficiency of some legendary modules compared to their purple counterparts.

A: We looked at your proposed concept of tying energy consumption to part rarity when we were reworking the energy system in the game. Based on testing and player feedback, we moved away from “hardwiring” energy to rarity and decided to approach each module category individually. Regarding the “Chameleon” and “Maxwell” special modules: we tested changing energy consumption to 1 pt. in conjunction with reducing parameters, but concluded that even a significant weakening leaves them too effective for such low energy consumption. We are closely monitoring the statistics of these modules and the number of times they have been used in battles. At the moment, these modules are more popular at levels below 8000 PS than their epic counterparts.

Q: Ram damage. Because there are cases when heavy builds end battles without weapons, dealing 500-700 yellow damage.

A: We have no plans to set strict limits on ram damage. At the moment, there are not many complaints about its efficiency. If the problem you mentioned becomes more prevalent, we will reduce the effect of armoured car mass on damage values.

Q: Low survivability of Reapers. Dependency of tracks and rolling-based movement parts on Golden Eagle. Reapers imply using them on short range, medium/heavy builds, which consequently have sufficient survivability, whereas Reapers themselves lack sufficient survivability in the current circumstances, especially when compared to their purple and relic counterparts.

A: We will consider increasing the durability of the “Reaper” weapon in one of the future balance changes, but only in conjunction with increasing its mass. The multiple increase in durability of the “Devourer” relative to the “Reaper” is due to its size. Regarding the “Golden Eagle”: currently most builds with tracks, augers, and rolling-based movement parts use other engines than the “Golden Eagle”. The builds that do use it have less efficiency. Based on this data, these movement parts do not need the maximum speed from the engine perk. We will consider reworking the engine’s perk or adding a new one, as we did with the “Oppressor” in the announced balanced changes.

Q: Stillwind and Whirlwind are weak. They consume 10 energy, so two of either will be too weak in damage but require a lot of extra energy. If you have three, damage is adequate, but there is no energy left for anything but a radiator, and Stillwind perk is useless. Meanwhile, all power nodes of modules and cabins are only suitable for two weapons.

A: These autocannons are statistically medium and do not require any changes to their parameters. We will consider changing or replacing the “AC80 Stillwind” perk with a more appropriate one. Your proposal to increase power consumption will affect those who use 3 upgraded weapons, it would make it impossible to mount them on an armoured car, so we will not consider this option.

Q: Balance of Omnis and Atoms: unplayability of these movement parts. Currently, Omni are extremely bad after the last 2 nerfs.

A: The popularity of “Omni” in PvP battles is at a high level across a wide range of PS, and we have no plans to make changes to the parameters. We will consider changes of the “Atom” separately from the “Omni”. Regarding the number of parts: we see “Omni” as a good part for light armoured cars with 4 movement parts, for heavier ones there are “Atom” and “Meat Grinder”.

Q: Fin whale engine gives too big speed boost to wheeled builds with heavy cabins, while this boost is not so important for builds with medium and light cabins.

A: At the moment, we have no plans to introduce fixed engine bonuses based on cabin class. As we answered earlier, we have plans to completely rework speeds and bonuses next year.

Q: Punisher, Typhoon, Porcupine, Ripper and Flash are significantly worse than other relics in terms of parameters. Upgraded legendary counterparts are often more useful than 10+ times more expensive relics.

A: We discussed most of the relics in the answers above. The “Flash” is as good as its legendary counterpart. In general, Tesla emitters are more of an auxiliary weapon, and we do not plan to make them independent. Usability and efficiency of auxiliary weapons depends on the meta: they can show low efficiency in the current one and be very successful in the next.

Q: Mars nerf. Why nerf Mars cabin if it was not much better than Humpback when it was introduced into the game, and now it will be even worse!

A: It is wrong to compare this cabin with the “Humpback” solely on the basis of damage bonus. Such an approach would be appropriate if their mechanics were the same. “Mars” has switchable activation, which doesn’t force it to take damage, and also increases ally efficiency. Statistically, “Mars” has high efficiency relative to the entire class of heavy cabins, so changes to its parameters are reasonable.

Q: Active melee weapons fall off when used for its main purpose of contacting a target.

A: This class of weapons already has resistances to both blast damage and ram damage. Their survivability is at a sufficient level. Increasing the damage resistance to ram damage to 100% will allow saws to deal ram damage without receiving it in return. This goes against the concept of ram damage in the game. The lack of explosion when the blast damage module is destroyed by melee damage seems like an excessive game convention and is not required for this class of weapons. Together with your previous proposal, if we understood correctly, you want to make armoured cars with melee weapons generally invulnerable in close combat, which is unacceptable for game balance.

Q: The presence of a long and stable meta, as well as “bottom” weapons, which really stand out among all other weapons. One weapon in battles is seen too often and players show a naturally good result with it, regardless of skill and vehicle build. You need to make balance changes more often

A: We have no plans to significantly increase the frequency of balance changes. Gathering statistical data, designing changes and their initial testing takes time and can not be done in one week.

Q: Clarinet TOW. Very high efficiency for a purple weapon.

A: As we answered earlier, the situation with the “Clarinet TOW” is similar to augers. After a long time in the game, it was finally able to show competitive efficiency. The popularity of this weapon is due to its unique play style. Its efficiency is at a medium level, it does a lot of damage, but due to the lack of the ability to move the projectile in the vertical plane, the damage mainly concentrates on the frames and wheels, which does not contribute to the effective destruction of most types of armoured cars. Countering the “Clarinet TOW” is not difficult, its rockets are quite visible, have low speed and durability, and the armoured car itself is defenseless in close range or while controlling the projectile.

Q: Too radical changes to values in balance changes. Because it leads to one narrowly focused meta, one thing stands out, everyone plays only with that. You need to change the parameters of parts gradually, in increments of 5-7% in total, and see how it affects the game.

A: Given the frequency of balance changes, such percentages and numbers are acceptable. Not every change is reflected in a significant numerical value shift, but all of them are justified, taking into account statistics and internal testing.

Q: Nailguns. Weak and unpopular because of the difficulty in implementing their mechanics (especially Summator), there is a feeling that after the recently announced balance changes nailguns may go into complete oblivion.

A: We will consider improvements to this weapon class in one of the future balance changes.

Q: Balance problem - bricks

Why is it a problem? - unstoppable fast-moving meat army leaves little room for the gameplay that everyone is used to and love, namely tactical battles, counter peaks at the draft stage, all this has disappeared in most cases. The solution is to buff Kapkans.

A: We have no plans to improve the parameters of “Kapkan”, at the moment we are satisfied with its efficiency. We already talked about the speed of heavy builds above.

Q: Greetings, development team !

I want to raise a question about the balance of Assembler and its meaning in our game. It seems and not so long ago, there was a small “revamp” of this weapon, as well as the subsequent “hot fix”. In the end, I think that the result was ambiguous and, in fact, did not change anything in favor of Assembler. I have an idea how to fix this.

Since you cannot raise DPS/DPM for Assembler (other cannons have flywheel/cyclops) I suggest to give it additional “thirteenth energy” and upgrade parameters accordingly. A good example would be the Varun crossbow, which by the way is very similar even more in spirit to the Assembler than the Astraeus.

In the end we will have a weapon that firstly, can not be played on medium PS (because of energy), and secondly, has a chance for a good use in higher PS levels and even CW!

A: Thank you for your suggestion, we will consider options for its implementation and test them in one of the future balance changes.

Q: Raijin is too strong a cannon, and its strength is in its versatility. It’s purple, meaning it doesn’t have much PS. It’s not very big, but it’s as durable as Kaiju. That said, its perk raises its survivability. And the perk is easy to implement. It has very high damage, a volley with a full charge does as much damage as Mortar. Again, this is a purple weapon. And it reloads quickly. The perk also boosts damage. It has too much penetration ability and too much splash. This cannon doesn’t need players to know how to play with it, you just hit any place on ana enemy car with a full charge, and a half of them is gone. Like Mortar, but stronger.

A: We are aware of the high efficiency of the “Raijin” weapon. Your proposal to change its rarity can not be implemented. If the previously announced changes are not enough, we will consider reducing the ammunition as an additional measure.

Q: Blast damage boost in comparison to other types of damage boosts

Consider the situation: The Mars cabin perk gives +30% to damage. If we use it on a build with a weapon that deals blast damage, we will get a bigger dps boost than on a build with a weapon that deals another type of damage. This is best seen in raids, when players who use Catalina + Retcher do many times more damage than other players, and it’s not even a matter of skill or gesigning good builds. 

The solution to this problem is to reduce the damage bonus for blast damage weapons. For example, the Mars will increase blast damage by 15% and all other types of damage by 30% when the perk is activated.

A: We don’t plan to make changes that include different bonuses per damage types. We have plans for a big rework of blast damage in general, but we can’t share details at the moment.

Q: Oppressor engine. Perk problem

I think the perk in the current realities of the game is fine, but after reading the planned balance changes, I disagree with one point.

Adding the dependence of projectile speed on the vehicle speed is not right, because then at different speeds you will need to lead the shot differently. That is, if you accelerate by 1km/h, you will already need to recalculate your shot. That’s nonsense, you shouldn’t do that. It will just mess up the aiming.

The solution to the problem can be NOT adding this perk to the game, or using it at will. For example, you can make an engine mode switch, like the Omnibox cabin. In one mode of the Oppressor it speeds up the turn, in another it boosts the speed of the projectile.

A: The “Oppressor” perk is mostly used to the full extent, and the bonus itself slightly increases the projectile’s flight speed to make it uncomfortable to shoot with or without it. Please test this change on the test server this weekend.

Q: Active melee weapons cannot always deal melee damage.

Very often, the target can escape without problems due to excessive maneuverability, when driving into their side or back.

Increase “phantom” melee damage pins to all melee weapons, like Charybdis with its the perk (Charybdis themselves should get an extra “phantom pin”): when a saw has no collision, but still goes into a part and does damage behind it.

(or) Saws can “sink in” the same way as grinder from the Range does, it attracts what it contacts.

A: Currently, melee weapons have enough efficiency and good performance on medium PS levels. We have no plans to change the damage mechanics of this weapon class.

Q: Low GRAVITY and low traction of all builds in the game. A spider build weighing 25-30 tons can be pushed around by smooth round wheels, raise its front and even flip it if there is a wall.

Cars of 20-25 tons jump around, fly up in the air like PLUSHES and drive onto each other’s roofs.

That’s not normal.... Don’t touch speed --- increase the gravity by 2x for ALL builds and remove the “ICE” from the ground.

A: Your proposition affects a large part of the game physics and requires extensive changes. We have no plans for such a redesign at this time, but we will consider it as an option to improve the game in the future. We already spoke about the mechanical legs traction above.

Q: Too much durability and at the same time high speed of the wheels “Titan” in so-called “brick” builds.

Builds with this movement part are imbalanced and have a number of advantages: high survivability (a lot of HP for the cabin and the movement part, the Titan), high speed (with high HP speed is 80-90 km/h).

Reduce the speed for wheels with heavy cabins (something like a debuff) and reduce HP of the Titan or make it so that the builds would be slower with those wheels.

A: We answered the question about the speeds of heavy builds above.

The parameters of the “Titan” are medium and do not stand out relative to other movement parts. We don’t plan to make any changes to their parameters at the moment, nor do we plan to limit the maximum speed for the wheels.

Q: Efficiency of heavy legs

Not useful enough in battle

I propose to introduce melee damage in the animation of lowering the legs in some radius from the leg itself and make it scale according to the weight of the legs. 

A: As we answered earlier, the efficiency of mechanical legs is at a medium level. We have no plans to implement your suggestion.

Q: Quite a large number of unplayable weapons, cabins, movement parts in the game

The game really has a lot of frankly weak and unpopular weapons, cabins, movement parts. Some were nerfed, some make no sense because of very strong meta builds, some have parameters completely incomparable to strong, meta parts.

The solution is trivial, deal with the balance of these weakest parts more often, rather than mindlessly nerf the “meta”

A: Balance changes contain not only parameter reductions, but also quite a lot of rebalancing and improvements. Regarding the frequency of release of balance updates, we have already spoken about it above.

Q: Recent changes to add ammunition limit to all weapons.

The problem is that you have to rebuild absolutely ALL builds for this, lose the durability and add vulnerability to your custom build in the form of explosive ammo packs.

Solution: increasing the base ammo pack (blue and purple rarity) or increasing the ammunition of cannons and weapons that require ammo packs, in that case ammo shortage situations will become less frequent.

A: Please wait until the test server opens, study the amount of base ammo pack for each weapon, and only then draw conclusions about the changes. The base values are set so that the player has the option of not mounting ammo packs for quick battles.

Q: Sidekicks are unplayable. A few years ago, they have been nerfed into oblivion, and they continue to be unplayable. The main problem: with absolutely any buffs (radars, co-driver, cabin) the drone AI does not understand where to shoot. Do the developers have an opportunity to technically make bots “not dumb”, or at least not too much? That’s all they need.

A: We will look into the problem of “Sidekicks” strange behaviour and target locking.

Q: The problem of raising builds. Most of the time, players try to raise up each other and shoot at point-blank range.

Gessan, any other “iron” or accidentally raising the build on contact to the side or rear. Vehicles should not act like inflatables or toys.

A: Your proposal will lead to the fact that the builds will simply “grate” on the ground after losing some of the movement parts or completely lose the ability to move. Currently, a very small percentage of players mount parts so close to the ground that they hit it, so we don’t plan to introduce additional checks at the point of building armoured cars. We will consider changes to the collision of the “Plow blade” and “Gessan” parts to reduce instances of them raising builds.

Q: MLs, Bigrams, Gerridas, hovers and rolling-based movement parts and their low utility relative to wheels meta.

These movement parts have a number of problems that force players to opt for more meta options, which at the moment are Titans, Hermits, and other wheels.

A: We responded earlier that we would consider changing the “ML 200” perk.

“Bigram” and “Gerrida”: we previously responded that we would consider increasing their tonnage, but this may require additional changes.

“Icarus IV” and “Icarus VII”: at the moment their popularity and efficiency has hardly decreased since the last changes, their parameters are at a fairly high level, and therefore we do not plan to improve them.

“Omni” and “Atom”: we already discussed them above.

Q: The problem is designing a build.

Because developers change the essence of the game. You destroyed a lot of interesting solutions and ideas, people who assembled really cool builds. The most trivial example: yes, yongwang is imbalanced if placed at the bottom. So what? Why pry and change the way it can be mounted or its model (hovers + legs is also an example of an interesting solution), old players remember a lot of ruined ideas. I believe it’s bad to do this (nerf interesting solutions), you can just start giving players ready-made builds at this rate.

A: We are not against interesting and original solutions for building armoured cars, but any combination and design must remain in balance relative to other weapons, parts and armoured cars. Your “Yongwang” example was significantly out of statistical and reasonable efficiency limits. Changing this weapon without doing anything to its mounting location would have rendered the normal setup useless relative to the “bottom” setup.

Q: Low efficiency of the weapon Enlightenment.

The weapon itself is very rarely used, and it is the most useless in the game.

Make it a module, increase energy drain from 1 to 2 pts. Change the effect to: Shoots a beacon at the selected target. After attaching, the beacon reveals the aura of the player (illuminates them), as well as prohibits them from using invisibility. Module active time is 15 sec with 30 sec reloading, which can be accelerated with the Cheetah engine. The aura of the enemy is also visible to allies. Perk can be left the same as it was before.

A: Thank you, we will consider your suggestion.

Q: Barrier 9 can’t protect allies or myself properly. This part has interesting potential, giving you the ability to briefly lay in cover with the ability to return fire. However, the shield is too weak, it still costs too much energy, weight and space on the vehicle to install it.

A: We have no plans to create partial or full defence buffs inside the barrier radius and change survivability for blast damage. “Barrier IX” currently has enough efficiency for its energy consumption level. However, we will consider displaying the durability of the barrier when it is active.

Q: The “FG Aggregator” generator is oversized for its rarity. The size of the “FG Aggregator” generator is not appropriate for builds up to ~6000 PS. While it was likely designed primarily for installation with the Docker and WWT1 cabins, its size makes it difficult to integrate into builds with those cabins, especially when mounted on the bottom. 

A: We have no plans to change the model of this generator. The frequency of its use is at a sufficient level. 

Q: Wheel builds even with light cabins can drive under spiders (with gerridas in particular) and can drag it along safely, depriving the spider of control.

This leaves no way for the spider to fight off, while the wheeled build only needs to press the W button (the spider literally has no control with WASD buttons).

The solution is simple: the wheels must not move when a spider is on top of the build. The spider should not lose contact with the surface and be able to get off the vehicle.

A: The situation you described happens very rarely, and in most cases mechanical legs still have contact with the ground and the ability to manoeuvre. We do not plan to make changes to such build interactions.

Q: Omnis and Atoms slide like they’re on ice

Because of the low traction, these movement parts slide a lot, they oversteer. Big builds with Omnis or Atoms be can pushed by relatively light builds on wheels. You need to increase the traction of Omnis and Atoms.

A: We will look at options to change the traction of these movement parts without changing other parameters in the case of the “Omni” movement part.

Q: Many weapons are more convenient to use in a bunker.

Players assemble boxes from all possible parts and hide weapons in them, which originally can rotate, but lose this ability.

A: We do not plan to make such changes. The problem is not encompassing for all movement parts and weapons, and such solutions are too resource-consuming, including in terms of game performance on different systems.

Q: Monopoly of wheels on speed.

Many movement parts have a low limit of maximum speed, which is not dependent on the cabin, and also cannot be raised by engines, which makes playing with almost all movement parts except wheels (due to their lack of limitation) less fun.

A: We are currently testing increasing the speed limit of movement parts with the “Phobos” co-driver.

Regarding “Golden Eagle”, we already discussed it above. When reworking its perk, we will consider your suggestion.

Q: Invisibility disruption

In the current state of the game, the invisibility turns off from any damage, so the value of this ability drops.

I propose to make it more difficult to disrupt invisibility. For example, you need to do 300 damage to an invisible enemy to reveal them.

A: Invisibility is a strong enough mechanic, we do not plan to make it easier to use.

Q: Even a heavy build on tracks can’t push a wheeled heavy/medium build

Tracks should logically push over wheeled builds, and they are heavier and more expensive, too

Increase the pushing ability of tracks.

A: After the recent changes, tracks are good enough at pushing enemy builds and their popularity has increased. We are closely monitoring the statistics of these movement parts and will make additional changes if needed.

Q: Superiority of parts of greater rarity vs. less rare parts on low PS, or whatever you might call it.... “entry barrier”.

A: Weapons of high rarity on low PS have limitations due to the PS spent on the weapons themselves and reduced durability and module count limit on the build. Statistically, such builds do not stand out.

Q: Significant superiority of weapons that can only be installed in 2 units per build, compared to 3-4 units of other weapons

The problem of adequately installing 3-4 weapons on modules with power nodes. Before it was only Omamori, which was partially compensated by the Fin whale engine, now we also have the Jackie, which increases damage, but you can’t install a weapon on it comfortably if you need to install more than 2.

A: Although it is easier to place 2 weapons on the power nodes of modules and cabins, weapons that you can have 3 or 4 of also have a number of advantages. For example, if you lose one of your 4 weapons, you will only lose 25% damage, and even less if 2 of your 4 weapons are mounted on a “Jackie”; while if you lose 1 of your 2 weapons, you will lose half your efficiency.

Q: Advantage of a poorly balanced part (cabin)

The best armor is armor that doesn’t get destroyed until the build itself dies, and that’s the cabin. If you place your weapons right, they will be under the solid defence of a part of 4-5 thousand or more HP, which dictates a solid and clear advantage for heavy builds. A bit too much in a building game, don’t you think?

Add a gradual increase in how many damage a cabin takes depending on its HP level. For example, if you lost 30% durability of the cabin (do not count the damage on the structural parts), you should receive an increase in damage on it by 15%, and so on up to X%, which will introduce a balancing tool in the use of the constructor and adding parts for the sake of HP. If not for this, why do we need the constructor?

A: Placing the cabin in the front of the build has both pros and cons, just like any other point of placement. In the announced changes, we modified the “Grizzly” co-driver, which should reduce the efficiency of the front cabin placement.

Q: Weakness of shields and other modules

All shields except Atom are a short-lived treat with a strong vulnerability to blast damage. This especially hinders the use of Nova and Aegis-Prime, which would be a good combination if it weren’t for one thing: you can’t mount them together, otherwise you get a powerful debuff for the duration of the shield. Because of this one small problem, Aegis is almost never used.

A: We will consider improving the “Nova” cabin, but without changing the interaction with the installed “Aegis-Prime” on the build.

“Daze” is a narrowly focused module and should not be used on most armoured cars. On those builds where it is used, its efficiency is quite high, so we do not plan to make any changes to it.

Q: The Devourer’s huge advantage in CW over other weapons

In every battle you encounter Devourer, it outperforms almost every weapon at once, and there is nothing left of single weapons. If there’s a full group with Devourers, there’s zero chance of victory....

A: We are closely monitoring the statistics of this weapon in different modes. If necessary, we will make changes.

And that’s not all! We will be back with the second part of the answers very soon.

Good luck in battles!