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.
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.