Anti tank teams in latest patch?!?!!??!?!?!?

[Henny]

So for this 5.0.0 update dev's have changed the anti tank (PAK) setup time to 2 seconds. HOWEVER, IN GAME, this is actually 6 seconds!!! Pak's are now useless!!! When you change direction don't expect it to shoot anything, you'll just get butt raped by jeeps, gg bk mod

[Henny]

Take this example for instance, I have placed a 57 mm PAK in a defensive position. A hellcat just rushes through my frontline to get my mortar halftrack with flank speed. The first shot from the 57mm pak misses so the hellcat just zooms in, destroys my mortar, ok no problem, so I turn my 57mm Pak around. AND THEN THE RETARDED CREW TAKES 7 SECONDS TO SIGHT A HELLCAT SO THEY DON'T SHOOT AND IT SIMPLY SPEEDS AWAY NO PROBLEM OK BUDDY ALRIGHT

[Warhawks97]

Thing is the abuse. Right in the moment the crew places themselfs behind the shield they fire. You can thus make a shot "relocate" it and when the crew jumps back to fireing posiiton they shoot again.

I am not used to it yet, but i think i will be. Anti tank guns are quite deadly anyways in BK. Huge range, some of them have good rof, can survive a hit and you turn them without losing ambush position and you can ambush anywhere. I would think i test it first and see how it works. We have got used to many things that at first were hated.

[Henny]

Thing is the abuse. Right in the moment the crew places themselfs behind the shield they fire. You can thus make a shot "relocate" it and when the crew jumps back to fireing posiiton they shoot again.

I am not used to it yet, but i think i will be. Anti tank guns are quite deadly anyways in BK. Huge range, some of them have good rof, can survive a hit and you turn them without losing ambush position and you can ambush anywhere. I would think i test it first and see how it works. We have got used to many things that at first were hated.

Maybe we should remove the 6 second setup time from ambushed crews? The 6 second setup time would only apply to non-camouflaged crews

[Frost]

Thing is the abuse. Right in the moment the crew places themselfs behind the shield they fire. You can thus make a shot "relocate" it and when the crew jumps back to fireing posiiton they shoot again.

I am not used to it yet, but i think i will be. Anti tank guns are quite deadly anyways in BK. Huge range, some of them have good rof, can survive a hit and you turn them without losing ambush position and you can ambush anywhere. I would think i test it first and see how it works. We have got used to many things that at first were hated.

Maybe we should remove the 6 second setup time from ambushed crews? The 6 second setup time would only apply to non-camouflaged crews

+1 its silly that camuflaged take also ages to fire...

[MarKr]

That is not possible due to engine limitation. But we're considering lowering the "first shot aim time" for the weaker AT weapons (37mm 50/57mm) to half.

[Warhawks97]

I may ask why AT guns keep ambushed when turning the gun arround? HMg crews dont keep ambushed, even when using this "turn fire angel" ability. Ive been always wondering why AT guns can keep ambushed when doing so. Maybe a bit off-topic but somehow it fits here as the gun also fires instantly when turning it arround and the crew jumps back behind the shield.

[MarKr]

I don't know...maybe because AT guns were coated in optic-fiber which makes light flow around them which makes them effectively invisible and that makes their camo superb tier? Historically accurate, btw XD

[Warhawks97]

Haha, yeah, i heard about something like that. Brits developed the "super camo paste" first right? It was ahead of its time Germans then used it on Jagdpanther as well but were in short supply so tanks like Elephant or Jagdtiger couldnt use it:D

Ok, joke aside

Are we talking about the ready aim time? Which is set to 4 seconds currently? I will see how its gonna work out but i think i am not gonna disliking it. Quite the opposite i would say. Just for the small AT guns it could be lowered bc of the speedy jeeps. For others i would keep it actually.

I would also like to have some aim time back for tanks. 2 seconds or so as we were used to. When you going to attack an enemie tank your tank will fire instant when coming into range and thus giving little chance to stop your tank. As your tank will make the first shot then on the move the shot will most likely fail to hit. Attacking enemie tanks with tanks is thus sometimes difficult. A 1,5 or 2 second aim time could give a chance to stop your tank before it shoots.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Are we talking about the ready aim time? Which is set to 4 seconds currently? I will see how its gonna work out but i think i am not gonna disliking it.

So, you actually didn't try version 5.0.0 up until this point yet? Well mate, I would say you should first check it out practically before throwing your expectations.. because so far everyone who tried it with enough attention, has in fact disliked it.

Personally I think adding aim time is not a bad thing itself.. but this is not 4 seconds, somehow it's 6 seconds in the actual game...
If not more.

And I would say let's not mess up with aim times or add any further aim time for tanks.. all tanks currently are supposed to have 0.5 aim time, and any higher value will negatively affect the direct fire ability as a consequence.

That is not possible due to engine limitation. But we're considering lowering the "first shot aim time" for the weaker AT weapons (37mm 50/57mm) to half.

Not exactly sure if you remember when we discussed together such matters in the past... But I can recall the time when I told you then that the values in Crosix often have extended affect on the actual game.. perhaps due to some connectivity and other files synchronization procedures within the game engine before actions are actively set. Therefore, 1 second in Crosix for example is in fact as much as 2 seconds in the actual game. That's almost the double! And I mean it. So, if I were you... I would rather be very careful while applying aim times. Such a long aim time for high caliber AT guns literally mean that a heavy tank can just drive right into them and shoot HE even before those AT guns are able to react at all. Not to mention that high caliber AT guns are slow-ass already! Based on that, i think absolutely no weapon should have more than 2 seconds aim time in this game.

[MarKr]

What you say makes little sense. If there were some elements affecting time-mesurements in the game (such as conenctivity) then there is no logical explanation why such element should only affect aim time and nothing else...or actually why it should affect only something and something not in general. If connectivity prolonged time-measurement, for whatever reason, then it would logically affect aim times, reload times, cooldown times, ability duration times...simply everything.

Current delay before first shot seems very long because for years the AT guns fired immediately after the two dudes hid behind the gun shield, now they start aiming at the moment when they hide behind the shield. As I said - we might drop it a bit for the smaller guns.

[Krieger Blitzer]

What I say definitely makes little sense when you first look at it. However, when you actually try it out in the game with a stopwatch at 60 frames per seconds.. you would then figure out that what I am saying is in fact the absolute truth. And that's exactly the reason why I mentioned this earlier throughout my recent post within the patch topic:

And that was one of the things that I was willing to show MarKr in a live stream btw, because I know that such matters can not be really believed if they were told, but only when they are seen... And I honestly can't believe that this patch was pre-tested within a closed/limited circle before this topic comes out anyhow. Otherwise such things would have been easily discovered!

Obviously, not everything makes sense until it's actually seen.

If there were some elements affecting time-mesurements in the game (such as conenctivity) then there is no logical explanation why such element should only affect aim time and nothing else...or actually why it should affect only something and something not in general. If connectivity prolonged time-measurement, for whatever reason, then it would logically affect aim times, reload times, cooldown times, ability duration times...simply everything.

But who said that it only affects aim time? If you would do some actual investigation, I guess you would quickly discover that the latency for a fact really affects everything in the game and actually not just the aim time. I can bet that pretty much all of the values to the time frequencies in Crosix are actually different from what is represented in the actual game...

[MarKr]

And your point is....? Latency is not constant nor same for everyone. So you cannot "compensate" for it by lowering numbers. Numbers are set in game files. If latency affects them then it is the same for everyone in that match, so in a sense it is fair because everyone has same conditions.

[Krieger Blitzer]

And your point is....? Latency is not constant nor same for everyone. So you cannot "compensate" for it by lowering numbers. Numbers are set in game files. If latency affects them then it is the same for everyone in that match, so in a sense it is fair because everyone has same conditions.

What you say is valid. But here my point is... You should always keep into consideration the matter of latency, often.. specifically with the old CoH1 engine; latency is very preservative in most cases. It is also believed that the so called "desync" is all about latency and game files synchronization issues in this CoH1 engine. Therefore, I think you should be more careful while applying aim times. Don't go above 2 seconds, or maximum 3 seconds in very extreme conditions.

[MarKr]

So...you just said that my post has a valid point (latency applies to everyone in the game so it doesn't put anyone in advantage) you also say that latency affects EVERYTHING, not just aim times but only aim times should be kept below 3 seconds? Again - to keep certain settings under certain value because it MIGHT get longer due to latency makes no sense. With this approach we would need to keep cooldowns, reload times, durations etc. under certain value. Values are based on none latency conditions and limiting something because some connection-based condition MIGHT occur is very poor reason. End of story.

[Krieger Blitzer]

The current aim time of AT guns is massive/huge and almost unplayable, if you are going to lower the aim time of small paks.. do it also for the bigger ones. Aim time is obviously more sensitive compared to other values such as reload time or cool-down! And like I already said, latency is preservative in this game engine, so it WILL ALWAYS happen. If you don't believe it, then just go ahead and finally start testing or at least initially checking what you actually implement...

[MarKr]

Latency has been in the game forever, aim times have been in the game forever and only now you come and start claiming it is a "huge" problem? Your agenda is obvious. You're overstepping your bounds here.

[Krieger Blitzer]

My agenda?? What the fuck dude?! Come on
But well, I can tell you what my actual agenda here is... I am here to provide all what I can to help, since day one.
It's not like I am the only one here saying that the aim time is huge.. what's your problem?! Dude, I am simply saying that the aim time needs to be reduced for all paks! But then you come and say that what I am saying is nonsense. Aren't high caliber paks already slower? So, if you are going to lower aim time for smaller paks.. why shouldn't bigger paks also get the same aim time reduction?!

[MarKr]

And I honestly can't believe that this patch was pre-tested within a closed/limited circle before this topic comes out anyhow. Otherwise such things would have been easily discovered!
...
just go ahead and finally start testing or at least initially checking what you actually implement...

You are just indirectly saying that if you were in the test group, this would not be in the game, in other words you use passive aggression to get access there. Not that hard to see what you're after. Tough luck. (of course now you'll say that you never said or asked for that)

I am simply saying that the aim time needs to be reduced for all paks!

If this is your point, your only point, then what is all the latency stuff about? What everyone else does(would do):
PaKs now take longer to fire first shot -> make post and ask for lowering the delay

What you do:
PaKs now take longer to fire the first shot -> make post and talk about latency could affect the delay along with all other things that are connected to time in the game such as CDs, delays, reload times etc. -> spend 3 more posts defending latency issue -> make post where you get to solution: don't increase aim time over 3 seconds for PaKs because latency could make it longer than that but you don't give a crap about the fact that latency would increase everything else along with it; that is not important -> then make post where you claim that it is all about reducing aim time

I'm just...I give up...I let reasoning with you to other people...

[Krieger Blitzer]

You are just indirectly saying that if you were in the test group, this would not be in the game, in other words you use passive aggression to get access there. Not that hard to see what you're after. Tough luck. (of course now you'll say that you never said or asked for that)

It looks like you are so tempered. This is only how YOU WANT to understand what I said... Completely twisting words. And once again you bring it back at a personal level. What makes you so confident that this was the actual intention of my statement? You know what? If I really wanted to say that; I would have said it just DIRECTLY... As there is absolutely no reason to say it indirectly, literally nothing to be ashamed of. But I really wonder, did you get into my mind and try to guess what my actual intention was? What an intuition you have! Why don't you just treat the sentences you see just as they are without making so much accusations?

Now, let me "translate" for you my statement... My point by saying this clearly was;
A closed beta limited for certain individuals is never a good idea, specifically when you are planning to release a big patch that is also considered to be a turning point of this mod, given the fact that version 5.0.0 was planned to be the actual Steam release at last. EVEN IF I WAS ALREADY INSIDE THIS CLOSED GROUP, I WOULD HAVE STILL SAID THE EXACT SAME THING. Open beta versions are always more sufficient, since that the whole community is eventually allowed to participate and hunt any possible bugs. But for some reason, suddenly at some point in the past.. not very long time ago; you said that you no longer are in-need of any beta(s). That's when I told you that beta versions are always very important without any doubt!

But it didn't take too long until I was proven right, as we can all see now how you later HAD TO assign a beta test anyway. But then, you only shared the files only to certain individuals selectively, without even announcing to the public. And apparently, you didn't even consider inviting any of the devoted people around here. And what is the result? DO YOU SEE THE RESULT? Very simple bugs within the new patch that could have been quickly discovered in the first moments EASILY if more people were allowed to test as well. Let's take as an example the Demo Storm squad which is still retreating in crawl mode... So, what did you even achieve with your closed beta test??!!

You see now? So, my statement was more about why not the whole community is allowed to test anymore... AND NOT ABOUT whether IF I am personally allowed access to the closed beta group or whatnot! That's a mistake, MarKr.

If this is your point, your only point, then what is all the latency stuff about? What everyone else does(would do):
PaKs now take longer to fire first shot -> make post and ask for lowering the delay

What you do:
PaKs now take longer to fire the first shot -> make post and talk about latency could affect the delay along with all other things that are connected to time in the game such as CDs, delays, reload times etc. -> spend 3 more posts defending latency issue -> make post where you get to solution: don't increase aim time over 3 seconds for PaKs because latency could make it longer than that but you don't give a crap about the fact that latency would increase everything else along with it; that is not important -> then make post where you claim that it is all about reducing aim time

I'm just...I give up...I let reasoning with you to other people...

When I first mentioned about latency stuff, I referred to our previous discussions together in the past regarding such matters as I obviously just wanted to remind you about few things that you apparently don't recall after all.. unfortunately though.

[MarKr]

This actually confirms what I said
And this time for real:

I let reasoning with you to other people...

[Krieger Blitzer]

Adding "this time for real" while quoting your first one, doesn't make it more believable this time; as you already broke your first one right by coming for another post only to say that it's for real this time... But anyway! I just hope you don't mess up the Steam release.
It would be truly a shame having bugs that were already reported and which - I am afraid - are still present in the first version ever of Bk Mod on Steam although they could have been easily discovered and fixed before the release.. only the awful way how you are handling the beta testing process is what would be blamed then.
And I know that my statement here might seem so critical rather than just a simple criticism, but what to do...

[Warhawks97]

Well, no i hadnt so much time to play at all. Always on the go and doing stuff. I just managed to watch a few streams. My personally opinions on aim times: I do think they are good for several reasons. For my private mod with friends i did the same. Sure not 4 seconds but well. Aiming is important and makes things just more realistic. I like the hendheld AT aim times as well. And yes, i would like to have aim time back for tanks as we were used to. When i am going to engage an enemie tank with my own the first shot always fails bc it fires when still on the move. I fucking hate it. What do i get when my tank shots before standing and thus failing the first shot. I prefer 1-2 sec of time to make my tank standing and thus hitting the target as waiting 5-7 seconds to reload.

So no matter if tanks, hendheld AT and AT guns, an aim time of approx 1,5-2 seconds at least arent bad. Idk if 4 seconds are really so horrible (i gave my AT guns 2-3 sec aiming time depending on AT gun type) but keep in mind that you can aim earlier due to high range, have two powerfull ambushed shots (and as german also a very fast reload). If you have put the AT gun in a wrong direction.... well, bad then, but this is what flanking is about. Flanking does surprise the defenders and when the gun are placed in the wrong direction its just bad. And the heavier the gun the harder it was to react on flanking attempts. In BK it was quite easy to smash flanking assaults, turn the gun in no second and shoot.

Also why does nobody complain about HMG´s? when those get flanked they are dead. Turning them breaks invisibility and and disamantle and set up takes much longer as to turn a damn 1-4 ton heavy AT gun. What would we say when AT guns would also lose the ambush when turning arround+ long time to turn arround and setting up the gun.
I actually cant await to see the new system and to experience it (just i am really limited with my time currently). But i admit that this could be connected to my playstyle. I prefer mobility, speed and thus vehicles, tanks and inf rather than static defenses. I build at best 2 AT guns in average per game, usually mediums only.
So i am expecting a lot more dynamic, mobile gameplay from such changes with defenses that have to be placed smarter and less based purely on static stuff which will suffer in a realistic way: Static defenses are hard to adjust on flanking attacks.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Aim time for AT guns generally is a good idea, and I support it... But based on what I can see currently on the game; I could then deduce that anything higher than 2 seconds, is extremely terrifying. So, I actually like the change of adding aim time to AT guns!
Just that it shouldn't be any higher than 2 seconds for very obvious reasons. That's my whole point here, but unfortunately.. the discussion I had with MarKr didn't go too well. Even though I think I clarified my viewpoint clearly enough!
I really don't understand why he disregards what I say...

As for tanks, there is a problem.. any higher value than 0.5 aim time would eventually lead to a sticky non-working direct fire ability.
The player would have to spam the left click on his mouse just so it would hopefully activate.

[Warhawks97]

Oh, so the 0.5 aim time for tanks is bc of the manual shooting? Hmm. I barely used that so from my point i would like to have the old times back where i was able to make my tank stopping before shooting.