Quick BETA feedback

[Krieger Blitzer]

- i was excited to hear that RAF is getting some changes.. but then i learnt that SAS were untouched, and so i was frustrated.

- Why the hell is tank reverse mechanic being removed? it was only problematic for A.i controlled tanks.. but in PVP players didn't have issues with it, maybe with exception of some newbie players.. who later figured out how to properly move their tanks anyways. i'm against the removal of this feature as it would make tank game-play (specifically with heavy tanks) much more difficult again, having to click each 2cm behind the tank everytime to finally reverse at all.

- After swapping/adding the following tanks, the command points requirement became messed up in my opinion:
Nashorn is now 7CP (from 5CP) - Elefant is 5CP (from 8CP) - Churchill MK7 added for 5CP.
While i think it should be as follows:
Nashorn back to 5CP, Elefant back to 8CP (without fuel cost) & Churchill delayed to 7CP for the current cost.

That's everything for now.

[kwok]

Did you try the AA? Especially the axis 20mm cannons? That fuckin thing won’t do what we tell it to for 5 patches

[MarKr]

- Why the hell is tank reverse mechanic being removed?

The very first time when players starting reported increased "pathing problems" and "tanks starting rotating in place to show their rear to the enemy" was after this was introduced. Since then there were some other changes that could affect pathing (such as speed changes), but the very first issues started there. People still complain about pathing problems so this was one of the things we wanted to try to see if it helps.

[Krieger Blitzer]

The very first time when players starting reported increased "pathing problems" and "tanks starting rotating in place to show their rear to the enemy" was after this was introduced. Since then there were some other changes that could affect pathing (such as speed changes), but the very first issues started there. People still complain about pathing problems so this was one of the things we wanted to try to see if it helps.

it's really not an issue.. the pathing issues are mainly due to the speed changes (specifically for vehicles & armored cars) or more precisely how these things were made slower on craters... Wheels are now very hard to use as a result of that. However; tanks really don't suffer any issues in PvP as an outcome of the reverse mechanic, i would like if you please keep the reverse mechanic in the game.. and try find solutions elsewhere.

i guarantee you that the reverse mechanic isn't any problematic as some players claim it is. The benefits of the feature are way larger than the downsides.. so please keep the reverse mechanic! Endro did a great job with it. it actually competes with the CoH2 reverse button...
Only the A.I units are negatively affected, but the mod is mainly PvP anyways.

@Kwok, didn't try the AA yet.. not much time.

[MenciusMoldbug]

IMO, Elefant should remain at 5 CP's and be buildable in the tank support building and have a limit of 2 (like propaganda tigers). The thing is a slow and heavy beast, delaying it to the near end of the game doesn't make it useful at that stage. The most useful and most impactful I have seen an elefant be is when the player just rushed straight for it.

I mean think about it, what is more useful? A tiger or an elefant? To me a tiger is exceptionally better at what it can do and dish out. What about in terms of anti tank performance? Elefant is pretty cubersome in that department too, beaten by a jagdpanther. So the most useful time I would see to get an elefant is when an allied player is most pressured by it and that is in the middle stage of the game, so to me 5 CP's is ok (and an early elefant is not that scary; even with support I would not find it scary). But if it's going to cost fuel, you might as well put it into a building and have it be buildable. The reason I say a limit of 2 is its more fair to have a fuel cost for it then if you have the potential to get two of them if you save fuel long enough.

Max CP's the MK VII should be delayed by is 6; because that's how many CP's it takes to get a Comet. I don't want the game to favor cp-wise one tank over the other because they are both super useful for their own roles.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Whether the Elefant should cost fuel or not.. i believe it should stay as call-in, making it faster to obtain than having to wait for ages until it's produced from the factory. And maybe you have a point.. it could probably stay at 5 CPs then... You are also right regarding the MK7, maximum 6 CPs sounds fair. Though, what about the Nashorn? I think 7CP seems too much when Allies can have jacksons/Achilles at 4/2 CP on the other hand.

Most importantly for me, the reverse mechanic should stay.

[tarakancheg]

+1 on reverse

[Warhawks97]

Keep elephant buildable. More call ins means more desyncs and more difficult to balance.

It should be in the Panzer Jäger command (Translated even means Tank Hunter command building). I dont get why we start scratching PE buildings instead of trying to put actual units inside instead of squeezing everything into less and less buildings.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Regardless of anything, i'm just deeply concerned about the removal of the reverse mechanic.. i would like to repeat again on how i insist it should stay... it's something that makes Bk Mod unique and distinguished from all the other CoH mods, not to mention it was created purely by one of our community members (Endro) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LuQwg0FHUg) and the feature is cool, and was already tuned several times.

[Walderschmidt]

Keep elephant buildable. More call ins means more desyncs and more difficult to balance.

It should be in the Panzer Jäger command (Translated even means Tank Hunter command building). I dont get why we start scratching PE buildings instead of trying to put actual units inside instead of squeezing everything into less and less buildings.

To be fair, if SE only had one T3/4 building, it wouldn't be much of a squeeze. Even if the Elefant was made buildable, which I support.

\

As you can see - you can easily fit either set of units and upgrades into the other building without even having to use a switch UI indicator.

Wald

[kwok]

This post is spiraling over so many topics. Can we split this out? Some of this convo is redundant.

About making it buildable, it’s not UI space but a hard cap on units can be built (I think markr mentioned 13). I am not free to check right now on the specifics but just wanted to mention that we’ve hit a new complication.

[Consti255]

to be fair. I never build the Tank Support Building when i am playing SE.
First i never would pick it in a 1v1 and second for anti Inf i choose the Hotchkiss and AT options the Hetzer.
Only if i rush the Beutepanzer i would build this building. Otherwise for me it is obsolete.
So a combination from both with a Upgrade would be a good change.

[MarKr]

About making it buildable, it’s not UI space but a hard cap on units can be built (I think markr mentioned 13). I am not free to check right now on the specifics but just wanted to mention that we’ve hit a new complication.

I just said that CW has all tanks in one "building/truck" because they have just 13 types of buildable tanks. PE has in those two buildings together 28 buildable units and I doubt we can fit THAT many into one building. Not sure what the actual limit is but is surely more than 13.

Also, I pretty sure that setting the requirements for 28 units in one building is gonna be a real bitch.

Just settle with two buildings and one will get cheaper when you build the other. Much fewer problems with that.

EDIT:
Actually, I'm locking this. This already contains at least 3 different topics, one is already discussed in another topic and it's turning into a mess. If you wish to continue discussing specific topics, do so in separate threads so the conversations stay on topic and don't get cluttered with unrelated stuff.

[kwok]

Ohhh I see. Okay. My bad. I need more sleep.

Maybe I’ll just step away from Bk for a week or two until work stops dick punching me.

[Walderschmidt]

Okay, I'll make a new thread for my line of discussion.

Wald