Originally posted by Urchin
Well, to be absolutely honest, I don't even know if such a thing is possible. A lot of American kids grow up (well, the ones that read about WW2 anyway) and hear about the Flying Tigers, find out they flew the P-40 and go WOW that plane is awesome, I want to do that when I grow up! And a love affair is born. Or the Mustang, or the Spitfire.
Perhaps Russian schoolchildren read about VVS aces and their La-7s, but there aren't to many Russians playing this game. In fact, there is only 1 that I know of, although a couple more post on the BBS.
So if someone "is in love with the La7", they are in love with it precisely because it is the best plane they can get for free. If perchance the 190D-9 were modelled to be better than the La7, I can guarantee there'd be a lot more born-again Luftwobbles flying in AH.
Anyway, to get back on track, I feel that in the case where one person is going to be limited, it ought to be the person seeking the most advantage over others. If it came down to perking the P-40B or the La-7, you might have 1 or 2 guys yelling their heads off about HTC perking their favorite airplane. If HTC perks the La7, I can guarantee there will be a ****storm that is the mother of all ****storms from people yelling about them perking their "favorite plane".
To kind of bring that argument into the correct context, here we have an arena with 3 sides. Each side has their pick of 70-odd planes. It is assumed (probably a poor assumption, but I'll make it anyway) that people are playing this game to kill other people and "win fights". There are three ways to "win fights"... you either bring more planes, bring better planes, or bring more better planes.
In a situation where one side outnumbers the other two sides combined (which admittedly doesn't happen all that often), the small sides simply have no chance. No fights will be "won" that night for them. There is simply no way to overcome an opponent who is bringing more of the best planes than you can get. If your opponent has more planes, you can bring better planes and perhaps even up the fight, and maybe even "win. If your opponent has better planes, you can try to swamp him with numbers. In both cases, you at least have a chance to win. If your opponent is flying the "best" plane (typically a mix of the fastest and most manueverable, i.e 50% la7, 50% spit/nik) and has more planes than you've got, you are screwed.
Therefore, the side with the most numbers and best toys is implicitly denying the right of the paying customers on the other sides to have fun. This patch seeks to redress that by seperating the ability to bring overwhelming numbers combined with overwhelming performance. Got a little long-winded there, and probably some logical errors, but I'm no philiosophy major. Thats just the way I see it.
Thanks Urchin.
Rather than cut your post up and intersperse the reply, I'll try to reply to yours in the order of your points.
Okay, forget the Russian plane, make it a P-51D, or a Spitfire IX. Still dramatically low ENY compared to your example of a P-40B. and you have the possibility of a genuine fondness for the plane, regardless of performance.
Well, of course you'd never perk the P-40B, there MAY be some arguement for a low perk price on the LA 7 (not advocating that mind you). But lets forget perks. That's a distraction. And not the real issue.
It is not an invalid assumption to say people want to win fights, I think its pretty sound.
On the other hand, you say there are three ways to win: More planes, better planes, and more better planes. I see more than three ways.
What about better planning and execution? I have heard about, and seen first hand, a well lead smaller country holding its ground, and even pushing back a larger country. In fact, I know it is the most fun I've had, and every time I hear someone else talk about it, they say the same thing, it was the best time they ever had.
While I agree that there are times, sometimes rare, sometimes not so rare, when one country outnumbers the other two. This can and does present problems. But I've also seen a lot more times where one country has around 200+, and the other two have 120 to 150 each a lot more often, even on Sundays. Don't forget, the ENY penalty applies to that as well.
In that case, you could see two things happen.
Situation 1: the country with just over 200 and one of the other two attack the third, with the smaller country facing either 350 to 120, or 320 to 150 (and this is probably never the case as all of two countries will never have a complete truce).
OR,
Situation 2: you have two smaller countries battling the larger with odds of 270 to 200 (again, there is never a complete truce so the numbers are close anf rough, not exact.
Now, if the first situation occurs, again the numbers are not exact, at some point the ENY multiplier still affects the largest country, and you still have another country (one of the two smaller countries) still guilty of ganging up on the other smaller country.
Net result: Biggest country gets penalized, one smaller country still gets ganged severely, and the other country still commits what is viewed as a foul (ganging) with no penalty. There have been plenty of people complaining about this, and saying it happens often.
Now, if the second situation occurs, you have the largest country being penalized, but facing the worst odds. Netresult needs no explanation.
Now realize I'm not providing EXACT numbers. Or the EXACT threshold of the ENY limiter. Those are just two very rough, but very possible scenarios.
And of course, even you admit that one country does not often outnumber the other two combined, and even then it isn't often by a real great margin.
Great discussion, and honest as well. Give yourself credit, you deserve it, there weren't any real logical errors. It was in fact refreshingly well reasoned and devoid of nonsense. It was actually excellent, I enjoyed it and I appreciate it.
