Developing a Mod

[kwok]

@kwok

The proposer might hold the burden of truth, but a concept of developing the mod by making the players proposers and devs the judges is just wrong.
If you are truly developing this mod and not just doing a minimum maintenance (which doens't seem to be the case as you've done a complete doc rework) you need to stand behind every value set in the mod. If you don't know or can't explain why there are discrepancies between accuracy values of certain units, you need to put the revision of these values into the roadmap and not challenge the players to prove something.

I agree to an extent. For a mod just starting out that needs a vision, direction, and is being built the dev definitely needs a strong hand in guiding the mod. It should be the dev who owns the vision in order to maintain consistency, continuity, and cohesion.
But, as the mod (or any system) is matured and starts to be a part of the life of its players (users), then the mentally switches to maintaining status quo rather than try to revolutionize anything because impact to players becomes a major factor in development. BK has been in this mode for a long time, only recently taking a more "hybrid" approach. The devs will decide when to apply which mentality to where it best fits. Examples:

Learnings from the 2019-2020 beta where doctrine reworks were being built for the first time: it was important for devs to maintain their end-state vision instead of focusing on maintenance of what was built. There were mistakes on the way no doubt, but the devs definitely needed to force people along with envisioned changes in order to be successful otherwise we'd still be in beta testing today and 5.1.7 would still be the live patch. Even to today, any changes requested/needed that relate to the rework philosophy are usually dev owned/driven. See latest examples on panzer support, propaganda, and airborne changes. The players were split in opinion, we called the shots on what needed to happen because these were big changes needed.

Updating a value that has existed before multiple generations of patches falls under maintenance. For years players just "got use" to certain values and performances. Shifting those values even just a little bit has shown to send huge ripple effects in balance. When a single players comes to challenge 1 value that has been adopted by the community for years, frankly sometimes the answer is just "because it is". The history of the mod is a weird one to being with where it wasn't even built by the current managing team. There are values in the game that are older than the team itself in Xalibur's time. When Xalibur handed the ownership to Wolf, Wolf's philosophy wasn't to develop his own mod but to keep it in the vision of Xali. Now, the philosophy is changing even more/again where the mod is dedicated to being a PvP-immersion mod which is why the doctrine reworks took place. When you have prehistoric values that players are loyal too since the Xali time, you keep those because at the very end of the line it was Xali's mod. Additionally, if we needed to provide an exact answer to every single value in corsix we would get no where. If you want devs to spend the time building a case for why something has a marginal difference, then the dev team would need to be comprised of more lawyers and historians than solutioners. We challenge players in their complaints (not even solutions) because we owe it to the PvP community to maintain stability and status quo in their games. Think about how often do the rules change for chess. It's super rare and player driven because at this point the game is a part of the lives of the players not the creators. I'm not saying BK is a 1500 year old game, but there are extreme versions of concepts on direction driving I'm trying to explain.

[OrderLordTank]

I respect the status quo of established balanced between the veteran BK mod community when it comes to minor changes.However when the latest 5.2 version changes doctrines so much you do realize that more drastic balance tweaks are needed.

I 'll be frank when you add a second wehrmacht faction (propaganda) with access to fuel exchange mechanism while you remove it from the single US doctrine (airborne) that had something simular,then the effects will be huge and small balance tweaks won't cover them.Same thing goes when you remove armor's access to fuel less 76mm jumbo and place the calliope in entire separate 6 CP path.These are huge doctrine nerfs that had nothing to do with unit balance.Armor doctrine in particular was already the weakest for 1v1 and now it's even worse...

Again all i am saying is you cant quote the status quo against bigger balance changes when you already make such drastic doctrine changes.

[kwok]

You're right. Like I said, there's going to be areas that require a lot more focus and catered response. As I listed as examples, the recent changes to AB and CP movement for armor doc, propaganda doc volkssturm tweaks, etc. Those changes are far from minor changes I think.

The status quo changes are going to fall more under really nuanced unit performance changes where this conversation started to begin with. The 10% accuracy change isn't going to magically fix balance issues that might be more structural rather than performance. The only thing mentioned in THAT thread was literally "the accuracy of the american tanks are different than axis tanks" with no proposal for changes, just a flat complaint that a difference exists. And when we asked "okay what is the solution?" the response was "prove why does the jackson need less accuracy than the panther". In that situation, the reason was just status quo, that's it. We know full well tweaks need to be made to balance the mod, otherwise we wouldn't be releasing patches anymore...

The point of this is saying that there's a time and place to use status quo and this was one of them. I'm not saying it SHOULD be status quo either... I'm saying that it's a dimension that shouldn't be ignored or treated like it's an ineligible path to take. Change for the sake of change is the opposite of status quo and a more dangerous path given the maturity of the mod. For ALL changes, there needs to be a reason and direction for change. There was a reason for change for the major doctrine reworks. There was a reason for change on every performance tweak. If you notice on every change in the changelogs now there is a written documented reason for everyone to read.

This is how I perceived the conversation on that thread to go (link for others to check themselves viewtopic.php?p=36457#p36457)
Player: Value X does not match value Y!
Dev: So what should value X or Y be?
Player: Give one good reason why they should be different.
Dev: Because that's just how it has been for a long time and people are use to it.
Player: Saying that it was like that for a long time isn't a good reason and players shouldn't try to prove something is wrong.
Not once in that thread did devs even say that the values SHOULDN'T be changed. And here we are. Thankfully 1 player actually GAVE a proposed solution and another player found old notes that set up precedent that the change might have just been left out/forgotten. So the conversation can go somewhere when it comes to actually making changes....

If a player wants to come propose a change (or even complain for a lack of change) it should be on the proposing player to prove that the change is necessary, NOT a dev to try to find a reason to accept the change nor defend every single value in corsix as if everything was by the intent of god-dev Xalibur... The player holds the same burden as a dev when they want to consider a change: provide reason. The huge doctrine reworks themselves went through the same process internally, probably more rigorously than what a player would go through on forum which is why it literally took a whole year to push 1 patch out.

[OrderLordTank]

I understand that a single unit stat change may have a big difference in game balance (although since the jackson is a rather late game expensive dedicated tank destroyer with very weak armor,i see no reason why it shouldn't match the accuracy and gun range of a panther).However doctrine change is way more drastic than you think and requires a more drastic balance tweaking approach.

I am sounding like an old cassette player in loop mode but i'll again refer to the armor doctrine layout change.As i said so many times it was already the weakest for 1v1 and now it's even worse.Pre 5.2 for 7 CP i could get a 76mm jumbo and a calliope call-in with zero fuel cost as well as a 25% fuel price reduction on other shermans.Now all i get is the ability to spend 80 fuel in order to build a 75mm jumbo.The nerf is huge to an already weak 1v1 doctrine and so are the buffs needed to compensate.Requiring 6 more CP to unlock the pershing ace instead of the old 7 CP (which also unlocked the hellcats btw) won't cut it.

The 76mm fix was needed as well as the .50 cal nerf regardless of the doctrine layout.However the .50 cal 30 fuel price is very steep and combined with the lack of fuel less tank call ins (i mean the calliope requires its own 6 CP path and the pershing ace requires 12 CP),means you are only going to buy it after the third tank or so.The fact that sherman mass production requires another seperate 2 CP doesn't help either.Fuel costs have gone way up and the 76mm fix is overshadowed by the indirect fuel nerfs.Meanwhile propaganda joined blitz in the ''fuel for ammo'' exchange club while airborne lost its own fuel supply drop which i used to spam 76mm shermans.Who cares for the 76mm fix if 76mm shermans are now harder to produce,because you need more CPs for sherman mass production,more fuel to produce the fuel less call ins,more fuel for .50 cal unlock and lost your fuel supply drop?See where this is going?

[OrderLordTank]

BTW I did propose a specific armor CP layout change but noone listened.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3874&p=34861#p34861
<<In short the pershing chain should be isolated with 4+1 or 5+1 points if you consider them better than tigers.Same goes for the artillery chain with 1 point for the 105 (including tank commander artillery) +2 for calliope.76mm sherman should be free for armor with 1 point for faster experience for all tanks +2 for 75mm jumbo.Maybe even an extra point for 76mm jumbo for a total of 4.Also faster experience for all tanks should side chain with hellcat for 1 point +2 for jackson (with a .50 cal option upgrade) for a total of 4.Finally veteran sherman crews should chain with ammo crates for 2+2 points.>>

[kwok]

Yeah i see where you're going and THOSE changes we've been more responsive to. The method of our response might be different than yours but we were aware of those changes and know things will be too steep or too little to begin with. To be frank, from a road map perspective, the last 3 patches could probably be summarized as "figuring out how the fuck AA works" because AA is such a base capability needed for all docs. So the last 3 patches have literally been tweaking that over everything else and then making sure the matching air based doctrines are compensated for those changes. Admittedly, armor doc took a back seat in balance because it was still controversial on HOW to balance armor doc vs how to balance the axis docs against armor doc in general. we could talk about what steps were taken around balancing armor doc but that's out of topic.

btw we took some of the ideas. see latest changelog in beta. patch should be coming out today....

[OrderLordTank]

Here are all the changes.With the exception of the .50 cal unlock price i don't see anything drastic.

- Lowered the CP cost of Jackson to 2CP (from 3CP)
- Lowered the CP cost of Jumbo to 2CP (from 3CP)
- Increased the CP cost of Super Pershing/Pershing Ace to 4CP (from 2CP)
- Changed the global .50cal upgrade cost 100MP 50ammo (from 100MP 30F)

A 75mm jumbo is still way too late @ 5 CP instead of 6.Who wants to use an 80 fuel good vs infantry tank when cheap late pz4s or even tigers roam?
Jackson is still an expensive late game glass cannon with paper tier armor,i'd rather use cheaper hellcats anyway.
The beta pershing CP values were already considered and match exactly my original arguments.
viewtopic.php?p=36479#p36479

<<if you see no problem with propaganda's 4 vs armor's 8 CPs for tigers vs pershings or 7 vs 12 CPs for ace call in,while propaganda also gets ammo for fuel exchange for 2 CPs instead of just cheaper shermans,as well as 2 CPs walking stuka vs 6 CPs calliope (while having access to free nebelwerfer while armor has nothing) then i rest my case.>>

My only mistake is that calliope is in a 5 CP separate path instead of 6.Still way overpriced when walking stuka costs 2 CP and nebelwerfer is free.

In any case i have no problem in the order or speed you decide to address the above armor issues,it's not like you are getting paid.However you should agree that waiting 4 months just to see the .50 cal unlock price change and the 75mm jumbo unlock lowered by a single CP is a bit underwhelming...

[kwok]

Again, this isn't the topic to discuss armor doc changes... I can bring it up there.

But when it comes to the 50cal changes, it took 4 months for 50cal changes because it took 4 months to convince a dev that the change is warranted. It was a dev (me) who drove the initial change of 50cals being behind a fuel upgrade to begin with and I personally still stand by that. But, my personal opinion is only 1 factor of many when deciding changes. You can find my topics around the 50cal from half a year ago if you want to know more about why that even happened. Here is an example of when devs want to have a stronger hand in guiding the changes. Frankly, it seems like a double standard when devs clearly want to drive a certain decision and get feedback from players that we don't take feedback. On the otherside of the coin, when a dev takes player feedback we are criticized for not taking ownership of the mod. Pick your stance.

[OrderLordTank]

First of all sorry for hijacking this thread for armor doctrine issues.
Secondly i 100% agree that .50 cal needed to be locked even behind a fuel cost,since ammo is not needed for critical tech upgrades thus it's easier to be spared.My problem is that in the armor doctrine this fuel cost is indirectly combined with that of all others previously fuel-less (jumbo) or way earlier (calliope) call ins,as well the separate extra 2 CP path for cheaper shermans.Same goes for airborne to be frank since it lost its fuel supply and the extra ammo doesn't really translate to more bombardments due to the cooldown timer.

Am fine when a dev wants to defend his decision if he has clear and stated excuses about it.I mean we all agree that the old airborne patrol was an i win button vs tanks,but old armor was already in my opinion the weakest 1v1 doctrine.I don't remember any serious concerns about it so i am having trouble understanding all the huge early and mid game nerfs which were caused by the current CP layout.

[kwok]

Let me find some old armor posts to send to you. Or I'll go on to your old thread and type a response. Thanks for understanding.

[OrderLordTank]

No need to thank me or present proofs for my sake.If you claim that the majority of the forum members believed that old old armor was op in 1v1 i will take your word for it.I wouldn't agree with them but on the other hand i can't claim being a pvp genius since most of my games are vs expert cpus on basic open maps.In any case i don't think that there is any doubt that current armor doctrine is much weaker than pre 5.2 version,and in my personal opinion the worst US pick for 1v1.If the nerf hammer was needed than i believe the strike was too heavy,especially if you consider the axis armor buffs (in either direct or indirect price reduction or CP layout) in 5.2.

BTW if you want the .50 cal upgrade to come later but not cost fuel,then why not link it to the tank depot or even the supply yard instead of the weapons support center?This way you prevent the .50 cal dominating the vehicle and light tank phase without adding further indirect fuel costs to the mediocre shermans?