Is there a way to reverse the latest update?

[Hetzer 1992]

I don't mean to offend anyone, or be ungrateful of all the time the devs have put into this update. But the mod is currently broken and some players are not happy with it at all. I'm not going to list the issues here to waste anyone's time.

Why not giving the players a choice? There are many players like me who'd rather play the previous version.

[Walderschmidt]

What’s broken?

Wald

[Hetzer 1992]

The list can go on. The previous version with all its flaws was more sensible and balanced.

I'm not claiming to have played all the doctrines, but those I tried showed significant issues that are beyond repair (mostly allies). Air is basically a broken doctrine. No chance against armor and good axis infantry. At times, 101sts and 82nds lose to pios equipped with MPs. Armor, is a tragedy. Those E8s and W76s are cannon fodders against Panthers no matter if equipped fully or not. Inf is quite the same, but those Jacksons are useless.

I can go on a lot further, but since most of it has been mentioned in its own topic I'll save my breath. I was hoping there was a way players like me who are not in favor of the new update, get the previous one. Either through steam or from mirror links.

[Mantis]

...but 101. still better than fallschs in long range versus combat... AB and luft in air is ok, but on the ground not.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I would agree, personally I don't like most of the fundamental changes.

1) Ammo upkeep
2) No damage\pen boost from the ambushes
3) Absurdly slow AT guns
4) No overrepair
5) No scopes for tanks
6) Def fortifications that need to be garissoned
7) General domination of vehicles, inf style gameplay is gone as even smallest HE easily wipes 4 out of 6 squad members
8) Many unique things got standartized or removed, ex: AB HQ squad, rocket run instead of patrol, inf doc is very similar to other elite inf docs.

[OrderLordTank]

I'd be very interested in such a solution as well.I can live with old op patrol planes if all other new inbalances just went away.

[Mood]

I can only agree on one thing, the def doc bunkers (like Sukin Kot wrote). They weren't lowered in price enough to justify having to purchase an extra squad to garrison them (increasing the total price tremendously, but not the effectiveness).
And snipers farm the ones inside like there's no tomorrow, making it a "fish in a barrel" situation. The upgrade-system was a lot better than this, but I do admit that having infinite free MG42 upgrades was OP (at the old price at least).

[Krieger Blitzer]

There are few things i hate about the new Bk Mod balance for sure, but i wouldn't say it's as much bad.. while 5.1.7 was definitely a balance gem (at least in my opinion) i still believe that 5.2.0 has created an interesting new approach to the game-play. Nevertheless, it's far from being balance at the moment.. and i can't say whether if it's currently for Allies favor or Axis favor; as it's hard to tell.. doubtlessly though, it could have been done better.

For instance, the US Armor doc - which is actually not as underwhelming as some players claim it to be - still could have been structured much differently.. in fact; a lot of ideas were previously introduced (also with snap-shots provided) of how the new Armor doc could potentially look like, unfortunately though; the devs embraced a much linear route of their own.

in my perspective, the "slower game pace" wasn't exactly the best way to alter this game's experience, and this didn't make useless units more useful as intended to be, but only resulted in making particular units much more spam-able than before, becoming the new meta. One great example of this, is the Stug tanks.. not because they are more powerful or whatever, but mainly because the new linear approach leaves not much many more choices for the Axis player either. While it might be worth to mention that i'm against any future nerf to the Stugs, as i believe they are not the problem themselves; but the lack of proper counterparts at the stage of the game when Stugs become available in hordes.

And i think Stugs already can't shoot HE rounds from ambush mode at the moment, as i see no justifiable reason if any players ask to remove the Stug HE rounds altogether or weaken its armor, etc.

just few things need to be adjusted on both sides, probably Pershing tanks shouldn't require 9 CPs, but 7 CPs. in 5.1.7 Pershings required 5 CPs, not sure why it traveled all the way to 9 points at once! US Airborne need one variant of Jacksons that is no later available than 5 CPs, OR unlimited number of Hellcats. And i don't see any use for the 76 Jumbo in inf doc, Armor doc should have it back.

if Armor doc gets Pershing at 7 CPs & 76 jumbo once again, there would be no need for Jacksons to exit in Armor doc anymore.. so they could be freely moved across other US docs (AB & inf) on the other hand...

For the Axis, i would actually buff the infantry a little bit... i do believe Axis infantry are at a drawback right now. And the SE doc should have 1 Wespe at least, no one EVER asked to actually REMOVE the Wespe entirely from SE doc btw.

Apart from that, i have to say lowering the turret rotation speed of armored cars and adding tear-down to AT guns, is something that makes me feel the game is pretty handicapped sometimes.. or rather even broken! it's just far too bad.

No complain over the ammo upkeeps idea though, i think it's great.. unless something needs to be tweaked.

[kwok]

To answer the question, no, we will not provide a way to revert the version. Everything else mentioned can be better discussed as separate topics.

[Hetzer 1992]

That's a solid plan Kwok. Really solid!

The thing is, the current BK state is beyond discussion. Allied doctrines (US mostly) have been completely specialized, yet axis has strength in every field. Be it early game infantry or late game armor and arty. Play as Def, get grens and upgrade them with kars, BK? Pios can deal with anything. Upgrade Propaganda cannon fodders with mp40s and panzerfausts and kill any tanks coming to you.

Many argue Luft has been nerfed for instance, yet Hensc still manages to kill several tanks. Can't say the same about US Airborn rockets. Have played more than 100 games as air lately and have seen rockets not being able to kill a single heavy tank, just damaging it however severely.

This is broken, and it's not really logical to come up with a NO to ignore half the community.

[kwok]

The plan is to continue to balance and adjust with the current structure. Over many years balance has gone back and forth, this is nothing new. Of course when a new patch is released, especially something as different as this one, it takes time for players to get use to the newest patch, find the new meta, find the new balance. Additionally, this particular patch has been in the works for a full year just to reach this point with dedicated testers who have been on the journey WAY MORE than you have and experienced WAY WORSE imbalances. They understand that it takes time to reach balance and make changes. I ask that you try to understand the same... you've only played this patch for less than a month. I personally and many others have been on it for a year.

"Many argue Luft has been nerfed for instance". You admit yourself that there is a half that believes one thing while you (and your half) believe another. The best thing to do in this situation is to discuss. If you don't want to discuss but instead complain with absolutes (ironically what you're accusing the devs of) then it is your choice to not contribute to improving the patch. Blanket statements of "this or nothing" will get no where.

That being said, you should see a new patch coming out soon with some balance changes. I think it will go into beta first for a round of testing, then released before the start of the tournament. Then during the tournament we will collect replays and discover "which half of the community" is "correct" about balance.

If you don't trust the process you should have been available and present when the process was being molded over the past year. There was plenty of opportunity. At this point, just look forward, be constructive, and be progressive. Maybe learn a new doctrine in the mean time while you discuss the specific issues AND SOLUTIONS to this. Retrogressing to a patch that is almost 2 years old is not the solution.

[Hetzer 1992]

I was being optimistic by saying half the community! The majority of my friends who've been playing this mod for 2 years at least can't stand the changes, especially playing as allies.

I know many of those "dedicated testers", some are my friends and I respect them. But why should everyone play a patch that is unbalanced to such degree? If I were alone, I wouldn't bother making a thread like this, but people aren't happy.

Just saying

[kwok]

Okay, then tell your friends to post on the forum and make suggestions. And suggestions is not "this is imbalance". Suggestions is actually things that should be changed. What should be new, removed, edited, etc.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Actually, if anything the devs REALLY need to be credited for on this patch.. is the awesome work they had done on airstrikes for both sides.
i think airstrikes are very balanced and work absolutely great right now...

Henschels are 2 planes and they can kill stuff, so they are still useful but not OP 5 planes anymore. RAF is untouched, while Airborne rocket strike is just the same.

And the AB strafe run now has AP rounds by default! Which is great.. only the bombing airstrike was nerfed against tanks, but that's fine because you have the rocket airstrike.

if AB lacks against heavy armor, it's not because the airstrikes are bad.. but because it needs access to more ground counters.

[MarKr]

The majority of my friends who've been playing this mod for 2 years at least can't stand the changes, especially playing as allies.

I remember back at university when we had some "introduction to psychology" class that our teacher told us that "people surround themselves with like-minded people" (not a direct quote but that was the main idea). This is logical because you will not want to spend a lot of time with people who have completely different idea about "what is fun" or completely different world views - simply because you would be bored with the first type and keep arguing with the second type. The teacher then continued that this leads to situations where, for example, after elections you can hear people saying "how could the political party X win the elections when I know nobody who would vote for them?"

I think this applies in games too. I have heard this "my opinion is that axis are OP and everyone I know agrees with me" argument countless times and at the same time there was another person saying "my opinion is that allies are OP and everyone I know agrees with me". My point is that even if the majority of your firends agrees with you, it doesn't mean that the majority of the community agrees with you too. It is easy to fall under that impression but it doesn't have to be true.

In this case there is also the thing that the new update changed quite a lot the playstyle of most of the doctrines and we know from the past few years that many players struggle a lot when they have to adapt to a new playstyle. Many people often play the same way as before a change and keep complaining about their former strategy not working anymore. I'm not saying this is your case, but it is a thing we've observer for a long time. Therefore, we will not revert changes or enable the old version of the game just a month after the release when we know that many of the complaints come from the fact that people haven't found the new meta yet.

[Hetzer 1992]

The majority of my friends who've been playing this mod for 2 years at least can't stand the changes, especially playing as allies.

I remember back at university when we had some "introduction to psychology" class that our teacher told us that "people surround themselves with like-minded people" (not a direct quote but that was the main idea). This is logical because you will not want to spend a lot of time with people who have completely different idea about "what is fun" or completely different world views - simply because you would be bored with the first type and keep arguing with the second type. The teacher then continued that this leads to situations where, for example, after elections you can hear people saying "how could the political party X win the elections when I know nobody who would vote for them?"

I think this applies in games too. I have heard this "my opinion is that axis are OP and everyone I know agrees with me" argument countless times and at the same time there was another person saying "my opinion is that allies are OP and everyone I know agrees with me". My point is that even if the majority of your firends agrees with you, it doesn't mean that the majority of the community agrees with you too. It is easy to fall under that impression but it doesn't have to be true.

In this case there is also the thing that the new update changed quite a lot the playstyle of most of the doctrines and we know from the past few years that many players struggle a lot when they have to adapt to a new playstyle. Many people often play the same way as before a change and keep complaining about their former strategy not working anymore. I'm not saying this is your case, but it is a thing we've observer for a long time. Therefore, we will not revert changes or enable the old version of the game just a month after the release when we know that many of the complaints come from the fact that people haven't found the new meta yet.

I can't stand the changes, because they're illogical and biased to start with. One has to ask those who enjoy the changes how often they play as allies in first place. You meant to specialize every doctrine and direct them toward skill-based play-styles, yet axis doctrines are not lacking in any aspect, they have good infantry early game, good armor mid and late game and superior arty in terms of range.

I'd be glad if you could come up with a playstyle that suits air, how to counter Volks with mg34. Should I go for tanks? Then why am I playing air, armor does it better. Should I get AT and spam them? Inf has better ones! How could you justify Stug and Panzer 3's killing Pershings? Panthers bouncing Pershing and 75mm shots several times in a row? Pershings getting killed by 3 Vurs squads! Maybe you need to actually play the game every once in a while to have a better comprehension what Broken means.

By the way, I'm neither allies nor axis fan and it appears I play all of them.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I can't stand the changes, because they're illogical and biased to start with. One has to ask those who enjoy the changes how often they play as allies in first place. You meant to specialize every doctrine and direct them toward skill-based play-styles, yet axis doctrines are not lacking in any aspect, they have good infantry early game, good armor mid and late game and superior arty in terms of range.

I'd be glad if you could come up with a playstyle that suits air, how to counter Volks with mg34. Should I go for tanks? Then why am I playing air, armor does it better. Should I get AT and spam them? Inf has better ones! How could you justify Stug and Panzer 3's killing Pershings? Panthers bouncing Pershing and 75mm shots several times in a row? Pershings getting killed by 3 Vurs squads! Maybe you need to actually play the game every once in a while to have a better comprehension what Broken means.

By the way, I'm neither allies nor axis fan and it appears I play all of them.

i genuinely disagree.. there is some imbalance, however; it's actually going both ways. And not only to Axis favor! At some aspects Allied feel much stronger, while at other aspects... Axis do.

So I don't know where you are coming from claiming that Axis are currently superior all the way! Not to mention that most of the stuff you mentioned (ex. Pershing vs Panther/Stug) were never touched in terms of performance and have been just fine since ages.

[MarKr]

I can't stand the changes, because they're illogical and biased to start with. One has to ask those who enjoy the changes how often they play as allies in first place. You meant to specialize every doctrine and direct them toward skill-based play-styles, yet axis doctrines are not lacking in any aspect, they have good infantry early game, good armor mid and late game and superior arty in terms of range.

Well, there seem to be people who disagree with your point of view, some even expressed opposite point of view in this very topic.

In my previous post I was just pointing out that "all my friends agree" doesn't mean that everyone in the community has the same point of view.

I'd be glad if you could come up with a playstyle that suits air, how to counter Volks with mg34. Should I go for tanks? Then why am I playing air, armor does it better. Should I get AT and spam them? Inf has better ones!

We said before that more tweaks are coming - we even said that changes are comming specifically for AB doctrine. We know that the doctrines are not 100% balanced. It was impossible to make a rework of this scale and come up with a flawless product. If we waited with the release till a "good balance" was achieved, we would be running the beta for a few more years.

We base the changes on reports here on the forum. If people seem to agree here that something is a problem, we try to address it (unless we're downright sure the "issue" is not true). People reported on several occasions that AB doc struggles, so we're addressing it. But we're not gonna release the old version back just because AB doctrine isn't perfectly balanced right now.

How could you justify Stug and Panzer 3's killing Pershings? Panthers bouncing Pershing and 75mm shots several times in a row? Pershings getting killed by 3 Vurs squads!

StuGs can kill Pershings just as 76mm Shermans can kill Tigers and Panthers. The chances aren't too high, though. Panther bouncing shots from Pershing 3 times in a row...Bad RNG rolls?
The chance for Pershing to penetrate a Panther at max range is about 60% (104% with AP active), chance for Panther to penetrate a Pershing at max range is also about 60% (77.6% with AP ammo). So if neither side decides to activate AP, they have about the same chance. If they decide to use AP, the advantage is heavily on the side of the Pershings. In any case - the chance for Panther to bounce 3 shots from Pershing in a row should be roughly 6%. If this happens on a daily bases, send us some replays with this and will try to find the reason for the unintended behavior.

Maybe you need to actually play the game every once in a while to have a better comprehension what Broken means.

I pressume the "you" was aimed at me, not dev team in general. I mod the game. For the cases when people bring out the "you don't play, you don't understand", we have kwok. Contanct him and play against him a few matches. I am reasonably sure that he can play the AB doctrine against you and win or at least put up a good fight.