i think this had more to do with the fact that the last planned iteration of the beta wasn't stable and fixing it would have bound resources that were better spent wrapping up, deploying (and later fixing) the actual patch.
and now that redeploying the hopefully fixed patch might only be a couple of days away, what sense would it make to waste time trying to get the beta to work?
It seem some people prefer a conspiracy theory over a simple explanation. |
|
nice work well done
imo stormtroppers and pg have better eye than the rest |
|
|
It's my own personal opinion that emplacements should have been locked behind Anvil, which in turn should have been a choice available to the player to make at T0 which is not exclusive with Hammer.
So if you wanna go heavily defensive/static you can go Anvil which would unlock the emplacements along with other defensive options and abilities like trenches, sandbags, maybe even the 25 pounder like in the original game, burst shells and so on and so forth.
Hammer would be the AEC and the more offensive tanks like the Comet and Firefly, bolster, gammon bombs and so on.
Basically you would be provided with a choice, you have a basic tool set which might be sufficient for you but doesn't excel at anything but it doesn't lack anything either, so a jack of all trades approach somewhat.
Then you could either go Hammer or Anvil depending on your situation and what you choose to do at a cost of course but if you change your mind you can unlock the other specialization a bit later, but again, at a cost.
It's something similar of the Ostheer system in the Eastern Front mod for CoH from where I believe Relic took the idea about the Hammer/Anvil specializations in the first place since they seem very similar.
Yes hammer/anvil is a good idea that is implemented bad.
One could even remove the mutually exclusively part, add a choice for each tier and make UKF much more interesting as factions. |
I always found it to be a boring spot of this doctrine.
It was good back when Conscripts did not have any upgrade and the PPShs were still a more competitive upgrade, but the latest since mobilized reserves was introduced, Shock army became a bit worse.
But this upgrade was always redundant. I already have elite PPShs assault troops, I don't really need the cheap throw away version too.
I remember complaint about ability overlap of the soviet shock army since release. PPsh overlaping with shocks and 120mm with ml20. |
Sure. That said, don't use the term TTK when you're really talking about timing and people won't have to correct you.
I did not bring TTK sander did. Point is there is power creep in the game and it as simple as that. |
Look, you can't just redefine terms like TTK and then imply that I'm the one who doesn't understand. Even with your example, you're once again complaining about timing, not TTK. If those units had their DPS buffed, *then* it would be a TTK change. And by the way, you're the one treating TTK as a "theoretical value", applying it to two different unit matchups (Sherman VS. 222 compared to Sherman VS. Pz4) instead of a single unit matchup like it should be.
TTK is a measure of how long ONE UNIT takes to kill ANOTHER UNIT. It is that simple. Changing the TTK of one unit means buffing/ nerfing that unit.
The Sherman always has had a better matchup against the 222 VS a panzer 4. It did not have a TTK buff in your example, only a timing buff.
And my point is that Ober will kill an conscript faster than Vg thus reducing the time of an infatry fight.
Rest is not really relevant. |
You're listing matchups between two different units and using that as an example that TTK has been decreased. No. That's an example of timings being made quicker. Just because a Sherman comes out faster does not mean that it performs better against a 222 than if it had come out later. That's not changing the TTK, that's changing the timing. Your argument is that timing is too much faster, not that TTK has been decreased.
You where probably not around when Relic made Shock and Guards CP 1 and completely broke infatry combat since these powerful unit walked over ostheer infatry that did not have weapon upgrades or vet.
If you are talking about TTK as theoretical value that it is actually quite pointless in the debate as a stat. |
|
Imo increasing the time to build tank traps and change them to actually work as tank traps is a more pressing issue. |
Raw TTK is raw TTK. Or do you also want to compare vet 3 units to fresh vet 0 replacements? Not to mention the fact that their new timing is only relevant for a short window, up until their foes reach the specific vet or upgrade level these foes had at their old timing, after which the old TTK values kick in again because those never changed. It makes no sense including timing into a TTK comparison. Timing of a unit has to do with their efficiency. It's irrelevant when comparing raw TTK, and there would be way too many variables anyway if you'd include it.
On the contrary TTK has everything to do with timing.
An LMG-42 or BAR available from at minute 0 would completely changes small arm fights and TTK.
It like saying that TTK for 5 minute Sherman facing 222 and minute 15 Sherman facing PzIV is the same... |
Relic Entertainment
Lyco 
Ikarus ★ 
