Originally posted by Anaxogoras
Your argument against what I said is that you like the way it is now? I think you can do better than that. Calling HTC's opinion or whimsy a criterion does not make it so, just like putting lipstick on a pig doesn't... err, well, you get the idea!:rofl Until perking is based on something objective it will never hold up to scrutiny.
I'm just saying that the criteria that HiTech and gang use to set perks is far better than your suggestion of setting perks based on plane usage. Just because Spitfires and La7s just happen to be a popular ride doesn't translate to unbalancing the game play. Since they don't unbalance the game play, they don't need to be perked.
If HiTech decided to change it to how you want it, then it would be possible that every time a plane becomes the "flavor of the month" it could face the possibility of being perked due to its current popularity or causing lesser rides to become perked. The Zeke and Hurricanes are popular planes, ones that you see all the time, especially for base defense. Since they are popular planes to fly, under your "perk criteria" they would face the possibility of being perked despite the fact that these planes do not undermine the balance.
And yes, I like the criteria that HiTech and cronies currently use to assign perks. As I said in my previous post, planes should only be perked if they would cause the game play to become unbalanced if they weren't. I might not agree with some of their decisions on what planes were perked (TA-152 is an example) but not the criteria.
ack-ack
