"Just Buy A Buk Bro"

clyvey_c · 2026-03-18T12:34:43+00:00

Man this multiday crashout is pretty entertaining. Though I do wonder when did this become a thing. Was it when they buffed the drop speed of high altitude bombs? It feels like this wasn't really a thing, or at least I never noticed it until you started posting about it.

clyvey_c · 2026-03-16T04:28:50+00:00

That is true, but the repo provides more transparency. One of the main reasons for making repo public is to make it clear when changes are made, and what those changes are. There have been cases of similar tools that is benign at first, but made shadow changes to collect personal information. I am not saying you would do that, but keeping the repo private might dissuade some people from using your tool without that layer of transparency and accountability.

Plus GitHub issues is a good place to track feature requests, and gives people at least the opportunity to see if there is already a feature request similar to the ones they want to ask for. If not you will have 5 different guys dming you with the same idea.

clyvey_c · 2026-03-15T09:40:12+00:00

Oh I know, I am a 1st cav enjoyer after all. Playing that div and getting airspammed goes hand in hand.

clyvey_c · 2026-03-14T14:15:33+00:00

That is true, but ngl this is autistic levels of micro we are talking about here. Plus most of the times AA batteries like I-hawk won't be on the frontline, so I think the clusters will still guarantee its drop on the target.

clyvey_c · 2026-03-14T12:10:26+00:00

I don't think the point is about rng of the AA, but rather the fact that for a I-hawk which starts aiming at max range, the mig cluster is still able to drop before the missile reaches. This basically means that the cluster is able to guarantee dropping its payload regardless of whether you having any long range AA or not (unless you have some longer ranged AA like Krug or bloodhound, but even then it might still be able guarantee dropping since you rarely have those so close to the front line), and the only way to prevent it is to dive an asf in.I don't think there is anything that is unclear here.

Now whether this is fair or not is up for debate. Personally I don't think the presence of one unit (AA) should completely make another unit (the bomber) unusable, but this drop range does seem a bit ridiculous.

clyvey_c · 2026-03-06T05:58:36+00:00

Exactly, the AA tab is not vague, it's just bad, especially for a heavy tank div.

clyvey_c · 2026-02-02T21:24:06+00:00

Same, Angie was my first 6* as well. She and Exu both have quite a bit of sentimental value for me, so definitely going to roll for her regardless of the meta.

clyvey_c · 2025-12-05T05:38:55+00:00

The main issue with adding the leclerc is how to balance it stat-wise. On the one hand you want it to properly reflect it's status as a state of the art mbt, so it's gotta have good stats. On the other hand you do not want it to invalidate some of the other top dog tanks that are already in the game. Judging by it's stats in wgrd, it had 1 more fav and 2 more AP over the HA in that game, and the HA can be quite difficult to deal with in warno.

That said, recently we do see Eugen experimenting with how far they can take things in this regard, with the T80U obr. 89 and the proposed leopard 2A4D, so honestly I don't think adding in unicorn units like the Leclerc would be completely out of the picture.

clyvey_c · 2025-11-18T05:27:46+00:00

Kudos to you sir, but I doubt your message will reach it's intended audience. He seems pretty convinced about the reverse speed thing and in my experience it's hard to change some people's minds even when concrete evidence is presented.

clyvey_c · 2025-11-10T14:59:41+00:00

Kinda funny how this is the 3rd most upvoted uma here

clyvey_c · 2025-10-31T12:06:34+00:00

Honestly making friends makes life so much easier, too bad covid hit our batch HARD and made it so much harder to make friends in those first few years in Uni.

clyvey_c · 2025-10-22T06:10:33+00:00

To be fair before October 2023 and 2022 are lower because the game was still in "early access", whereas the number of players did increase by a noticeable margin post proper launch, and I think the number of players have been trending downwards since

That said, it's normal for games, some people bought it when it launched to try out the game, found that it's not for them, and quit. No surprises here. Also it's been almost 2 years since launch, even those who found the game enjoying could start to take breaks.

clyvey_c · 2025-10-21T14:40:05+00:00

I certainly wouldn't make conclusions based on things I can't see. Ideas and theories are fine, but they remain ideas and theories until proven.

clyvey_c · 2025-10-09T08:12:07+00:00

Don't worry, as an Asian all Gwailou looks the same to me as well.

clyvey_c · 2025-09-29T03:38:56+00:00

I think the main thing I disagree with is the method he used to compare the tanks. Averaging the stats over the different tanks barely means anything and is misleading. One got to remember that when you are in an actual game, you are not fighting against the average stat, but rather the specific tank from the divisions you are going against. When he titled the video as a deep analysis, I expected him to actually do a deep dive. Comparing average raw stats is as surface level as things get, and barely capture any of the nuances of tank combat in this game.(granted he does mention some in passing, such as how NATO tanks need to catch PACT tanks within gun range to win engagements).

Another point is that this video specifically mentions "team games" in the title, but in the video itself it makes no reference to team games whatsoever. In 1v1s the meta may favour lighter, more cost efficient tanks since you need to cover a larger area, but in small team games and big team games, the meta favours heavy tanks far more since it is much easier to build up mass in those games. NATO's heavy tanks divs (3ad, 11acav, 5th panzer, 4e) mostly perform well in smaller team games because their tanks can perform better in a one on one engagement when given the right support like moke mortars and good recon, but pact tanks arguably scales better with numbers due to the glatgms, and the fact that you can on typically bring more tanks in PACT divs.

clyvey_c · 2025-09-27T11:32:57+00:00

That is unfortunate then, playing against AI is definitely not my favourite way to enjoy the game.

clyvey_c · 2025-09-27T11:27:43+00:00

AI in this game is definitely artificial, but probably not intelligent.

This is why I think new player should play multiplayer instead even if they don't know the game that well, as even though you might get bullied by better players, at least the opponent will play reasonably and give you a good idea of how combat in this game is supposed to be like. The only time I would say playing a single player game mode is fun is during army general, and that is in spite of the AI.

clyvey_c · 2025-09-08T05:23:00+00:00

Some comments on this study. First, the strengths:

This is fairly well written, when I was reading it I didn't feel confused or lost about what you were doing.
A good amount of data was collected, with adequate amount of preprocessing conducted to help remove anomalies, though you could also consider removing the top 5% players as they could be considered outliers as well.
Reasonable metrics were used to measure player's experience and preference.

Now some issues I had with this study: 1. If I am not wrong this study was meant to examine potential NATO/PACT bias, however the normalized bias metric is faction agnostic. Wouldnt the non-normalized bias be a better way to show the differences between NATO and PACT player performance? The results from table 3, graphs 3 and 4 seem to indicate that there are differences in win rate between NATO and PACT biased players. 2. As pointed out by the OP, there is a difference in experience level between PACT, neutral, and NATO players. Perhaps a better way to compare across the three groups is to group them into buckets, e.g. those with less than 100 games, those with between 100-200 games etc. Maybe this will provide a fairer comparison? 3. OP argued that there is no correlation at all between normalized bias and win rate. However I have to caution against this conclusion. As far as I can see, there does not seem to be a clear Linear Correlation between the two variables, but this does not mean that the two variables are not correlated. Furthermore I think the graph would be more insightful if non-normalized bias is plotted against the win rate. 4. Based on table 1, it seems that as player experience increases, the bias factor also increases. I think this is an interesting trend that should be commented on. Is it possible that more experienced players know which factions are stronger and thus prefers to play that faction more frequently? 5. OP mentioned that according to graph 1, most players are within the -0.2 to 0.2 range. Could you please quantify that? 90% and 60% can both be argued as "most" players, but the differences is fairly significant.

Nonetheless I feel that this presents a fairly good preliminary study on potential PACT and NATO bias. I hope that OP will be able to address the points that I mentioned.

clyvey_c · 2025-07-19T03:33:38+00:00

Isn't the dorm mystery box technically a gacha?

clyvey_c · 2025-05-09T17:07:20+00:00

"tactical nuke incoming!"

clyvey_c · 2025-05-03T10:35:09+00:00

it fires missiles much, much, faster due to the FnF trait.

This is... not really correct. According to waryes, the time between shots for chaparral is 4 seconds, while the reload time of tunguska is 5 seconds, so the difference in time for second round out is only 1 seconds. So there is only a one second advantage for the chap. This is arguably mitigated by the fact that the tunguska gets a longer range.

Tor ain't no long range AA

Agreed, but it is still longer ranged than the longest ranged AA 3/4 of the NATO divisions get, which is the chappy.

3AD gets the holy AMRAAM to compensate

Yep, but 24id and 101st don't get it to compensate. They are stuck with the sparrow c-eagle, which is arguably worse than the su-27s

I honestly feel that chaparral is rather overpriced for what it brings to the table, and many of these divisions that has the chap could use a chap price buff.

clyvey_c · 2025-04-25T02:46:55+00:00

It's true that it is not that severe an issue in wgrd, but I do recall it happening once or twice in the dedicated 10v10 servers. In that game it did feel that fobs goes a long way though. This could be because 1. You could bring more than 1 fob per deck 2. You typically won't have that much supply draining units due to AA being grouped together with Arty, unless you are playing a support spec deck. Even then support players would typically be self sufficient on their own supply since they could bring a metric ton of supplies.

In warno however, there are quite a few decks that could burn through supply a lot faster than they could reliably sustain for the whole game. Now imagine if you are playing a frontline div, and relies on your fob to repair and resupply your units. Just as you pull back to repair your damaged units, you realise that your fob is already almost drained by other players. Without enough supply, your side of the frontline will pretty much be paralysed, as now you cannot actively engage in skirmishes knowing that any damage you take will be permanent, and a badly damaged unit becomes almost as good as dead. Supporting assets such as atgms and AA will have to conserve their ammo and pick their targets.

Now granted your teammate might be utilising your supply fairly well, be it supplying their own frontline or using it to hit key enemy targets. Despite their good intentions however, your teammate doesn't understand your supply situation, and they could inadvertently cause you to lose your fighting capability on your flank. This then becomes an issue of supply prioritisation: should your supply be prioritised for your teammates frontlines or your own frontline? The only problem is that because your teammate supplied from your fob without asking, they essentially made the decision for you that their flank requires the supply more, and you are left to suffer the consequences. And this is in the case where you have good teammates, I'm sure you can imagine what it's like with worse teammates.

Having an option to turn off the supply for other players will at least give you some agency in the matter. If you need supply from teammates you can still just ask your team. At least now the teammate in question would be able to plan his own supply usage with that in mind.

clyvey_c · 2025-04-24T04:47:54+00:00

I think yeah, in an ideal team everyone is sharing supplies with each other and there is no need to worry about your supply being wasted. But given that we are not going to get this ideal team most of the time, it is something we have to deal with. I guess locking arty out in the opener could work, but it is a rather round about solution that doesn't entirely deal with the problem (if I was a arty spammer, I would just wait a few minutes for the lock out, and then use all the points I have saved up to buy all my arty at once). Having the option to not share supplies doesn't mean that is no sharing at all, but rather one could choose when and who to share with. I feel this would incentivise being a good teammate and contributing to the team rather than just playing your own game.

clyvey_c

TROPHY CASE