5.1.5 beta version

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
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, 07:11

Jalis wrote: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.

I'm not sure how PvP community hijacked the game.. it's an online game, so I think it's supposed to be played that way?

The leadership surely has the final decision, but that doesn't mean anyhow that the leadership holds the ownership rights too.. and thus, the leadership can be subject of change.. and isn't ever lasting, since it doesn't hold the ownership rights.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 223
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 22 May 2018, 08:29

Tiger1996 wrote:
Jalis wrote: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.

I'm not sure how PvP community hijacked the game.. it's an online game, so I think it's supposed to be played that way?

The leadership surely has the final decision, but that doesn't mean anyhow that the leadership holds the ownership rights too.. and thus, the leadership can be subject of change.. and isn't ever lasting, since it doesn't hold the ownership rights.

He means, who do everything for us and our willings, keeping up the host for this forum, they are rules here more than a community.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
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, 08:42

Yes, that's still called leadership.. not ownership, as I was more responding "Snazz" when he said "Your free mod" so I just had to put things on the straight line... Clearly, even the current Bk devs themselves never claimed ownership of the mod, and actually can't. Nonetheless, currently the leadership is in their hands though, that's undeniable.. but again, not the ownership. So, saying "their mod" is simply incorrect!
And as for the word "free" I've already clarified that one too... I said nothing wrong, just telling the truth as it is.

On holiday for 2 months (Banned)

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3075
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Warhawks97 » 22 May 2018, 12:39

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

OK, Warhawks was first...
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?


I used normal Transport HT. Thing is that whenever vehicles and tanks "touched" the smal dirt track it felt like they stopped moving entirely. And that several times from one point to another.... well its obvious that your vehicle wont get far.

Also i made tests putting Puma, inf, 37 mm HT and tank IV D in a line and starting a kind of a race accross a fiel. The Puma just managed to keep up with normal walking inf, HT couldnt and Tank IV was quickly left far behind. Tanks do not offer any kind of mobility adantage. I can just as well push field guns and AT guns accross the map to provide propper support to my inf.
The whole idea of fast and flexible Tank destroyer battallions is broken now bc AT guns can reach a threatened location even faster.


Another thing i dont get is that you said inf has a speed of "3". So they walk 30 kph? (Assuming that bc we gave 4.6 to panthers to reflect 46 kph).
As long as there is no heavy mud and only grassland style enviroment Tanks and vehicles should keep a speed advantage over infantry unless its a churchill tank. It looks quite strange when a tank or any vehicle cant even keep up with infantry that is just walking along. So Infantry speed would need to be what? "1"?
Off road this also means that infantry walks twice as fast as a tank IV can drive (3 vs 1.6 speed).... even if its only grassland. Thats all but realistic. Soldiers would never walk 20 kph over grassland with weapon equipment that way and nonstop. Even when they would sprint i doubt that they would exceed 20 kph with all equipment. I mean have you ever tried to run with a car that drives 20 kph? You would have to reduce and adjust all infantry speeds as well.

But gameplay wise that would be the death for BK bc everything would really look like we are playing a slow motion mod of coh.


The way you try to solve an issue is not the best one. When you think that tanks and vehicles are too "cartoonish" "over-agile" "Micro-beats-strategy-monsters" i would rather try a mix of solutions rather than trying to change one constant with a massive hammer.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2470
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 13:01

Tiger1996 wrote:Things were finally starting to be a bit relaxed before you post, and the heat of discussions seemed to fade away
Things were getting calmer after someone escalated it, don't want to point fingers but anyone can have a look through the last three pages to see who was shouting around the most and thus who escalated it to the point where it needed calming dow. Anyway, I was not at my PC to write my reaction to what has been said and writing it on my phone takes forever. I see nothing wrong with reacting to things that have been said.

Tiger1996 wrote: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.
They did not have realistic speeds! Look up the maximum speed of a Panther tank - it was 46km/h. This mean that the maximum speed in the game should be "4.6". But it was NOT the case. "Maximum speed" of a vehicle means the maximum speed the vehicle can reach in ideal conditions, that means flat, hard terrain, so basically roads. But the speed of Panther was set to 4.6 as BASIC, then, if it drove on "tp_open" cover (which is basically everywhere where infantry gets no cover at all, so cross country) it got +25% speed so it was at "5.75" and when it got on an actualy road, it got a speed buff of +75% and got to "8.05" - so this was the actual top speed in the game. Correct me if I am wrong but have not seen any resource claiming that the top speed of a Panther was 80.5km/h. On the other hand there are sources such as this (http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-V ... anther.htm) that say that Panthers drove off road at around 30km/h. Current speed of Panthers off a road is "3".
All vehicles were thus set wrong and were adjusted according to this. Any of your arguments saying that vehicles already had reaslitic speeds are thus false. Arguments where you say that you "think the speeds were fine" - are still valid because that is your oppinion and nobody can disprove that (but you need to accept that people don't need to share your oppinon) but saying that the speeds were realistic is not correct.

Tiger1996 wrote: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...
This is OT, but it was not just about reversing from ambushes, but also about being able to kite any other tanks, making it way too hard to kill it with anything other than 17 pounders or 90mm guns. The intention behind Armor doctrine is to use number of Shermans to take out bigger Axis tanks, not to go solely for the strongest stuff available all the time(Pershings/SP) and the state the Panthers were in did not allow for that. You could not use higher number of medium tanks to flank it becacuse Panther would just drive backwards faster than the mediums would drive forward.

Tiger1996 wrote:And no, we don't need to have realistic cannon range so that the view range would be also realistic..
Well, no, we don't need to have realistic cannnon range to have realistic view ranges, but you were talking about incoherency within the changes that have been made, how is this coherent then? If you go for this sort of "selective realism" (apply realism only where it suits and leave it out where it doesn't) then I don't see what the fuss about the speeds is because in principle it is the same - applying realism somewhere but not elsewhere.

Tiger1996 wrote:If the gun range is 60, why should the sight range be 85 then????
Because normal, healthy human eye can see further than most direct-shooting weapons can shoot? Especially if you use some sort of binoculars or periscopes that enhance your sight. The hatch thing was just counter argument to your "tank crews had limited view" - so once more, yes, in ombat situations they had limited view due to the fact that they could only look out through the visors. Outside combat they would have way better vision because all of the crew drove around with opened hatches exactly for this reason - to be able to spot danger.

Tiger1996 wrote:Ya, right.. if it's 3 seconds instead of 4 seconds, it would bring a lot of complications... SURE.
I'm glad you agree.

Tiger1996 wrote:
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.

"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?
From my quote, the green part is the reasoning, the red part is conclusion. You misinterpreted conclusion for reasoning.

Tiger1996 wrote:CoH is not a simulation game.. you can't make vehicles slower just because the terrain textures refer to a muddy ground or whatnot.
You can't because....why? The game engine allows it. Just the same way we could say that roads should not provide speed buffs because it is just texture or it could also be said that you cannot limit tank view just because it would reffer to real tank crews having limited view...CoH is not a simulation game. This argument is not very solid.

Tiger1996 wrote:Oh.. and I thought this was the reason:
...
Hmm.. so different times, different reasons! Why not.
As already explained the changes were interconnected to balance each other, it is true that I did not include in the announcement topic all the reasons that were part of the decision-making process but it is simply not possible to mention everything in one post - it would be too long.

Tiger1996 wrote:Sure, looks like I'm the only one who doesn't want these changes...
...
Again, as if it's only me who believes so... Off koorse.
And where exactly have I said anything about you being the only one who dislikes the speeds? I haven't said that (please, anyone, try find the point where I said it). I only said that you are categorically against the change because it hinders your playstyle and completely ignore the other side of the barricade.

Tiger1996 wrote:What it really sounds like.. is YOU saying "those who don't like it can go fk themselves" and not the opposite.
Which is a huge missinterpretation and/or twisting of what I said. I said that I cannot ignore people who like the change just because some other people don't like the change - there is support for both. On the other hand you only see your side and anything else is unacceptable.

All in all, Tiger, I don't like your attitude at all.
Tiger1996 wrote:(...)adding more roads just because of such a terrible incoherent change on vehicle speeds?? Hell no, I'm not going to do that.. neither would Playmobill, or anyone else.
I think it's based on realism.. how about that?
Now, I have already received some requests that map revisions need to include more roads now, that's as a consequence of your "realistic" vehicle speed adjustments which aren't even realistic to say the least.
Confidently I can say that the whole concept fails.. miserably too. And it's not a surprise to me either, as it's nothing hard to be expected...
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.. perhaps even quite carelessly as you even say right now that it's an oversight and not what was actually intended..
And thus, any incoherent/careless adjustments would only make it worse...
So, now how about that you give the chance to implement other ideas on the board for beta testing..
It's you who managed to drown himself in the speed adjustments at first... Yet completely unneeded.
YOU KNOW WHY? Because you have a boss... You can't do anything without his permission..
I don't mind expressing different oppinions as long as it is done in a polite and civil manner. You can see that Sukin, drivebyhobo, Warhawks and others disagreed with the changes too and not a single word has been said against them, only you are kicking around for no real reason.

Tiger1996 wrote: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.
Yes, you are a free person. And you sure know that a position of any boss means having responsibility for the results and outcomes of people who are "under" the boss. You are "your own boss" and, as you said, a free person on top and from both of these position you are fully responsible for your actions. Therefore:
Tiger1996 wrote:What I will say is, I'm free to try everything I want..
this is surely true, but with the freedom to do (or in this case "try") whatever you want also comes the responsibility for the way you choose to try it. Your way of trying is disrespectful towards the dev team, towards the job and time put in the mod, towards players who actually like the changes and in some cases it borders with indirect insulting and none of that was necessary - as shown by other players who dislike the changes, it is possible to express your disagreement in a neutral and calm way too.

Tiger1996 wrote:and you can't stop me too.
Hold my beer and watch me.
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2470
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 13:07

Warhawks97 wrote:But gameplay wise that would be the death for BK bc everything would really look like we are playing a slow motion mod of coh.
The infantry speeds cannot be brought down, there is already too many sources of damage that can kill infantry in seconds. So yeah, slowing infantry is not viable option.

But as Wolf said - this will be adjusted vehicles will be able to keep up with infantry.
Why is everyone acting like this is release build? :?
Image

kwok
Posts: 1331
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby kwok » 22 May 2018, 13:09

I didn’t get to mention this, I’m sfill away from home. When infantry speed is 3 it means something entirely different from tanks if I can recall. Their pathing set is different. At least in coh2 that’s the case. 3 means walk, 4 means sprint, 2 means slow (like exhausted), 1 means crawl. Something like that can’t rmemeber exactly. So a 3 for inf does not equal 3 for tanks in terms of exact speed. At one point I tried to figure out what infantry walk speed was in tank speed units for coh2 but I don’t remember anymore. Hope that helps answer some questions and why certain speeds are likely to be mistakes. Which is why I hope in general we can look at the change conceptually at first and not at face value.

Also if I can recall, deceleration is only for stopping, not reverse. acceleration value is for both forward and back. Sadly, the game can’t do both gears at different rates

Unrelated:
Markr wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:and you can't stop me too.
Hold my beer and watch me.


@shadowichigo
What boot? Vanilla wafers?
Last edited by kwok on 22 May 2018, 13:24, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Panzer-Lehr-Division
Posts: 460
Joined: 12 Dec 2014, 14:03

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzer-Lehr-Division » 22 May 2018, 13:15

Hahahaha good Thing my bk doesnt work anymore WIKINGER MOD FOR LAIFEHHHHH!
SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PE
CyberdyneModel101: you're unstoppable

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 22 May 2018, 13:25

Panzer-Lehr-Division wrote:Hahahaha good Thing my bk doesnt work anymore WIKINGER MOD FOR LAIFEHHHHH!


Very helpful, thanks.
Image

User avatar
seha
Posts: 195
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby seha » 22 May 2018, 14:00

MarKr wrote:Hold my beer and watch me

so first was jimqwilleran, and now you actually give tiger a 2 month ban? you think you can mute everyone who disagree with you and everything will be peaceful without any consequences? you think you have the absolute power here, dont you? you are really abusing your authority, the fact you ban them only prove you are afraid of their voice, and dont want to give them the chance to respond.. luckily tiger has a thousand way to deliver his message though. who is going to be banned next? disgraceful, dishonest and helpless....what a pity you are.

On holiday for a month (Banned)

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 22 May 2018, 14:04

Insults will not be tolerated anymore, towards players, towards devs, zero tolerance, period, i see you in one Month Seha, i hope you'll be smarter then.

*Just a little reminder here for those who still don't understand how bk mod team is working... We are working as a team, means when we decide to add something new to the mod, its the ENTIRE WHOLE TEAM decision, not just a team member who suddenly going nuts, it is not because you see one team member more often on the forum than others that its the one who rule the bk world, its just the one who is ENOUGH KIND TO RESPOND AND TAKING TIME FOR YOU, you see how rewarding it could be...

Also a very important thing regarding Tiger talk, and questioning the team authority regarding what he called "leadership" and "ownership", this two words means poo, Xalibur the original leader and creator of bk mod and our friend who retired from the modding world gave us the baby at 100%, so to make it clear once for all, BK mod is owned by the BK team mod, in a more simple word, US, and exclusively developed by the BK team.

There is no BS leadership/ownership whatever you call it, this is again a pure invention/speculation to sit on something subversive regarding our work or on devs members credibility.

Im also extremely dispointed by some players here, this is a experimental beta test patch, meaning the normal bk is absolutely available if you don't want to help us, but more i see the reactions here, more i feel disgusted, really disgusted, we are trying something new thinking the bk community will help, and what we got? frustrations, anger, insults, provocations, that is NOT cool and will be remenbered, and you F know me, im not here to make friends.
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2470
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 14:18

seha, I am really not surprised that you are the first one to defend Tiger. But have a look at what you said - "you think you can mute everyone who disagree with you" and now have a look at this post and see at all those people who disagreed with the changes - Warhawks (repeatedly), Sukin, drivebyhobo, Jim, you, Tiger. And when Jim got banned? When he disagreed? No, when he started picking on Pblitz. When did Tiger get a ban? When he started to do the same. And now you join them - did you get banned when you wrote that speed changes are bad? No, only after you started picking at devs.
As I said hundred times over - it doesn't matter that you disagree, the way HOW you disagree matters. You can go around Steam, Discord or whatever chanells you want and complain to people and tell how "bad" we are, please do, but when you do so, please, also link this topic so that they can see why the bans were issued.
Image

User avatar
Panzer-Lehr-Division
Posts: 460
Joined: 12 Dec 2014, 14:03

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzer-Lehr-Division » 22 May 2018, 14:18

I hope i will hurt no ones Feelings because mine just got hurt with These changes.. i dont even get why those are made it always were Company of waiting now its turtle of heroes Blitzkrieg mod its sad well i am a direct Person i dont get why devs jump into the realistic water now i remember all my suggestions got declined for being to "realistic" Hearing all day this is bk mod it doesnt has to be realistic now 3 People got banned for pretty much saying their opinion... i am now really honest again please dont take it as offense but: reason why i left Forum/bk is devs are not really listening we are like your experimental monkeys doing 'jokes' to make the devs laught its so sad.
SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PE
CyberdyneModel101: you're unstoppable

Erelas
Posts: 1
Joined: 02 Mar 2018, 23:23

Banning for opinion?

Postby Erelas » 22 May 2018, 14:37

Hello,
I have noticed this big conversation and I would like to know:
Why are you banning players from forums for feedback?
They are giving you their opinion and you should be grateful for that.
That´s all I wanted to say.
Your behavior is shameful.
Great day to you like the Britain is.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2470
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 14:39

Panzer-lehr: I have said it here - the speed changes are not applied because they are realistic, it was said already:
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%. 50mm Puma vs rear 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 not in such speed to make the gun range insignificant.
So speed changes were not implemented to get some more realistic values here (even though Tiger kept using this as main argumentation point for the change even after I explained it was not that way) - we started at "realistic" values, true, but only because you need to start somewhere and adjust the values from there as needed. The reason stands - lower speeds are there to compensate for increased rear penetration. Just as the arty changes are there to compensate for the lower speeds - it is all connected.

And I dare to say that we are listening but we simply cannot implement every idea from every person. It often seems to me that people see as their "personal goal" to have at least one of their suggestions implemented so that they can say "look, this is in the game thanks to me" and they start to perceive this as some sort of competition. This is not a competition. We read (or at least I do) what is written on the forum and we try to pick up on ideas that we think can positively influence the game. But it is not wise to implement things just to make individual players happy that their suggestion made it in.
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2470
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Banning for opinion?

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 14:41

Erelas wrote:Hello,
I have noticed this big conversation and I would like to know:
Why are you banning players from forums for feedback?
They are giving you their opinion and you should be grateful for that.
That´s all I wanted to say.
Your behavior is shameful.
Great day to you like the Britain is.

Hello, Eralas, I wonder if you read the entire conversation, including the parts where players start to pick on devs (which is violation of the forum rules). If you read the entire discussion you will notice that NOBODY was banned for expressing their oppinion but for their behavior, that is a huge difference.
Image

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Banning for opinion?

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 22 May 2018, 14:43

Erelas wrote:Hello,
I have noticed this big conversation and I would like to know:
Why are you banning players from forums for feedback?
They are giving you their opinion and you should be grateful for that.


This aint feedbacks, all of that isn't feedbacks, when it comes to insults, sarcasm or devs bashing on a test patch, its going much more further than just "feedbacks", its not a first for them, and surely not be the last, we aren't banning people because we are just drunk, or under heavy medications, our behaviour isn't shameful, and i will ask you to stop right now taking their defence, they saw it coming and we have more interesting things to do that coming back on that banning episode.

thanks all.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3075
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Warhawks97 » 22 May 2018, 15:03

MarKr wrote:

They did not have realistic speeds! Look up the maximum speed of a Panther tank - it was 46km/h. This mean that the maximum speed in the game should be "4.6". But it was NOT the case. "Maximum speed" of a vehicle means the maximum speed the vehicle can reach in ideal conditions, that means flat, hard terrain, so basically roads. But the speed of Panther was set to 4.6 as BASIC, then, if it drove on "tp_open" cover (which is basically everywhere where infantry gets no cover at all, so cross country) it got +25% speed so it was at "5.75" and when it got on an actualy road, it got a speed buff of +75% and got to "8.05" - so this was the actual top speed in the game. Correct me if I am wrong but have not seen any resource claiming that the top speed of a Panther was 80.5km/h. On the other hand there are sources such as this (http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-V ... anther.htm) that say that Panthers drove off road at around 30km/h. Current speed of Panthers off a road is "3".
All vehicles were thus set wrong and were adjusted according to this. Any of your arguments saying that vehicles already had reaslitic speeds are thus false. Arguments where you say that you "think the speeds were fine" - are still valid because that is your oppinion and nobody can disprove that (but you need to accept that people don't need to share your oppinon) but saying that the speeds were realistic is not correct.


Ok, thx. Thats the kind of information i love.
With current panther off road speed you mean this beta version or the 5.14. Sometimes it gets confusing when the word "current" is used^^.
And still, if Panthers off road (lets say ideal grassland) speed is 3 for 30 kph it wouldnt fit in relation to infantry when it walks pretty much at the same speed. No soldier would walk 30 kph (actually not even 20) on grassland with weapons to carry.
So keep this relation in mind, too.

Kwok wrote:I didn’t get to mention this, I’m sfill away from home. When infantry speed is 3 it means something entirely different from tanks if I can recall. Their pathing set is different. At least in coh2 that’s the case. 3 means walk, 4 means sprint, 2 means slow (like exhausted), 1 means crawl. Something like that can’t rmemeber exactly. So a 3 for inf does not equal 3 for tanks in terms of exact speed. At one point I tried to figure out what infantry walk speed was in tank speed units for coh2 but I don’t remember anymore. Hope that helps answer some questions and why certain speeds are likely to be mistakes. Which is why I hope in general we can look at the change conceptually at first and not at face value.


is that true for coh1 as well?


My point of view ( i accept the limits the game engine provides) is that on streets tanks (and esspecially wheeled vehicles) would be way faster than inf.
On Grasslands and other rather ideal enviroment tanks and tracked vehicles should still hold a speed advantage over inf. Wheeled vehicles suffering more speed penalty which still wouldnt make them slower than halftracks.
That realistic vehicle speed approach is problematic bc apparently infantry is too difficult or different. As a result the supposed mobile part of an army becomes kind of immobile while infantry focused docs get a massive boost in this regard.
Trucks and Haltracks losing their reason as a tool of higher flexibility and HT´s will be reduced to reinforcing points.

That "escaping from ambushes" thing and detecting ambushes and flanking attempts can be addressed with a mix of acceleration speed adjustments, top speed changes and even vision. When i got it right 85 is the very basic sight of all tanks? If so then spotting scope upgrades boosting it by 15 (Panther G by 35) which makes it 100 and more. At this point i would perhaps really place the question if its needed. From a realistic perspective i dont even know what spotting scopes are. Tanks had periscopes at default (early Panthers had even less than shermans) and some could be traversed 360 degree for all crew members (shermans) and others had fixed angel of view for just a few crew members (Panthers and most axis tanks). So from this perspective it wouldnt even make sense to have superior vision on german tanks. Superior accuracy is justified by better gunsights and aiming support.
The "scope" (Fg 1250) from Panther G is actually a night vision tool. It was used along with Halftracks using infrared searchlights to illuminate targets at night. With that FG1250 you could see the targets illuminated by the (for the normal eye invisible) searchlight. But it was no superior spotting scope.

Lets assume the standard vision of tanks would 70 and +10 for tank commander+ 10 for ambush mode and +10 for Tankhunters of TH doc that received the spotting scope upgrade (this boost would apply only when not moving and perhaps even only when in ambush) wouldnt it be an option to talk about? Spotting scopes as normal upgrade would be removed entirely.
So tanks could see a bit further as they can fire and even more further with adequate upgrades and certain positions.
In addition acceleration would be lower to prevent easy ambush escapes.

I am just trying to offer some middle ground solutions. I now that the release is just a beta. So i appologize when my acting comes over as if it is a final decision.


I am looking forward how the new adjustments will be and look like. Perhaps we really find a ground at which everybody can be happy with or at least live with.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 22 May 2018, 15:07, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 22 May 2018, 15:07

Panzer-Lehr-Division wrote:I hope i will hurt no ones Feelings because mine just got hurt with These changes.. i dont even get why those are made it always were Company of waiting now its turtle of heroes Blitzkrieg mod its sad well i am a direct Person i dont get why devs jump into the realistic water now i remember all my suggestions got declined for being to "realistic" Hearing all day this is bk mod it doesnt has to be realistic now 3 People got banned for pretty much saying their opinion... i am now really honest again please dont take it as offense but: reason why i left Forum/bk is devs are not really listening we are like your experimental monkeys doing 'jokes' to make the devs laught its so sad.


Sorry? experimental monkeys? are you f kidding me? let me tell you one thing, we are working to be fair to ALL PVP PLAY STYLES, all the huge BK modifications done these past years was to give more balance tools to the whole bk mod community, not only to 4 guys here on the forum, experimental monkeys? .... you're not experimental monkeys because WE ARE DOING ALL THE JOB FOR YOU! spending days on the mod to improve it, those dudes are just spoiled bratts who are complaining too much on our working times.

My turn to be very honest, we don't F CARE about what play style you can have OR how you play the mod, what WE care is to give to ALL players a much more balance mod, for more insteresting PVP games, thats all, it was always our goal, and so is today, and we still do think we succeed, even if some more work needs to be done on the mod, so it is not because of some are crying out loud and behave like morons on something we are testing in intern, that we are just going to stop our tests, nope, it doesn't work that way, at least not here.
Image

User avatar
Panzer-Lehr-Division
Posts: 460
Joined: 12 Dec 2014, 14:03

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzer-Lehr-Division » 22 May 2018, 15:19

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
Panzer-Lehr-Division wrote:I hope i will hurt no ones Feelings because mine just got hurt with These changes.. i dont even get why those are made it always were Company of waiting now its turtle of heroes Blitzkrieg mod its sad well i am a direct Person i dont get why devs jump into the realistic water now i remember all my suggestions got declined for being to "realistic" Hearing all day this is bk mod it doesnt has to be realistic now 3 People got banned for pretty much saying their opinion... i am now really honest again please dont take it as offense but: reason why i left Forum/bk is devs are not really listening we are like your experimental monkeys doing 'jokes' to make the devs laught its so sad.


Sorry? experimental monkeys? are you f kidding me? let me tell you one thing, we are working to be fair to ALL PVP PLAY STYLES, all the huge BK modifications done these past years was to give more more balance tools to the whole bk mod community, not only to 4 guys here on the forum, experimental monkeys? .... you're not experimental monkeys because WE ARE DOING ALL THE JOB FOR YOU! spending days on the mod to improve it, those dudes are just spoiled bratts who are complaining too much on our working times.

My turn to be very honest, we don't F CARE about what play style you can have OR how you play the mod, what WE care is to give to ALL players a much more balance mod, for more insteresting PVP games, it was always our goal, and still is today, so it is not because of some are crying out loud and behave like morons on something we are testing in intern, that we are just going to stop our tests, nope, it doesn't work that way, at least not here.

Fair? i dont think it is fair tbh i was a old and very Long Player for bk and i honestly never thought off something can kick me out of this game but the latest 5 Patches are in MY and ONLY MY OPINION bad. i could talk for alot of others having worse opinion about the devs while i once respected your work and still do but here we go you going full mad mode for saying out my opinion even tho i wrote it is no offense ist like order 551 here when saying/retreading you would get shoot in USSR times... you go hard on me now for saying how i feel like in the forum? that is not cool at all there so many changes that shouldnt even have to be in this mod the mod was even fine 11 Patches ago. just a few fix/changes such as the great m1 garand fix* no sarcasm im honest* and it would been cool too but now we got an allie mod *my opinion again* with turtle tanks sorry but this is making me crying. i always said why not just making a beta patch putting all Player Suggestion into it and and maybe we could catch out 1-2 Suggestion out of it and even implement them on the live game!
SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PE
CyberdyneModel101: you're unstoppable

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 22 May 2018, 15:25

Well its your personal opinion, we respect that, but we are working on a greater scale, not again for few players, and all good suggestions from the bk community has been taken in count, discussed, and implemented in game.

I want to finish on that matter especially regarding Tiger statement as blitzkrieg mod belong to the community instead of a « group of people » well he must be taking his dreams for reality, bk mod don’t belong to him or anybody except us the devs team group, even if often he act like its his mod.
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2470
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 16:04

Warhawks97 wrote:is that true for coh1 as well?
I am not 100% sure but I think it is not. You can set something, which is called (iirc) "posture" and there applies that 1 = crawling, 2= normal infantry movement, 3= sprint etc. but speeds of infantry can be adjusted. This is just my speculation based on the fact that if you use the "Suppressive volley" ability (G43 rifle ability) on some squad and the squad starts retreating, they retreat slower (because they are under the effect of lowered speed, but not posture. But once I gain, only a speculation, I am not sure of this.

Warhawks97 wrote:My point of view ( i accept the limits the game engine provides) is that on streets tanks (and esspecially wheeled vehicles) would be way faster than inf.
(...)
As already said, the current speed will change, possibly in this direction.

Warhawks97 wrote:Lets assume the standard vision of tanks would 70 and +10 for tank commander+ 10 for ambush mode and +10 for Tankhunters of TH doc that received the spotting scope upgrade (this boost would apply only when not moving and perhaps even only when in ambush) wouldnt it be an option to talk about?
It would be an option, yes.

Warhawks97 wrote:I am just trying to offer some middle ground solutions. I now that the release is just a beta. So i appologize when my acting comes over as if it is a final decision.
No need to appologize. This is standard feedback/suggestion, I don't know why everybody is so crazy out of sudden...feedback - even a negative one - is OK as long as it is in a normal polite manner...with all this fuss that's been going on I start to wonder if maybe my understanding of the phrase "polite manner" is somehow wrong :D

Panzer-Lehr-Division wrote:but now we got an allie mod *my opinion again* with turtle tanks
I don't know how this all turned into "allie mode". Some things were buffed on allied side, such as the Shermans, on the other hand they also got higher prices or some other kind of compensation. People often complain about micromanagement and allies were for many years way more micro-heavy than axis because allies had cheaper but weaker stuff, this meant using numbers and that meant more micro. We try to reduce the micro so that the sides are more even on micro level. Allies (US particulary) should still use numbers but instead of having 3 units to kill one Axis it is now 2 units. Still more micro-heavy than Axis, but less than in the past, and since the units are usually a bit better, they also cost more (low price was there because of weak performance, so that is only fair).
As for the "turtle tanks" - once again: The current speeds are not final.

Panzer-Lehr-Division wrote:i always said why not just making a beta patch putting all Player Suggestion into it and and maybe we could catch out 1-2 Suggestion out of it and even implement them on the live game!
Because it is impossible to do. You say to put in suggestions of all players - just look at this topic: some players are for lower speeds, some are not. So you already cannot do this and most suggestions get some some people who like it and some who don't. Sometimes there are suggestions that contradict each other. So in the end it will not be "put in suggestions from all players" but rather "put in suggestions from some players" and then there will the question of who will choose whose suggestion gets put in and whose not. Currently it is up to the dev team to decide it and given the fact that it is the dev team who needs to spend time to put the suggestions to the game, I don't think it is a bad thing.
No matter what system you would choose, there will always need to be someone who will need to decide what gets to the game and what doesn't and this "someone" will always be hated by those, whose suggestions don't get in.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 166
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby The New BK Champion » 22 May 2018, 18:12

Not always one can do what is in his opinion right and moral, in order to remain in power one has to appease the people. Every kind of power to rule comes from the people.

In other words if you keep banning people and introducing unpopular changes, even if they are objectively right changes, will only result in people losing interest in the mod. Learn when going up the stream ends up in nothing more than pyrrhic victory. Sure you can force your changes, but at this point you need Tiger, Hawks or Kwok more than they need you, they can play this mod even if you decide to stop supporting it. Considering that and the fact that you don't play the mod yourself I am surprised that you keep throwing bans at people who indeed are the sole purpose of your activity here. You are cutting the branch you are sitting on.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 22 May 2018, 18:32

The New BK Champion wrote:Not always one can do what is in his opinion right and moral, in order to remain in power one has to appease the people. Every kind of power to rule comes from the people.

In other words if you keep banning people and introducing unpopular changes, even if they are objectively right changes, will only result in people losing interest in the mod. Learn when going up the stream ends up in nothing more than pyrrhic victory. Sure you can force your changes, but at this point you need Tiger, Hawks or Kwok more than they need you, they can play this mod even if you decide to stop supporting it. Considering that and the fact that you don't play the mod yourself I am surprised that you keep throwing bans at people who indeed are the sole purpose of your activity here. You are cutting the branch you are sitting on.


You're absolutely out of the context here, what unpopular changes we did on bk mod? please informed me, because i really want to know, Bk mod is much more balanced compare to what we had before, so i don't understand what you mean, because again we are working to improve PVP plays, not ruining it, regarding the people who has been banned they deserved it, and we aren't cutting any branches here, if people don't like it, they can play MoW or others COH mods, if people act like morons and feel in power to dictate whatever they want for their game or bash, insults Bk devs they will be banned, there is a big difference between proposing nicely or act like imbeciles or smart asses towards devs.

They don't want to help, prefering to scream out and acting like jerks or f childs, well they are better out of here, it will be cooler for our eyes.
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2470
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 18:43

Has anybody banned Hawks or Kwok? No, they provide feedback and act normally/politely and that is appreciated. Tiger went over the line, more than once actually. If someone is "passionate" (or that is at least the word that has been used a lot in this context lately) about the mod, does it give them the some kind of immunity to the forum rules? No, it doesn't. There are some rules and they exist for a reason. If you cannot follow them, there is a punishment coming your way.

We make the mod for people, that means all the people. Not only those who are heard the most. If some people like "tank-oriented" playstyle, does it mean that any "infantry-oriented" players should be placed on side-track? If someone preffers dynamic games, does it mean that things that allow for camping playstyle should be nerfed into oblivion? As the devs we have an uneasy task - we need to look into suggested changes, try to (as objectively as possible) assess how such suggestion would affect different playstyles and try to implement it in some way so that it doesn't tip the scales (or at least as little as possible), or in case the scales are tipped, then try to put it back into ballance. That is why we have this beta, it was expected that the changes would tip the balance heavily in some direction but without propper testing it was impossible to say how exactly. Now the scales are tipped heavily towards infantry-focused gameplay, we know that from the feedback and are currently looking for a way to put it more in balance again. This patch will not go live until there is some ballance reached.
The problem is that everyone focuses so heavily on the speed change that we got no proper feedback on the rest - sofar I've heard like two mentions about the artillery, but it seems to me that everyone took an approach like "speeds suck, I won't play it at all". If there was some proper testing the next beta update could already solve some issues that are now overlooked because of the speed thing.
I don't know why everyone freaks out so much about this even when it has been said many times that the changes are not final and will be further tweaked. Maybe it is because there hasn't been a public beta and if there was beta released then it was for few days and then it went live, this is not the case, this beta will take several weeks, even months if needed.
Image


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests