5.1.5 beta version

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3638
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Tiger1996 » 21 May 2018, 17:05

The reason why I don't have faith in the the changes, is because they are actually too much.. probably even too much for the game engine to handle.
Quite clearly, there is no way to introduce such "realistic" vehicle acceleration and turn rates without changing so many aspects of the game, in fact.. the devs you will probably end up reworking the entire game in order to achieve that... And still not everyone will be satisfied.

While I believe the game doesn't even require these so many changes.. the current vehicle speed ideology of 5.1.4 is absolutely fine so far, and has proved to be working fine for years too. Only few tweaks might be needed, as already suggested... Such as removing flank speed abilities and so on. Not to mention that giving enough space to test different ideas would only lead to better overall results, and actually it will also consume much less time and efforts than trying to continue with the current changes in order to finally achieve that "proper" state which is hardly coming.. if ever at all.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 21 May 2018, 17:23

Before throwing hot potatoes to that experimental beta test, who took a F LOT OF WORKS, it would be nice to have much more REAL PVP games played, the meta will change for sure, some people habit will surely be hurt, but it is again an experimental beta to improve the game, not to brake it, its a first drop for now and will be tweaked, having a more realistic speed in game gives a lot of positive impact for the pvp battles, and make it less "arcade", vehicles & tanks aren't that super confortable on hard terrain/mud etc... can we just continue to test that beta patch and please stop screaming "oh scandal"?

I for exemple kind of like that:

<<I would suggest that you start using your tanks with proper infantry support close to them, as artillery will not shred them like before, they still become a really strong weapon with infantry close and not a 1 man army like before, since you can blow them and get closer to them with AT infantry. I do agree that vehicles are too slow now, but they shouldn't be like before, luckily tweaks can still be made>>

Its a premiere in the COH world, and could be something much more thrilling like when all realistic datas are implemented in games, Bk isn't SLOW, its more speed accurate, when we implemented the real MG42 damage and firing speed in the mod it was kind of the same reaction << its OP, this is game breaking etc...etc...>> well, now people don't throw their precious squads in front of Machine guns! some way to play the mod has been changed, just remember, improving the game sometimes needs some huge habit changes, "maybe" if the speed is more realistic, "maybe" vehicles will be managed and played differently?...MAYBE more realistically?

Some realistic datas can be implemented to improve bk, some not because it is too much attached to what the COH engine is made for, or whatever the COH limitations we are bumping into, but still, some things can be improved for bk and we think adding accurate speed in game could be a fantastic boost and be much more interesting regarding PVP's games.

We aren't some kind of kids who are playing to change things on Corsix, because its fun... no, our purpose is quite different as you maybe have noticed it under what you guys called the "Cz era", working on Corsix to improve the mod isn't fun, its time consuming especially when you do that same shit for years to improve a 10 years + game/mod, so please test that new cake flavor more seriously, we need your feebacks as PVP players.


thanks.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3638
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Tiger1996 » 21 May 2018, 18:30

There are many tank oriented players in Bk Mod, and I consider myself one of them... And so; lowering the speed of tanks and vehicles, by claiming that this is more realistic this way, while it's actually less realistic by far.. would only make those tank oriented players change 1 habit for sure, but I'm afraid it's the habit of playing Bk Mod itself.. as they might just as well start playing something else. What I'm telling you here is not just my personal feeling, but trust me.. it's the feeling of every other tank oriented player within the community.. so you wouldn't expect other reactions.

Not to mention that infantry aren't behaving VERY realistically in the game either, so why should tanks behave more realistically than infantry do?
As for the current state of 5.1.4 tanks and infantry are somewhat realistic enough in relation to each other, and thus.. messing up with this concept would only lead to more people raging out.. and eventually also despising the entire game behind their backs too.

Also, there is no reason to stick to a single idea proposed by a particular player.. specifically when there are many other ideas that also deserve to be tested, which also are likely to achieve even better game-play results.

Needless to say, me and others already provided some very clear feedback statements here.. clearly, PvP isn't possible on the beta at the moment.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1107
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby JimQwilleran » 21 May 2018, 18:40

We get it that game gest more realistic, but this change evokes dozens of tiny and bigger problems that will also need adjustment.

Just to mention a single one, for example Pe opening and general gameplay: if you slow down vehicles this will affect scout car, 28 mm car and mortar ht heavily. Not only they won't be able to be used as very flexible punch force that could quickly relocate and strike in many places anymore, it also won't be able to escape any enemy attacks, especially boys. Half of Pe gameplay collapses. And trust me Pe is already hard to play vs good allie players.

The only basic mortar they have is ht one. The range itself is not big so the mortar is constantly under the threat of dying. Now it will be dead to any rush, unless u will keep 3 inf squads around it to "cover". We used to use them in attacking and creating pushing force, but since stupid ht cant run away from anything....
Last edited by JimQwilleran on 21 May 2018, 18:43, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 21 May 2018, 18:41

Tiger1996 wrote:There are many tank oriented players in Bk Mod, and I consider myself one of them... And so; lowering the speed of tanks and vehicles, by claiming that this is more realistic this way, while it's actually less realistic by far.. would only make those tank oriented players change 1 habit for sure, but I'm afraid it's the habit of playing Bk Mod itself


I do not agree, you are telling me that having turbo propulsed WW2 tanks in game who can race on any terrain and act like flash gordon on roads will be less realistic? Frankly don't think so.
The main problem is that tanks won't be played like a one men army, to save a dramatic situation or comes in a second into the main battle to blow things up, they will need a little bit of support in order to be ultra effective in game, like in WW2 with Panzers and Panzer Grenadiers, it is realistic, and FAR from being "less realistic", what we need is not sticking to some players programs or way to do, what we need is to get facts during PVP's games that this speed change isn't fit for bk, videos are more than welcome.

JimQwilleran wrote:We get it that game gest more realistic, but this change evokes dozens of tiny and bigger problems that will also need adjustment.

Just to mention a single one, for example Pe opening and general gameplay: if you slow down vehicles this will affect scout car, 28 mm car and mortar ht heavily. Not only they won't be able to be used as very flexible punch force that could quickly relocate and strike in many places anymore, it also won't be able to escape any enemy attacks, especially boys. Half of Pe gameplay collapses. And trust me Pe is already hard to play vs good allie players.


All Factions will be concerned by speed changes, not only PE.
Image

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1107
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby JimQwilleran » 21 May 2018, 18:57

Wow, really? Glad u told me...

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 21 May 2018, 18:58

JimQwilleran wrote:Wow, really? Glad u told me...


Mate we want feedbacks, PVP plays, to check all that, you feel me? seriously.
Image

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1107
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby JimQwilleran » 21 May 2018, 19:04

And what do you think I am talking about? What is wrong with what I am saying?

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 21 May 2018, 19:06

Did you have PVP games already? who tells me the PE is behind or in big trouble regarding that problem?
Image

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1107
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby JimQwilleran » 21 May 2018, 19:17

Yeah whatever. Why do I even question sir Panzerblitz who without pvp knows better than me with pvp. Good luck

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3638
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Tiger1996 » 21 May 2018, 19:20

We said PvP is just not playable at the moment.. no one wants to play a serious PvP game with the current vehicle speeds.
Panzerblitz1 wrote:I do not agree, you are telling me that having turbo propulsed WW2 tanks in game who can race on any terrain and act like flash gordon on roads will be less realistic? Frankly don't think so.

I think we can actually agree that tanks should not behave like race cars as if they had turbo engines... This is bad for sure! However, I just think that changing or reducing the current basic speed values for vehicles to generally a lower value, is simply not the right thing to do.

A better thing would be to keep all the speed values as they are, and just removing the flank speed ability!
Since it's the real cause of such "Arcade-ish" tank movement style. Though, somehow.. even on this beta, which is claiming to be representing more "realistic speed values" STILL had flank speed abilities untouched.. even for heavy tanks such as the Tiger1 tank!!! That's really hard to swallow...
Tanks such as the Tiger1 feel like a "race car" only because of flank speed, not because of the regular speed.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 21 May 2018, 19:24

JimQwilleran wrote:Yeah whatever. Why do I even question sir Panzerblitz who without pvp knows better than me with pvp. Good luck


Dude, the way you got in wasn't really cool towards me, "again" while i was being nice and correct, sarcasm and bashing me won't get you too far, what is your problem? attacking me is so much easier than thinking actually on the problems we can solve, im pretty amazed i kept my cool on this one.
Image

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1107
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby JimQwilleran » 21 May 2018, 19:33

Glad your anger therapy works xD.

If you havent noticed that I brought up a question/problem above, you should consider reading course too.

Maybe I got sarcastic after my point was answered with "All Factions will be concerned by speed changes, not only PE."? But keep guessing.

On holidays for 1 month (Banned)

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 21 May 2018, 19:51

JimQwilleran wrote:Glad your anger therapy works xD.

If you havent noticed that I brought up a question/problem above, you should consider reading course too.

Maybe I got sarcastic after my point was answered with "All Factions will be concerned by speed changes, not only PE."? But keep guessing.


See you in one month, if its not enough to cool you down i will extend that for a year.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2824
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Warhawks97 » 21 May 2018, 20:49

Well, i think we dont have to play dozens of pvp games just to prove that jim is right.

PE or axis can forget about vehicles entirely. PE was supposed to be flexible thx to early vehicle access. Sadly it never came really true due to unit cost (a single vehicle and inf costs quite a lot) and now we are further away than ever before.

I dont have to get into pvp to see the problems coming. When AT guns can go hunting tanks just like that. The light AT gun moves faster than a Hellcat for example and apparenly light AT shall stay this way.

Cover with 3 inf squads? Have you ever faced the rambo infantry with tanks? you have to drive backwards constantly. Solution: Field own elite infantry? well, how to pay the tank cost? Field basic inf? Basic inf does shit vs veted rambo late inf. They will never prevent an AT squad with cover boosts or upgraded elite inf from making at least one shot on a tank. If you noticed the yt vids from tiger you can clearly see how much special anti inf tanks and vehicles it needs to successfully prevent a single elite inf squad from making a shot with a hendheld AT.

We would have to remove sprinting from all inf squads that carry schrecks and lmgs and stuff alike. Or at least they would get some "weaker sprinting" and AT squads no sprint at all.
The suppression system would need a rework (coaxial and hull MGs).


Also where is HMG42 "realistic"? It does gets an accuracy boost of 25% vs suppressed inf. Just saying as you mentioned it.


And yes, all factions might be affected. But Vehicles in early game was the "harmonic" part with WH. It was the mobility advantage vehicles gave PE.
Now all mobility advantages are gone to infantry. And Axis are facing boys AT. And even three squads wont kill these dudes in cover quickly enough before they raped the HT.
Speaking about Boys, from a realistic perspective they would need more shots to kill a vehicle. Their bullets have no HE filler and would cause crits most of the time. Which actually isnt a bad idea.

Another thing in terms of realism would be that US 76 AT guns and 17 pdr would only be available as AT gun emplacment. These things weight over 3 tons or so. No men would push them cross country.
Its an option i wouldnt forget about honestly. All allied have mobile 76 and 17 pdr tank destroyer.


I am not absolutely against mobility changes. Just you overdid it a bit. A Tank seems too agile? Fine, tune down its acceleration speed.

When vehicles wont be able to play the mobility card then everything that matters will be armor.


What about that:
1.Tanks have standard shorter view range and perhaps get rid of periscope upgrades.
2.Reconassaince vehicles (Puma type/M20/M8/Recce/Jeeps/Schwimm/Daimler scout car would be the "eyes" of the armored forces).
3.Tank Hunters in ambush would get the vision range of these scout cars. The entire crew is watching and wating for the enemie so thats reasonable to overwatch the area.
4.The Periscope upgrade in TH doc would boost the vision range in ambush mode only by the ammount they do currently. So a specific TH doc feature.
5. Top mounted MG´s would require a 50-75 ammo upgrade. I know, we might get probs here with tank IV J and stug upgrade slots. But here the J could get skirts at default like the H. This way the TP_Tank_IV_skirts would be only used by these two tanks. That would offer a lot more options of tank IV armor adjusments since the 50 mm armored stubby tank IV wouldnt share the tt of the 80 mm J´s anymore.
6. The coaxial and hull MG´s could then get a "new design". I have made many many experiments with them. So trust me markr i can offer you something you can test yourself. They dont shred inf away. They are just some sort of minimum close (hull) and mid (coaxial) range self defense. But not enough to stop infantry by their own. As a hindsight. The Hull MG´s range would be the same, slightly less, than those of Hendheld AT´s. As said, a minimum self defence weapon vs sticky and stuff.
7. All tanks with hull and coaxial MG have the ability to use suppressive fire for 40 ammo. Or at least for the Hull MG.
8. Certain tanks will accelerate slower. Like Panthers and Tigers and stuff would be like 1.3- 1.7 instead of 2.
9. Flank speed ability removal.
10. The max basic speed value for a vehicle to achieve would be 7.5 or 8. Thats less than the staghound apparently got right now.
11. Speed boost removal of Vet steps for allied vehicle.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 21 May 2018, 22:50

Its a first batch, and a lot of fixing will be done for sure, we just need some pvp tests ( not only 2 games) to tweak and adjust all that.
Image

User avatar
Wolf
Administrator
Posts: 964
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 16:01
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Wolf » 21 May 2018, 22:57

I think we will up the speeds globally by some higher percentage, so it should be better.

Its experimental beta for a reason and this one will not go live on normal branch, so if you dislike it at the moment, you can play 5.1.4 easily.

The whole idea is not bad, but just a bit "too drastical" at the moment. I think that we can meet somewhere in the middle between what was and currently is and that will be fine, with wanted results.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3638
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Tiger1996 » 21 May 2018, 23:11

Warhawks97 wrote:What about that:
1.Tanks have standard shorter view range and perhaps get rid of periscope upgrades.
2.Reconassaince vehicles (Puma type/M20/M8/Recce/Jeeps/Schwimm/Daimler scout car would be the "eyes" of the armored forces).
3.Tank Hunters in ambush would get the vision range of these scout cars. The entire crew is watching and wating for the enemie so thats reasonable to overwatch the area.
4.The Periscope upgrade in TH doc would boost the vision range in ambush mode only by the ammount they do currently. So a specific TH doc feature.
5. Top mounted MG´s would require a 50-75 ammo upgrade. I know, we might get probs here with tank IV J and stug upgrade slots. But here the J could get skirts at default like the H. This way the TP_Tank_IV_skirts would be only used by these two tanks. That would offer a lot more options of tank IV armor adjusments since the 50 mm armored stubby tank IV wouldnt share the tt of the 80 mm J´s anymore.
6. The coaxial and hull MG´s could then get a "new design". I have made many many experiments with them. So trust me markr i can offer you something you can test yourself. They dont shred inf away. They are just some sort of minimum close (hull) and mid (coaxial) range self defense. But not enough to stop infantry by their own. As a hindsight. The Hull MG´s range would be the same, slightly less, than those of Hendheld AT´s. As said, a minimum self defence weapon vs sticky and stuff.
7. All tanks with hull and coaxial MG have the ability to use suppressive fire for 40 ammo. Or at least for the Hull MG.
8. Certain tanks will accelerate slower. Like Panthers and Tigers and stuff would be like 1.3- 1.7 instead of 2.
9. Flank speed ability removal.
10. The max basic speed value for a vehicle to achieve would be 7.5 or 8. Thats less than the staghound apparently got right now.
11. Speed boost removal of Vet steps for allied vehicle.

I agree with most points.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2203
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 21 May 2018, 23:42

OK, I finally got home, I will try to address some of the points that were mentioned here.

OK, Warhawks was first...
Tiger1996 wrote:I used the normal transport halftrack.
All transport HTs have speed of 3.5 which is faster than infantry (when not sprinting) so I am not sure how it happens that HTs are slower than infantry...can you give more details?

Then there is a ton of stuff from Tiger...
Tiger1996 wrote:I think it's based on realism.. how about that? isn't "realism" the solid ground that you are sticking on at the moment? You want the speed changes to be more realistic.. but not tank sight capabilities too?
The speeds are set to "realistic" values because there needs to be some starting point and then you see how that works and adjust as needed. I already said that the first version of speed changes had halftracks slow as dirt - halftracks, both US and Axis could drive in crosscountry terrain at about the speed of 20 km/h. That means the speed of "2" in the game and we already upped that to "3.5". So the current HT speeds are already above the "realistic" values and I'm fine with that. But to your "argument" about vision ranges - tank crews had limited view, true. That is why they usually drove around with hatches opened and only closed them when there was a battle ahead. This means that the crew would be able to spot a tank at bigger range and once they spotted it, they would be able to keep track of where it is (unless some obstacle covers the view again). So this "realism" you try portray here doesn't really apply. You speak about realism in terms of gun range and tank sight but to achieve that, you would first need to set realistic gun ranges whicih would mean that Tigers and 88mm L43 would be able to shoot at ranges several times higher than Shermans and on smaller maps such Tiger would be able to snipe tanks from base across half the map. All in all if you don't have realistic gun ranges, what is the point of argumenting with some realistic vision of tank crews? They would see the enemy tank pretty clearly at the engagement ranges that BK uses - there you go, realism broken again. Now you might say one of those "well, at least get as close to realism as possible", and I might ask "why try to get as close to realism as possible with vision and not with speeds?"

Tiger1996 wrote:I'm not telling you now that aim time should be removed.. but it doesn't have to be 4 seconds either!
Can be 3 seconds for example, that would work too.
I already said what complications that would bring.

Tiger1996 wrote:If you get back to the old discussions about the Stuka half-track in Terror doctrine.. one of the very common arguments that some people used to justify for the Stuka change.. was the fact that Stuka becomes too accurate with vet.2 and thus they demanded that Stuka would require 5 command points and not available by default anymore.
Stuka still has high damage per rocket (even with the current changes) and in general is probably the strongest arty piece in its category, CPs can stay.

Tiger1996 wrote:Excuse me, but you don't have to tell me what I need to realize about WorldBuilder and what I don't, as I've spent insane number of hours working on the WorldBuilder the past month(s) and thus I KNOW what I'm talking about very well.
Nodoby questions your knowledge of WorldBuilder but you react very offensively most likely because you misunderstood my point.

Tiger1996 wrote:Red areas are negative cover, meaning it's basically a road for vehicles which provides speed bonus
...
Green areas are heavy cover for infantry, thus vehicles would have problems moving there
...
And the "white" areas are the neutral areas on the map.. meaning that these white areas aren't providing any sort of speed bonus to anything, or even downgrading the speed.
True, however texture types can provide certain type of cover (e.g. some roads automatically provide red cover etc.) and speed bonuses are set for each unit separately based on what sort of cover the unit is standing. Even if you place a unit on a spot where it has no visible cover, the applied cover type is still "tp_open" and a unit can have a speed modifier in this cover type too. But that is still not what I meant. I was pointing at this:
Tiger1996 wrote:And actually such white areas are considered ideal for ANYTHING to move upon.. freely without any issues
you see it like "white area = vehicle can drive are relatively high speed" and that is because if you zoom in the white area, it seems "flat" - if you place a football on some point there, it would roll "downhill" to the lowest point. My point however was, that the texture that is used there is meant to represent some realistic surface in real world and vehicles would not be able to drive with some breath taking speeds on such surfaces because they are not flat.

Tiger1996 wrote:Well, apparently you did give the chance to implement this Kwok suggestion of "realistic" vehicle acceleration and turn rate topic, as you have just managed to significantly drop the speed for most vehicles..
You are wrong here. The reason for the speed changes was actually the rear penetration adjustments which were requested by your buddy Warhawks. He was right that flanking was not rewarding and very often you had no idea how successfull the flanking maneuver would be because the rear penetration chances were inconsistent as fuck across even same guns and even if you managed to flank some heavy tanks, their rear armor was often way stronger than it should have been. E.g. 76mm Sherman shooting at the ass of a Tiger? 43% chance to penetrate while 50mm Puma shooting at the ass of Jumbo? 75%. Pershing? 36% etc. so the penetration chances at rear were adjusted so that flanking would be more rewarding. At the same time the the heavy units gained some extra range and reload times were adjusted too with all this the heavy tanks would still be in a disadvantage - because the extra +5 range was covered with the original speeds in about less than 2 seconds. So as a supplement the movement speeds were adjusted too. Medium tanks still move faster than heavy tanks so they can overcome the gun range difference but in such speed to make the gun range insignificant.
Tiger1996 wrote:perhaps even quite carelessly as you even say right now that it's an oversight and not what was actually intended.. as you are willing to tweak it further
Now you're just getting poky but to be honest I believe that you have never modded enough to have any idea of how many files you need to work with to make the arty adjustments, the speeds adjustments, the rear penetration adjustments and the reload adjustments. If you did, you would know that oversights can be expected.

And at this point:
Tiger1996 wrote:So, now how about that you give the chance to implement other ideas on the board for beta testing...
I am getting the feeling that you perceive the situation like "kwok got his idea implemented, now I should get some of my ideas too" - I already said that the speed changes were part of a more complex change and not just based on a kwok's suggestion. And if you think that you can boss me around to turn beta into a testing ground for everyone's ideas then you are mistaken. You have no authority over me and so you don't get to make demands on what should be put in.
And don't even start saying that you "suggested for implementing ideas of others too", or that you've "never said that you want your stuff implemented"...just really...don't try this on me.

You keep mentioning that the speed changes are bad and whatnot and I think the real reason why you are against finally shows up here:
Tiger1996 wrote:There are many tank oriented players in Bk Mod, and I consider myself one of them... And so; lowering the speed of tanks and vehicles, by claiming that this is more realistic this way, while it's actually less realistic by far.. would only make those tank oriented players change 1 habit for sure(bla bla bla)
so you basically say that the changes don't need to be objectively bad but you don't want them because it hinders your playstyle. OK, good to know.

All in all your posts keep mentioning all over and over these points:
- 5.1.4 vehicle speeds were OK
- you belive the vehicle speed changes should be reverted, they are bad and worthy of death penalty
- remove flank speeds
- limit sight range of tanks
You've mentioned it like 5 times already in several posts. Your point of view is noted and clear to anyone who can read. If you have more arguments or points, cool but there is no real reason to mention these 4 points all over and over.

What I have the biggest problem with when it comes to your argumentation is pretty much this:
mofetagalactica wrote:And... what about the guys that actually like the changes and are willing to see further about how speed vehicles behave including terrain,chasis rotation speed,turret rotation speed, maybe even sight too. I don't see anithing bad with trying new things and getting feedback about it until the concept gets propertly fullfiled.
You have opinion which basically says "speed changes are bad, everyone shares this oppinion and those who don't can go fuck themselves" - you completely ignore people who like the change simply because you dislike it. That is something I cannot do.

Just one mention to drivebyhobo:
drivebyhobo wrote:This feels like a precise case of detail that should be abstracted away in favor of being intuitive. In a perfect simulation, all the vehicles would have their speeds calculated according to their gearings in response to the angle in which the specific terrain type is being traveled over.

It's far too much detail for a game engine that only has acceleration, top speed and a couple of modifiers.
When I said that "engine cannot render all these curves, it would be too hardware-heavy" I meant that the game engine cannot handle rendering a field with tons of tiny curves to reflect realistic "field surface" and that is why the terrain in the game (most games actually) is almost flat and the "surface bumpiness" is created by textures.

Then we have Jim, who cannot reply for some time now but I am still curious:
JimQwilleran wrote:Just to mention a single one, for example PE opening and general gameplay: if you slow down vehicles this will affect scout car, 28 mm car and mortar ht heavily.
Scout car still has speed of "4" which is faster than infantry, it still has same suppression effects so even sprinting infantry gets suppressed fast and on a road it gets speed of "8.5" which allows it to move on the roads faster than most other vehicles. 28mm car was mentioned over and over that its only role is to counter CW Recce. 28mm car has speed in cross country set to 3.8 while Recce has "3.9" so even if they don't take roads, they move on very similar speeds and it is not like Recce can get somewhere significantly faster than the 28mm car. Not to mention that on a road Recce has speed of "5.8" while 28mm car has speed of "8" so on a road the car will get to its destination way before Recce, so it is more about what path you choose for your units to take. As for mortar HTs - all of them suffer the speed penalty so it is not like one faction gets the upper hand in mortar HT efficiency. And for PE opening, PE still has assault pios available right from start along with the assault infantry, pios come with free StG44 which makes them probably the strongest early game infantry in the game, assualt infantry is really weak either. Given the fact that playing on high resources is recommended setting (if people don't don that, it is their problem), you should not have trouble getting them early on. I get the point with mortar HT being the only mortar available to PE but still protecting it with infantry should not be such issue from what I mentioned above.

That should cover it, if I forgot to react to someone I am sorry. It is 00:30 here and I've had a long day.

All in all what Wolf said is true - this is a testing beta and this first release is NOT final. I still think that vehicle speeds should be brought down because otherwise the other changes (higher rear penetration + adjustments to RoF + gun range adjustments to higher calibre guns) will have more negative impact on the heavies than positive ones. However they will not be as slow as now.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3638
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Tiger1996 » 22 May 2018, 01:40

Things were finally starting to be a bit relaxed before you post, and the heat of discussions seemed to fade away.. but now looks like you really want a trouble with that post... Well, you can have it!

MarKr wrote:The speeds are set to "realistic" values because there needs to be some starting point and then you see how that works and adjust as needed. I already said that the first version of speed changes had halftracks slow as dirt - halftracks, both US and Axis could drive in crosscountry terrain at about the speed of 20 km/h. That means the speed of "2" in the game and we already upped that to "3.5". So the current HT speeds are already above the "realistic" values and I'm fine with that. But to your "argument" about vision ranges - tank crews had limited view, true. That is why they usually drove around with hatches opened and only closed them when there was a battle ahead. This means that the crew would be able to spot a tank at bigger range and once they spotted it, they would be able to keep track of where it is (unless some obstacle covers the view again). So this "realism" you try portray here doesn't really apply. You speak about realism in terms of gun range and tank sight but to achieve that, you would first need to set realistic gun ranges whicih would mean that Tigers and 88mm L43 would be able to shoot at ranges several times higher than Shermans and on smaller maps such Tiger would be able to snipe tanks from base across half the map. All in all if you don't have realistic gun ranges, what is the point of argumenting with some realistic vision of tank crews? They would see the enemy tank pretty clearly at the engagement ranges that BK uses - there you go, realism broken again. Now you might say one of those "well, at least get as close to realism as possible", and I might ask "why try to get as close to realism as possible with vision and not with speeds?"

Tanks already have realistic speeds, for some reason though.. you are just trying so hard to turn this game upside down for no real benefit.
All the speeds in the game were already set to a realistic value, if any value isn't realistic anymore.. then it's because you messed it up.
For example, Panther.G had a speed of 46 km and so the speed in game was 4.6 but now you tuned it down to 4.4 some patches ago...

Reasons given were "because it drives backward too fast" while you could have just generally reduced the massive sight range for all tanks so they wouldn't be able to see incoming threats from too far distance... And thus, their quick reverse speed wouldn't be able to save them when they run into an ambush... That's simply the root of the problem here.. so don't tell me you are making it become more realistic, because you are not.

And no, we don't need to have realistic cannon range so that the view range would be also realistic...
If the gun range is 60, why should the sight range be 85 then???? Huh, because the hatch is open.. you say? More like with a tank commander inside?
Ok, if the hatch is open.. why can't be 65 sight range? Why around "85" in particular? Why does the sight range have to be almost double the gun range? You see.. there are other more simple options you can take to make vehicles less of 1 army units.. without having to crack down the speed or whatever.. but no, you choose to do it the hard way, while actually ignoring the actual issue.


MarKr wrote:I already said what complications that would bring.

Ya, right.. if it's 3 seconds instead of 4 seconds, it would bring a lot of complications... SURE.

MarKr wrote:Stuka still has high damage per rocket (even with the current changes) and in general is probably the strongest arty piece in its category, CPs can stay.

So, I tell you one of the core reasons of delaying it to 5 Command Point, was some players complaining about its accuracy against vehicles at vet.2 and now that it doesn't have it.. also in addition to less range, then why 5 command points?
"It can stay" is not a reason that answers the question... or maybe u can just admit that it doesn't deserve 5 CPs anymore?

MarKr wrote:Nodoby questions your knowledge of WorldBuilder but you react very offensively most likely because you misunderstood my point.

I often react you very offensively because I know you.. salty most of the time.

MarKr wrote:you see it like "white area = vehicle can drive are relatively high speed" and that is because if you zoom in the white area, it seems "flat" - if you place a football on some point there, it would roll "downhill" to the lowest point. My point however was, that the texture that is used there is meant to represent some realistic surface in real world and vehicles would not be able to drive with some breath taking speeds on such surfaces because they are not flat.

CoH is not a simulation game.. you can't make vehicles slower just because the terrain textures refer to a muddy ground or whatnot.

MarKr wrote:You are wrong here. The reason for the speed changes was actually the rear penetration adjustments which were requested by your buddy Warhawks. He was right that flanking was not rewarding and very often you had no idea how successfull the flanking maneuver would be because the rear penetration chances were inconsistent as fuck across even same guns and even if you managed to flank some heavy tanks, their rear armor was often way stronger than it should have been. E.g. 76mm Sherman shooting at the ass of a Tiger? 43% chance to penetrate while 50mm Puma shooting at the ass of Jumbo? 75%. Pershing? 36% etc. so the penetration chances at rear were adjusted so that flanking would be more rewarding. At the same time the the heavy units gained some extra range and reload times were adjusted too with all this the heavy tanks would still be in a disadvantage - because the extra +5 range was covered with the original speeds in about less than 2 seconds. So as a supplement the movement speeds were adjusted too. Medium tanks still move faster than heavy tanks so they can overcome the gun range difference but in such speed to make the gun range insignificant.

Oh.. and I thought this was the reason:
MarKr wrote:Now for the rest - you will surely notice right away that all vehicles and tanks move a lot slower. The speeds of vehicles were meant to represent the real top speeds of vehicles but it got implemented in a wrong way and as a result all vehicles moved way faster than they were meant to. It got changed so that when vehicles move on solid roads (those that give to your infantry Red cover), they should match their "realistic" maximum speeds but when they move in cross-country terrain they are a lot slower. We tried to look up some information on realistic cross-country speeds on the vehicles and it is sort of hard because it depended a lot on the terrain but we managed to find some values and tried to apply them. In the initial tests we felt that the light vehicles were painfuly slow (even slower than infantry) so the speeds of halftracks and armored cars were increased above their "realistic" cross-country speeds to keep them viable as recons or infantry support. Tanks are slower but they have better armor and slower speed "feels" sort of right there. This change makes AT guns more viable because it takes longer to tanks to get in range and kill the crew with an HE shot, it also makes it harder to use armored cars with FTL speeds to bypass static defenses without a sweat or "kite" infantry with them. It also makes roads more strategically valuable because they allow for significantly faster movement across the map.

Hmm.. so different times, different reasons! Why not.

MarKr wrote:Now you're just getting poky but to be honest I believe that you have never modded enough to have any idea of how many files you need to work with to make the arty adjustments, the speeds adjustments, the rear penetration adjustments and the reload adjustments. If you did, you would know that oversights can be expected.

It's you who managed to drown himself in the speed adjustments at first... Yet completely unneeded.

MarKr wrote:I am getting the feeling that you perceive the situation like "kwok got his idea implemented, now I should get some of my ideas too" - I already said that the speed changes were part of a more complex change and not just based on a kwok's suggestion. And if you think that you can boss me around to turn beta into a testing ground for everyone's ideas then you are mistaken. You have no authority over me and so you don't get to make demands on what should be put in.
And don't even start saying that you "suggested for implementing ideas of others too", or that you've "never said that you want your stuff implemented"...just really...don't try this on me.

What I will say is, I'm free to try everything I want.. and you can't stop me too.
YOU KNOW WHY? Because you have a boss... You can't do anything without his permission.. but I don't have a boss, so I can do whatever I want and whenever I want... I'm the boss of my own.

MarKr wrote:so you basically say that the changes don't need to be objectively bad but you don't want them because it hinders your playstyle. OK, good to know.

Sure, looks like I'm the only one who doesn't want these changes...

MarKr wrote:You have opinion which basically says "speed changes are bad, everyone shares this oppinion and those who don't can go fuck themselves" - you completely ignore people who like the change simply because you dislike it. That is something I cannot do.

Again, as if it's only me who believes so... Off koorse.
What it really sounds like.. is YOU saying "those who don't like it can go fk themselves" and not the opposite.

You can't ignore those who like it, only because you like it too...
Keep going in that direction, but I'm not going with you.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 854
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 22 May 2018, 03:53

These vehicle speed changes is the worst thing ever happened with BK.

Revert it please and never touch again, there is nothing wrong with any vehicles.

Snazz
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Feb 2017, 12:34

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Snazz » 22 May 2018, 05:48

How dare you experiment with your free 10-year-old mod that you continue to develop in your spare time!

I thought it was called "Blitzkrieg for Loudest Forum Member Mod" but sadly I was mistaken, please send refund immediately to entitledminority@backseatdeveloper.com

Wait until I rant to my friend who loves Blitzkrieg but is usually too busy playing it to visit the forums, I suspect he still actually trusts the devs behind the mod.

If only there were earlier versions to reinstall and play with friends if we didn't like it... ;)

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 142
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 22 May 2018, 05:58

Snazz wrote:How dare you experiment with your free 10-year-old mod that you continue to develop in your spare time!

I thought it was called "Blitzkrieg for Loudest Forum Member Mod" but sadly I was mistaken, please send refund immediately to entitledminority@backseatdeveloper.com

Wait until I rant to my friend who loves Blitzkrieg but is usually too busy playing it to visit the forums, I suspect he still actually trusts the devs behind the mod.

If only there were earlier versions to reinstall and play with friends if we didn't like it... ;)

Haha!
Anyway I just want to remind everyone that it is just an experiment and developers asking you for solutions, instead of crying.
So please stop with that panic

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3638
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Tiger1996 » 22 May 2018, 06:36

Snazz wrote:How dare you experiment with your free 10-year-old mod that you continue to develop in your spare time!

I think it's not very correct to say "with your free 10-year-old mod" because currently there is no real owner for the mod.. so the word "your" doesn't actually reflect the reality. The real creator was someone called Xalibur but he is gone for about 6 years now... And no one has ever heard from him ever since then. So the mod currently belongs more to the entire community as a whole.. rather than to a certain group of people! Not to mention that it was the community who paid for the 100$ Green-light fees through multiple donations in order to finally bring BK MOD on the Steam platform, so it's not entirely "free" either.. just saying. However, there is no doubt that we appreciate the work of the current developers and the efforts they spend.. but we are ought to provide our feedback(s), and that's what we did.. as the majority believe that the current adjustments are at the wrong zone.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 392
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Jalis » 22 May 2018, 06:57

Tiger1996 wrote: So the mod currently belongs more to the entire community as a whole.. rather than to a certain group of people! .


It is wrong imo. It is a long long time pvp community have hijacked the game, despite it was, and still is a minority. It was a multipurpose mod up to 2013. Facts prove dev have final decision, and peoples who dont agree stay on earlier version, or play something else.

It is just a simple constatation.


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest