Profile of Burts

no KT buff feelsbadman

Regarding the STUG E, it really should require atleast battlephase 2 now. The main reason why it was nerfed to 400 health was because of the call in meta. If it doesn't require any teching, ostheer will just go back to STUG E > Tiger stalling meta again.

I dont think many people realize that that metagame went out of fashion some patches ago precisely because the STUG E was pretty heavily nerfed. Back then it didin't even have it's arced fire, meaning it couldn't fire over buildings/bushes which honestly means it will be even better than before now.

Regardless of whether PTRS will be the prescribed solution for T1 or not, T1 will be getting some AT options. That way T1 can, at least, be somewhat self-sufficient. Otherwise, we're just setting us up for failure:
- Either T1 will be too weak for 1v1, thus never used
- Or, T1 will be so good in terms of AI-specialization that we will ruin teamgames (mostly because all the AT it takes to carry a T1 investment is a single AT gun, that a teammate can provide).

Adding an AT option to T1 will also give us free hand to design the AI utility of the tier better, so that T1 will not be a "cheese-fast-or-lose" tier.

With the new price Luchs isn't stronger or weaker than other factions' vehicles. It's a specialist AI vehicle.

I am very hopeful with the balance in your hands and your team

The other changes are mostly good. Just the soviet T1 is problematic.

But i'm very happy you are still looking into it.

SU-76 barrage was already complete shit, no need for a muni cost.

Guards and penals were slightly overnerfed imo.

Other than that good patch.

this is so painful it numbs me. its like saying saddam hussein's son would've tortured no matter who would've adopted him.

I'm just going to ignore every single thing about evolution and biology just so that i can prove my marxist post-modernist philosophy is correct, and when someone doesn't agree with me, I'm just going to completely collapse out of pain.

Yeah, no.

Research has shown time and time that genes have far more importance for a persons personality, intelligence , behaviour than enviroment does.For example, IQ is 60-80% hereditary, considering how unsophisticated IQ tests are, its likely that actual intelligence is even more hereditary.



Regarding women in this case, it's clear to see why women are less overall competitive than men.


Only 20-40% of men ever reproduced. While 80-90% of women did (this was true until very recently when civilization started to develop). I may actually be understating it here, considering research like this https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d#.ay3pckbqs

(You can even see this phenomenon in modern day dating sites, where men are generally fine with dating women that are below their social standing, and try to date women that about as attactive as themselves, meanwhile women always look to the top 15%-20% of males regardless of how attractive they are, their social standing etc.

What this means is that if you are a male, you are most likely not going to reproduce, and therefore unless you try to outcompete the other males in your group, your genes will not be carried on.

So males that weren't competitive couldn't reproduce, and the genes that were responsible for such behaviour didin't carry on.

For females it's much different. They clearly had no qualms in sharing their breeding mate with other females in the group. Which is why women never evolved to be competitive. There simply was no reason to. Even if something happened with the alpha male that everyone fucked with, chances are they would get along with whatever came next.

Infact, it's entirely plausible that being a competitive female might have been a disadvantage, because as you are physically weaker than men, you would just be killed if you would try to outcompete someone.

Why evolve genes that don't help to reproduce, and just might be detrimentary to your existance? There's no reason to.