What is going on?
Why did this need “fixing”? What was wrong with showing 150 / 80 / 80 mm ? What part of that was not clear enough?
I’m genuinely not smart enough to understand these decisions. Is this the quality we have to expect in the future?
Why did this need “fixing”? What was wrong with showing 150 / 80 / 80 mm ? What part of that was not clear enough?
10 Likes
I think it has to do with it being pointless in the presence of composite armor
1 Like
Not a good enough reason for a wholescale change. Less than half the ground vehicles have composite.
Plus adding the ammo is useless. If you main the vehicle you already know what it uses. If you don’t, good chance you won’t understand what half the ammo references mean.
3 Likes
Updating statcards requires more effort than us checking the protection viewer.
Updating statcards is time and money not spent on fixing other bugs, implementing features, etc.
And with how things can change on vehicles that can change that already inaccurate armor statcard becomes even more inaccurate.
Having a shortcut to the protection analysis on the statcard is the best solution.
1 Like
I’m not sure i understand your point. Are you defending the update that changed all the statcards by saying that they did it, so they won’t have to touch stat cards because it’s time consuming?
1 Like
I am defending the change because it’s a better solution for studying armor.
Statcards are an awful way to understand armor, and they were always wrong.
The protection analysis needs to be the default method people study things.
1 Like
There was nothing stopping you from using the armor analysis before.
150mm frontal armor on KT is pretty accurate. Now it says it has no armor. Same as IS-3. And you can’t even get an estimate mid-battle. If you weren’t sure if KT turret was 180, 185 or 190, you could simply mouse over the tank.
I don’t see how anything of value was added with this updated cards.
2 Likes
It’s perfectly fine, and as someone who’s played this game for, not its entire existence, but about 6 years, it’s a change I quite enjoy.
If you can’t use Protection Analysis in a game that’s based around protection and penetration (ХАХА) then why are you playing or even complaining in the first place?
1 Like
I love how this change is loved by top tier players and hated by low/mid tier bc they can’t see the armor value at a glance
1 Like
Are you telling me that you didn’t know about armor analysis before this change? Literally nothing was added, only removed.
Like what does even “Composite Armor” or “Steel Armor” tells you? How is this better than some numbers?
1 Like
No it is not.
Before, at a glance I could get a general idea of the protection of the vehicle. If I wanted more in depth I could visit the site and the protection analysis.
Now they are forcing us to go an extra step, which we could have done on our own anyway.
It is in no way a better method.
2 Likes
Inaccurate numbers are indeed worse than no numbers.
Who said I don’t know how to use PA?
There are times I jus wanted a more general view of the protection. Now that’s gone and did not need to be.
A view of the full picture results in better performance and understanding of the vehicle.
The Strv 103 for example has a 40mm plate, but can bounce anything other than HEAT-FS and Darts.
And YOU could get that from the PA if you wanted it.
Yeah, it’s without composite protection, or chemical protection…
I agree it could be better specified
I do understand the frustration tho, it feels like this change was made with top tier only in mind
2 Likes
So putting in “without armor” is sensible??? Just no.
3 Likes