Hotkey Suggestions

[Walderschmidt]

Here are some hotkey suggestions for abilities that either don't have hotkeys, have the same hotkey, or have odd hotkeys (B for a smoke barrage instead of S for example).

MG Camoflage Hotkey is "C". I recommend changing it to "G" since hold position normally goes there.

It also has a "P" Hotkey for AP burst. I recommend "N" since grenades are normally there.

PaK 36 has no hotkey for its HE ability. I recommend "N" since it's in the grenade slot.

LeIG has no barrage hotkey. I recommend "N" since it's in the grenade slot.

CMD Stormtroopers have no hotkey for mortar barrage. I recommend "N" since it's in the grenade slot.

StuG III & CMD PIV both have "B" for smoke barrage. I recommend "S" since they're in the sprint position and S is more common for smoke across the camo.

Sniper Rapid Shots has no hotkey. I suggest "N" since it's in the grenade slot.

AT-Squad has no hotkey for ambush. I suggest "N" since it's in the grenade slot.

Wald

[Diablo]

Generally asking, are players more in favor of having hotkeys
A) resemble the ability names (as in S for smoke)
or
B) prefer different keys each corresponding to an action tile in the GUI (for example QWER for the middle row and ASDF for the lower one)?

[Walderschmidt]

I'd prefer a consistent scheme where each square is given a corresponding key, whether it resembles an ability or not.

That way I could see a UI and know instantly what hotkey goes to what ability.

Wald

[TheUndying]

Can we revive this topic again, please?

The duplicate hotkeys and inconsistent mapping of hotkeys is slowly but surely driving me insane. I want my bois to sprint, not to throw smoke.

I would highly recommend option B - while it would take some time to re-learn some of the new hotkeys, at least you will know what button to press to sprint, pop smoke, retreat, fire HE etcetc.

[MarKr]

Some problems come to my mind. I'm not 100% sure but I think that the abilities in the first line of UI are hard-coded and "A" is already "Attack move", so that would mess up the the option "b".
Also, not every languange has the same keyboard layout. For example czech keyboards have swapped letters "Y" and "Z", so the top line goes "QWERTZ" and the bottom line goes "YXCV". So if we set up a "consistent scheme", it will not be consistent on the czech keyboard (unless you switch the language setting every time before you play a match.

I guess a solution could be making the consistent scheme going from the other side, so the UI's top line would be UIOP, mid line HJKL and bottom line VBNM. Although, it's possible that this scheme would be conflicting with keayboard layouts of some other languages.

[Diablo]

Yeah, vowels will probably clash in german keyboards, there are the letters ü, ö and ä added on the far right.

Maybe in the middle? :')

[MarKr]

Yes, but those vovels are "added" to the right side of the "basic" keyboard layout.

So why not just use what I said:

Whatever has any language added to the side of the "basic" layout, won't be affected.

[Consti255]

looks good @Markr

[TheUndying]

Some problems come to my mind. I'm not 100% sure but I think that the abilities in the first line of UI are hard-coded and "A" is already "Attack move", so that would mess up the the option "b".
Also, not every languange has the same keyboard layout. For example czech keyboards have swapped letters "Y" and "Z", so the top line goes "QWERTZ" and the bottom line goes "YXCV". So if we set up a "consistent scheme", it will not be consistent on the czech keyboard (unless you switch the language setting every time before you play a match.

I guess a solution could be making the consistent scheme going from the other side, so the UI's top line would be UIOP, mid line HJKL and bottom line VBNM. Although, it's possible that this scheme would be conflicting with keayboard layouts of some other languages.

Do I understand your first paragraph correctly, as in that A is hard-coded to be Attack move? That would definitely complicate things. We'd have to assign hotkeys from scratch, then, to reach consistency.

Regarding the keyboard layout, that is indeed an issue (same with German keyboard where we also use QWERTZ) but I would prefer having to rethink Y and Z from time to time compared to having to remember every button or having overlapping hotkeys (S for sprint and smoke).

Not sure I like the UIOP idea as hotkeys should be easily reachable and imo those keys are not easy to reach (given how my hand usually rests atop WASD keys). Feel free to laugh at my tiny hands tho.

[MarKr]

I found out that "attack move" and other abilities in the top row are not hard coded so we could re-assign the hotkeys and use the left scheme:
Top: QWER T
Mid: ASDF G
Bot: ZXCV B
Where the T/G/B could be slots for unit upgrades (weapons on infantry and ammo on tanks).

There is still the problem that some language keyboard layouts have letters swapped but Windows allows you to install English keyboard layout scheme for free and you can easily switch between the layouts by pressing Alt+Shift, so that would be all it takes to get the hotkeys working.

I will start working on it, but it will take some time as this applies not only to abilities but also to units in production buildings, build menus and whatnot and we have crapload of of them in the game.

[Redgaarden]

Man super happy about it. Can't wait for all the complaints that will follow.

Edit: Hopefully it wont be that many

[Viper]

I found out that "attack move" and other abilities in the top row are not hard coded so we could re-assign the hotkeys and use the left scheme:
Top: QWER T
Mid: ASDF G
Bot: ZXCV B
Where the T/G/B could be slots for unit upgrades (weapons on infantry and ammo on tanks).

There is still the problem that some language keyboard layouts have letters swapped but Windows allows you to install English keyboard layout scheme for free and you can easily switch between the layouts by pressing Alt+Shift, so that would be all it takes to get the hotkeys working.

I will start working on it, but it will take some time as this applies not only to abilities but also to units in production buildings, build menus and whatnot and we have crapload of of them in the game.

would be more worth to spend this time on fixing se doctrine tech tree

[Redgaarden]

Is it too strong or too weak?

And there was the first complaint xD

[tarakancheg]

Can we have RE "hull down" moved from D key to not overlap with direct fire then?

[MarKr]

would be more worth to spend this time on fixing se doctrine tech tree

You're still hanging on that "first time I played, I didn't know I needed two unlocks to get Firestorm"?

[Krieger Blitzer]

would be more worth to spend this time on fixing se doctrine tech tree

You're still hanging on that "first time I played, I didn't know I needed two unlocks to get Firestorm"?

Oh, speaking of that SE doc thingy again; i think it's more than just that.
The current SE doc layout does not align with the overall quality outlined for the game.

You might think it's not a big deal, but if we keep messing out with doctrinal arrows like that.. we will eventually end up with doctrinal items all over the place with wrong arrow directions here and there, for example it's like having the Super Pershing unlock linked to the Calliope unlock but without any indication that it does... just that the player "would need to play it for the first time so he can figure it out" which isn't ideal. If the Super Pershing indicates that it's linked to the normal Pershing unlock, then it must.

The same way, the SE doc is currently the only doctrine in the BETA that has messed up arrow directions. There is no reason or obligation that it has to be done this way, so i''m bewildered as to why not to amend it!

P.S
Speaking of hotkeys, the most important ones are "D" for direct fire, "H" for halt, "T" for retreat & "R" for reinforce... i think those shouldn't change.

[MarKr]

So, because you didn't get the system the first time you played the game, it MUST lead to scenarios where doctrinal unlocks are connected even when they don't require each other? Yeah, right. When that happens, link me this post and the only thing you need to write to it is "I told you so." But until then, don't come up with these catastrophic scenarios when nothing even remotely that problematic is happening.

If the Super Pershing indicates that it's linked to the normal Pershing unlock, then it must.

That is what the SE unlock tree shows - the Firestorm indicates it is linked to fire weapons and observation HT, and it is.

The same way, the SE doc is currently the only doctrine in the BETA that has messed up arrow directions.

Nope. In every doc, the arrow direction shows what you need to unlock first in order to unlock the thing the arrow leads to. In SE the observation HT leads to Firestorm, and Fire weapons lead to Firestorm. And you need observation HT and Fire weapons to get Firestorm. Just because you need both of them instead of just one doesn't mean the unlock path indicates wrong direction or whatever.

P.S
Speaking of hotkeys, the most important ones are "D" for direct fire, "H" for halt, "T" for retreat & "R" for reinforce... i think those shouldn't change.

OK, so 3 keys we need, shouldn't change...idea scrapped then...

[Krieger Blitzer]

Nope. In every doc, the arrow direction shows what you need to unlock first in order to unlock the thing the arrow leads to. In SE the observation HT leads to Firestorm, and Fire weapons lead to Firestorm. And you need observation HT and Fire weapons to get Firestorm. Just because you need both of them instead of just one doesn't mean the unlock path indicates wrong direction or whatever.

I never said it's catastrophic.. it's not ideal is what i said, as it doesn't align with the overall quality.
From ur perspective; if it's working then u don't bother.. which is understandable.
However; from my perspective, i find it hard to see why it has to be done that way although it can be amended.

Firestorm is linked to both Observation HT & incendiary unlock, but those last 2 i just mentioned aren't linked to each other in any way, which is the problem... There is nothing displayed that explains why the player can't go straight from either of them directly to Firestorm (for 3 CP) apart from "they will just need to figure it out" and that isn't ideal at all.. i mean like, is there any kind of obligation it has to be done like that? You can always re-arrange the items until everything is indicated properly & generally makes more sense.. or u can even just allow Firestom at 3 CP which could be a much easier solution in case u think it's a hassle to re-organise the doctrinal items again.

OK, so 3 keys we need, shouldn't change...idea scrapped then...

Never said u need to scrap the idea, i am just trying to save you time.. as i am aware it's going to take you too much effort to re-assign the hotkeys, so i had to mention those 4 as people commonly are used to them how they are currently... So, i was just trying to highlight that, not telling u what u need to do, but trying to just help.

[MarKr]

I never said it's catastrophic..

I guess I just understood this as a catastrophic prediction:

if we keep messing out with doctrinal arrows like that.. we will eventually end up with doctrinal items all over the place with wrong arrow directions here and there, for example it's like having the Super Pershing unlock linked to the Calliope unlock but without any indication that it does

Well, sorry, my bad.

but those last 2 i just mentioned aren't linked to each other in any way, which is the problem...

And I would say it isn't problem at all. You unlock e.g. the observation HT and the Firestorm doesn't light up as available even if you have the 1 CP for it. What could it mean when there is the other arrow pointing at it? If it is such a deal breaker, we can put it into the Firestorm unlock description.

is there any kind of obligation it has to be done like that?

No, there isn't. And there also isn't any obligation not to do it this way.
It is now 5CPs, because fewer felt it would come too early and more felt unjustified. The ability is underperforming now, so it isn't worth the 5 CP but the performance will be adjusted. If we put it down the arty line, then we're delaying Hotckiss and/or Hummel, which is not desirable. If we put it behind Hummel (and keep the ammo HT unlock) the Firestorm will be available too late and for too many CPs. If we remove the ammo HT, Firestorm will still be available too late and we'll need another unlock to replace the ammo HT (and no, we're not giving SE any "Ass.Pio training"). If we keep Firestorm where it is and "unlink" it from the the arty line, it will be just 3 CPs, which is too low. If we set it to 5 CPs, we'll need to take those 2CPs from somewhere but the current CP costs feel alright so that things don't come too soon or too late. This way it is 5 CPs in total and it doesn't require players to go too deep some unlock line just to get hands on an offmap ability.

Never said u need to scrap the idea, i am just trying to save you time.. as i am aware it's going to take you too much effort to re-assign the hotkeys, so i had to mention those 4 as people commonly are used to them how they are currently... So, i was just trying to highlight that, not telling u what u need to do, but trying to just help.

I get it but 3 of those 4 are on the "left side QWERT" layout so if people start asking for reworks with "but keep ability X hotkey where it is" then the whole layout system is pointless.

[Krieger Blitzer]

No, there isn't. And there also isn't any obligation not to do it this way.
It is now 5CPs, because fewer felt it would come too early and more felt unjustified. The ability is underperforming now, so it isn't worth the 5 CP but the performance will be adjusted. If we put it down the arty line, then we're delaying Hotckiss and/or Hummel, which is not desirable. If we put it behind Hummel (and keep the ammo HT unlock) the Firestorm will be available too late and for too many CPs. If we remove the ammo HT, Firestorm will still be available too late and we'll need another unlock to replace the ammo HT (and no, we're not giving SE any "Ass.Pio training"). If we keep Firestorm where it is and "unlink" it from the the arty line, it will be just 3 CPs, which is too low. If we set it to 5 CPs, we'll need to take those 2CPs from somewhere but the current CP costs feel alright so that things don't come too soon or too late. This way it is 5 CPs in total and it doesn't require players to go too deep some unlock line just to get hands on an offmap ability.

Now that's some logical reasoning.. thx for sharing.
However, i don't really think FireStorm at 3 CP would be too low.. even after the upcoming buff.
People only complained it was too early because SE doc had 2 off-maps early available.. but now Sector Arty got removed, & Firestorm still costs 200 ammo with red flares... i mean, inf doc has cheaper 105mm off-map for only 2 CP with no red flares; not complaining about it tho, it's fine.. but therefore i don't think FireStorm at 3 CP would be anything bad... Depends on how much u r going to buff it though, but generally speaking; i think it's fine at 3 CP as long as the red flares are there, regardless of performance.

I get it but 3 of those 4 are on the "left side QWERT" layout so if people start asking for reworks with "but keep ability X hotkey where it is" then the whole layout system is pointless.

I think majority hotkeys currently make sense where they are, up to you tho.. but u don't really need to re-work all hotkeys. First, because i personally would never request such a thing since it's a huge workload.. second; most keys are fine now, just few contradictions that could be re-addressed.

[Redgaarden]

I get it but 3 of those 4 are on the "left side QWERT" layout so if people start asking for reworks with "but keep ability X hotkey where it is" then the whole layout system is pointless.

agreed. either rework all the hotkeys or none.

[MarKr]

However, Tiger mentioned the Reinforce button which I forgot about.

Would this work?
Green = ability panel
Orange = unit upgrades
Brown = Reinforce

[Krieger Blitzer]

Would this work?

To be fair; while the idea of the re-work sounds cool.. yet, i think it's not worth the effort.
Most players are wired to the current hotkey layout, so i would encourage to keep the current setup but only re-assign any contradictions that get to be reported on individual basis.


P.S
As for FireStorm, i highly suggest to unlink it from the arty line and keep it at 3 CP, if players start complaining that it's OP; it can go back to 5 CP then.
Although i doubt anyone would complain since it has red flares alarm.

[Walderschmidt]

However, Tiger mentioned the Reinforce button which I forgot about.
qwerty-windows-1024x338.jpg
Would this work?
Green = ability panel
Orange = unit upgrades
Brown = Reinforce

This would work - put it in beta?

I like it a lot.

As for firestorm, please keep discussion of that in the firestorm thread.

Wald

[tarakancheg]

However, Tiger mentioned the Reinforce button which I forgot about.
qwerty-windows-1024x338.jpg
Would this work?
Green = ability panel
Orange = unit upgrades
Brown = Reinforce

i dont see a retreat button here. Also do we really need to overhaul entire hotkey setup if we only need to fix some overlaps?