Stormtrooper change

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Mysthalin]

No, pony, what I'm saying is that something that costs 100 pesos is as expensive as something that costs 7.14 dollars... You'll notice how I put the munitions and fuel prices in terms of percentage of total pool.

[PonySlaystation]

That equation would only work if you could convert fuel to munitions or manpower. They still have different values.

[DarkSoldierX]

That equation would only work if you could convert fuel to munitions or manpower. They still have different values.

So dumb. Did you not see the rest. He even put it in bold for you.

[Dudi]

Only 5 words, give allies a likestormy unit or remove from axis. Easy

[Mister Schmidt]

Sigged

[tank130]

Only 5 words, give allies a likestormy unit or remove from axis. Easy

WTF do they teach kids in school these days? It sure as the hell is not math.

[FailHammer]

So what you are saying is that shermans = stormies and stormies = shermans?

Flawless balance logic. Im going to have to change my sig pic

[Mysthalin]

No, I'm saying that if you consider doubleshrek stormtroopers to be expensive, you need to accept the premise that shermans are expensive. If you think shermans are cheap, then you need to accept the premise that doubleshrek stormtroopers are cheap as well.

I'm basically stating that the argument "Stormtroopers should be awesome because they're so expensive" does NOT hold up without also applying the same logic to any thread in which the sherman is considered.

[jackmccrack]

Shermans are cheap and stormshrecks are expensive.

[chefarzt]

crackerjack i got zero hour key for u
FATASS

[PonySlaystation]

Myst, Fuel and Munitions are completely different resources with different uses, they are not like currency that can be converted. That is why percentage of total pool is less important than other factors.

[TheVolskinator]

Pony, I don't think you could miss the point any more then you already have. Shermans are not cheap taking into account their combat abilities, cost, total percentage cost, and the REDICULOUS amount of counters they face.

[Mysthalin]

Just because the two resources are not interchangeable (although, the existence of resource pool expansions T1-T3 begs to differ that point to a certain level) - does not remove the main point. Which is that both shermans and double-shrek stormtroopers cost the same proportion of their respective resource pool to be bought. Ergo - if one is cheap, then so is the other, and vice versa. That is all I'm trying to say on the subject of cost itself.

That entire argument is just there as a limitation to the ridiculously retarded counter-argument of "stormtroopers are expensive so they should be insta-rape!" that keeps cropping up. If we accept the premise that stormtroopers are indeed expensive and they should rape shit - then we immediately need to also take up the premise that shermans are in the exact same boat - and they should be just as potentially powerful as a double-shrek stormtrooper.

The reason I use the sherman as the counter-argument is NOT because I want the sherman buffed. Far from it - I think the sherman is one of the best-balanced units in the game at the moment. What I want to establish is the simple realisation that, thinking entirely from rational terms - the two units are of nearly the exact same relative price.

I'm not sure how many more times I have to say this : the only point I'm making is that the stormtrooper's current cost is by no means a rational argument to make towards their power.

Once that is has gone through into your mind, we can begin the argument on whether or not their power is actually validated when comparing it with other units - but I don't really want to move on until it is established that the balance-vacuumed, populistic argument "HURR DURR, STORMS EXPENSIVE SO SHOULD BE POWERFUL" is just not something even worth wasting time over.

[Smokaz]

I only think its true OPness when you got blitzkrieg available on those baddies, and got sprinting cloakers (gay)

[puddin]

I only think its true OPness when you got blitzkrieg available on those baddies, and got sprinting cloakers (gay)

Activating BLITZ, DE-ACTIVES CLOAK, HAS BEEN THAT WAY FOR MANY PATCHES NOW

[Smokaz]

that is awesome indeed but I still think the overall ability to conserve them using blitzkrieg is what makes them so annoying to some players.

[Shabtajus]

I only think its true OPness when you got blitzkrieg available on those baddies, and got sprinting cloakers (gay)

[PonySlaystation]

both shermans and double-shrek stormtroopers cost the same proportion of their respective resource pool. Ergo - if one is cheap, then so is the other, and vice versa.

Just because fuel is lower does not mean that a Sherman is more useable or better than a Stormtrooper, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Let's take this scenario, you have one million MU and ten FU. Is a bike going to be expensive, well yeah it takes up all your fuel. That bike is now a hundred thousand times more expensive than the stormtrooper, does that mean that the jeep is better at all in any aspect? no, in terms of cost they use different resources and thus aren't even comparable aside from the manpower and pool cost. It has no relevance at all.

[DarkSoldierX]

Just because fuel is lower does not mean that a Sherman is more useable or better than a Stormtrooper, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Let's take this scenario, you have one million MU and ten FU. Is a bike going to be expensive, well yeah it takes up all your fuel. That bike is now a hundred thousand times more expensive than the stormtrooper, does that mean that the jeep is better at all in any aspect? no, in terms of cost they use different resources and thus aren't even comparable aside from the manpower and pool cost. It has no relevance at all.

I don't think I can say anything that myst hasn't already said.....