Armor: Different weight amounts is obsolete

Yes, I am for removing the current system.

Also, sir, what do you think "balance" is?

In my opinion, armors like Reactive are great on light tanks(tanks with a small armor capacity). And armors like "light" armors work great on vehicles that can carry a vast amount of armor(A heavy for example).

But according to me, all that matters is HP per Weight, and HP per Res.

If you have an armor that weighs 10 and has 30 HP, I prefere that armor over a plate that weighs 90 and has 120 HP.

Because if I wan't for example, a cannon, mg and a ml on my tank I will not have enough weight left to use the "heavier" armor.

Heavy armors might be "better" per plate, but in my opinion you'll end up with one cannon because there is no weight left for other weapons.

Do you understand?

"It is not about HP per Plate, what matters is HP per Weight, and when taking the commander's strategy into count - HP per Res."

 

Nobody's taking you seriously because

1. this suggestion is dumb, and

2. all of the stupid shit you've spammed the forums with in the last few weeks.

 

Hurr durr, the irony.

Also, obvious troll is very obvious.

I am starting to think that people like you pickled, are just too dumb to understand this.

 

I clearly fit the definition of troll. My arguments really are dumb and everyone really does think you're a great guy from all the effort you put into giving feedback on these forums, and for that I thank you.

 

I lol'd

Might wan't to explain how this sugestion is "dumb"?

Spam? What spam? Might wan't to link to a few posts/threads, including an explanation why "it" is regarded as "spam"?

And everyone thinks I am an idiot? Really? Because I am not aware of that, might wan't to link to a post or thread that sugests that everyone thinks I am an idiot?

Oh, I also wonder what your definition of an "idiot" is. Would you mind to tell me?

 

Yes good sir.
The obvious troll here, is in fact, obvious.
We tried to give you reasonable arguments, you ignored them, stated them as false, and repeated the same retarded number crunching which didn't prove anything. You're either dumb as shit, or a troll.

 

Well, I still don't get what your first reply had to do with any of this.

Yes ok, that is clear to me.

But what has this to do with decreasing all the armors weight to 10 while keeping the same HP/Cost HP/Weight ratio?

 

Because then if you have an expensive, good armor and a cheap, less good armor with the same weight, the players will nearly always take the expensive armor unless it is astronomically expensive, because it's better. The only thing a player cares about is weight. Cost is not a balancer except over the course of a whole game.

Expensive, good armors make your team lose, because the team won't change armor voluntarily, and it will run their res into the ground.

How do I know this?
Players use composite.
Always.
Give them the option to use composite, and they use it, because it's lighter, and it seems better.
That's why composite loses matches, because your tanks double in price.

 

Wasn't I talking about weight? And about the HP/Cost ratio staying the same? Isn't HPs(and resistances) what makes an armor "good"?

Ok... Clear to me.

Well, altough I prefere reflective, with every team I played(or against) with that had composite(wich I was aware of) a vast majority would use composite.

Well, in my opinion that occures when you do not have a enough refineries available.

I see composite being used on money often, but I barely ever see it being researched on slaughtered.

Please quote a post were I stated any of your arguments "false". And I tried to reply on every post, wich arguments did I ignore in your opinion?

Wow, "retarted number crunching"? I stated that the ratios would stay the same. How is that retarted?

 

That. is retarded.