Not to mention i don't have all the time in the world anymore.. so it's already too nice that i'm coming here to provide some feedback while i can.
I'm sure you didn't mean this as a condescending high-horsed insult but sure... I understand you're busy. I'm busy too. So is everyone else on the dev team, as apparent by just the amount of time it takes to push an update. So let's keep the conversation civil? If you knew how much I argue FOR the players behind the scenes I don't think you'd say any of my intentions are 'wicked' ... I argue FOR the devs on forum because that's also my "job" to make sure the changes are good for everyone. It was always known that the devs did not even play BK, so I've been trying to help them from a "player" perspective. But the more I help the more I realize why they don't play because i've stopped myself. Being none of the devs play including myself now, why would we have ANY desire to have anything in the game except to do it for the players themselves? We are more than willing to make changes if we feel enough players think the changes are needed... It doesn't help to call anyone "wicked" while putting yourself on a pedestal...
I'll tell you the same thing I told Warhawks, "sometimes it's not about what you say but how you say it". And i've called warhawks (who I consider my friend) a word I'm not allowed to use on the forum lol. I hope he didn't take offense to it, I hope you don't either. Because at the end of the day we are ALL people trying to shape a game we don't even play anymore FOR the better of the community, right? Welcome back to the forum, let's not start your return with a fight like we use to.
Okay, I got that out of the way... about the arguments now.
First, before this latest beta update comes out.. you kept telling us that Pz4 had to be delayed so that light tanks could have a chance, yet.. you were fine with Stugs being available for no CPs, until i spoke about it.
If I am allowed to be honest, it was a change I was looking for for a while and you mentioning it help to push it into something that the dev team is willing to change. I personally wasn't fine with StuGs being available so early, but that would be too radical of a change back then for a team that always tends to be more conservative in their changes. Surprise, there's a few things we agree on that I don't reveal... and a lot of changes that I pushed for that you've come up with. Sadly lowering the CP for panzer 4s is actually something I don't agree on.
And now, your wisdom is telling us that both Stug and Pz4 need to be delayed so that light tanks (such as Pz3) could have a chance! Yet, you should know that the only thing that would prevent Pz3 from seeing the light of day.. is actually the de-buffs you just made on Pz3 tanks... Making them significantly weaker.
This came at the request from a LOT of testers and there's a few forum posts about it. Unfortunately, a lot of the players aren't coming on to the forum... instead they tell me every day on discord like the lazy cowards they are. You can see the topic here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3304
The original post had a lot of words I was forced to edit. I would have no problem reverting panzer IIIs back to their "OP" state to show people that their posts on the forum matters and that just messaging me on steam doesn't mean anything. But that's very spiteful and immature so I was told by other dev members.
While at the same time nerfing Pz3 despite claiming that you are afraid about light tanks not seeing the light of day. Who is going to deploy Pz3 right now when a 37mm half-track is cheaper and does nearly the same job? Pz3 gets penetrated by 37mm AT guns now, just like the half-track.. so it's not like there is much difference.
And yet based on replays people are STILL using the panzer III, so we are pretty comfortable with the decisions made so far. Here is essentially how we have been "testing" our changes:
1. Prior to changes the panzer III and other half tracks were never used.
2. Post changes the panzer III was overused.
3. Now we are waiting for additional feedback as we tweak it more.
Based on #1 and #2 I'd say that we are pulling the right lever in hitting the objective of changes, we are just pulling that lever too hard every time. It'll take a few more tries to get it right.
"Oh kwok, maybe you should try to improve your gameplay and adjust your tactics and tweak them, rather than sticking to a certain meta or instead of trying to enforce some changes that only fits your playstyle more."
There's a difference between trying to adjust gameplay and tactics to fit specific tactics and responses versus a broad pattern of players never using specific units because it is optimal to rush something and skip a whole tier of units. We find this distinction by looking at replays. If players complain about something but we find a replay where the complaint is addressed through a playstyle then we don't really take it as a real problem. If across many replays we see something being done over and over again with no variation, then we think something needs to be done. Just take a look at the current live version (non-beta) and see how often you find the chaffee, stuart, panzer III, etc. being used in game.