Profile of Mr.Smith

The only QoL changes/bugfixes that we have included in this patch are the ones we are 100% certain that they work.

Unfortunately prioritise vehicles on infantry doesn't always work. This has to do with how said squads behave when garrisoning/ungarrisoning stuff. This behaviour seems to be hardcoded somewhere that only Relic can fix.

Thus, for WBP we went for the bulk of stuff we know how to fix. Thus, we can focus on fewer, but more difficult problems later on.

I understand you have nerfed Target weak point ability on Puma and Stug, and the equivalent on Stuart and AEC.

Can you please consider the possibilty of nerfing the Pak40's target weak point?
It is way too frustrating to play against and random, all it takes is for the gun to shoot once and it stuns for 5 seconds, where German tanks have plenty of time to rush and end the job without a scratch.

It is also easier to use than puma or stug, assuming that you may or not see the AT gun, so there is consistent way of avoiding it.

Maybe reduce the stun time?

I think that the ability would be a lot less frustrating for both players if we could change is so that the pak40 fires one and only stun-shot (with a longer grace0time even).

At the moment we do not want to change too many things that are just out of scope. This is because if we add too much, we might be forced to give up many of the changes that we have already implemented.

We have reached Peak Scope.

It is possible to add a permanently-on prioritise-vehicles thing for models that carry AT weapons. However that thing stops working the moment stuff garrisons buildings.

However, if we could give an ability to the open-top halftracks to do precisely that, this might fix things. I haven't tried. Unfortunately this requires too much testing, and I don't think we can include this just yet

I think balance team should tell us more about their plans and why they made these changes, so we won´t come into more misunderstoods.

As much as we would like to, the final choice about what makes it to the final patch or not, is not ours; it's Relic's. For instance if we had plans of fixing the Greyhound, then announcing it to everyone, and then the fix would get canned by Relic, then everybody would get super-disappointed. People are already disheartened by the current state of the live game, and we don't want to add to that.

Since the only fitting post to this topic was mine, thanks for the compliment. It seems laying out points, trying to describe a problem as accurately as possible and then have my argument turned around by someone who purposefully uses wrong terminology now makes me a troll. And I didn't attack anyone, I responded in kind - if your post wasn't an attack in the first place, then how can you consider mine one without being completely hypocritical?

Not to mention that having a different opinion from yours doesn't make me a troll, how about you cut the bullshit and tell me what your problem is with me specifically? Did I hurt your precious feelings in some way? Did you simply get up on the wrong foot?

P.S.: How come I am the troll, when you either constantly ignore everything I post (like my post about Assault Grens still being inferior to Pioneers) or try to dismantle my arguments by ridiculing me, thus trying to make it personal? Honestly, that makes you look like the troll, not me. Not once have you managed to coherently, and without trying to insult me, answered to any of my posts. Yet calling me a troll at the same time is disingenuous at best.

Pioneers are NOT 4-man Assault Grenadiers. The two mp40 versions are greatly different. Pioneers get shit combat veterancy, they don't spawn instantly to help you with map control, and they certainly don't have sprint or grenades. Their flamethrower and the ability to plant mines is good, but it's not your go-to combat unit.

PS: The troll comment was not referring to you. The people I was referring to as trolls are people that post disruptive comments for the sake of posting disruptive comments, no matter if they are making an ass of themselves.

I know. (Also to further clarify, I mean the May Preview Patch, not his Competitive mod). But please understand that this is at the heart of why I've been a little critical of the balance and design decisions of the mod team.

Even though the May Balance patch was influenced by the competitive mod, Miragefla had 0 input about which changes to include or how to implement them. There was no direct communication channel between Relic and Miragefla at that point.

This is how we ended up with Flamer Penal blobs. This is how we ended up with turbo mortar. This is how we ended up with panzerschreck-free OKW with no compensating buffs (raketenwerfer, ISG smoke). This is also how we ended up with a pitifully small set of bugfixes/qol changes, even though Miragefla's mod was full of these.

I've really been trying not to be. I mean I started out by insisting that they need to be careful about the changes they make because A) Relic has to take them, interpret them, and implement them. and B) trying to tweak combat stats and performance would be an endless cycle of balancing. I also insisted not to just make changes because they are in the scope. Not every light vehicle necessarily needs changes, especially when changes compound other changes being made (like squad formations.)

This time, unlike the may preview mod, there is a very active 2-way communication channel with Relic. We write the mod, Relic has access to the mod and will have to implement it.

However, unlike previous times, we will also be given access to a beta build, before it gets released in the unsuspecting public. This is the same procedure that was used for the last bugfix patch. Thus, if something is wrong, we will spot it and fix it before it becomes public.

I do love the AT satchel functionality in its v1.4 form, but that's also because I thought that's how Satchels should have functioned since Beta. I disagree greatly with the previous changes to mines, but that's because I greatly agree with the formation changes of this patch. I felt the mine changes ignored the issues that formation changes attempts to deal with, but I accepted them as accomplishing a much needed goal. (Incidentally I'd suggest reverting the mine changes in a version of WBP to see how many wipes occur.)

The #1 annoying thing about mines was the door-mine thing. That's probably due to how stupidly fast squads enter/exit buildings, which was itself necessitated by the power of certain AoE weapons. To me, the new mines hit a perfect balance, and unless door-mine related issues are ironed out, I don't feel comfortable risking reverting to the previous state again.

With respect to squad formations, we can do absolutely nothing about how squad spread out behind fences, etc. If a squad is clumped up behind directional cover a single shot from a light vehicle can harm/kill multiple models. This is why we reduced the maximum possible damage (near AoE). Making no adjustments to near AoE would result in blink-of-an-eye wipes every time a squad is hugging a wall.

Wall-hugging is, incidentally, the most usual position you will find retreating squads in, as they clinch for dear life when they retreat.

However, as you mentioned, squad formations affect how squads behave out of cover. To rectify this:
- Vehicles that are good at chasing were given MG buffs (e.g., T70). That way they can deal damage to out-of-cover squads, without adding to the wipe-on-retreat potential
- Vehicles without MGs and/or bad at chasing (e.g., Stug-E) had their AoE radius inflated
- All AoE-oriented vehicles have had their far AoE/radius buffed

Now, if we could find a way to make squads spread out behind directional cover, we wouldn't have to go through all this. However, we haven't found a way to bypass this issue. Thus, this is the only reasonable solution we have come up with, so far.

I won't shy away from what I think are good changes nor will I allow that to overshadow what I find to be poor changes. The opportunity to test a mod in an official sense is an incredible opportunity. As much as I respect their efforts, I fear they are squandering the bulk of their potential.

Thx.

Do note that as of WBPv1.4 the bulk of the changes we wanted to make are there (this also means no more major bugfixes/qol changes). With the exception of the PTRS-free alternative, the only other changes people are going to see is fine-tuning of existing changes.

This is where community feedback is crucial.