Here is a blast form the past

[Lusche]

The impact on the arena isn't told through the kill/death ratio. When there's a fight involving 4 spits, and all of them are spit16s, to me that says a lot more than a kill/death ratio. Regardless of the outcome (win lose or draw) the number of them used is the impact on the server, not the number used vs the number dead.

What an utter nonsense.

1st: What has the server to do with it? It's about game in the arena's, not any impact on the server

2nd: The impact on gameplay can very well be decuded from the numbers. When a planes kills something, it records a kill. If it is killed, it records a death
Now compare the kills&deaths totals to that of other planes. Or do you really want to say there are droves of 14's flying around neither killing nor dying??? (And even if there were.. what impact has a figher that isn't even fighting)

A fighter that has a k/d way above the average, like the Tempest or 262 has obviously a high impact.. it's very dangerous, as far as that arena is concerned
A fighter that has a high total of kills and deaths obviously is used a lot.. but whether that alone is an impakt on arena is further to be examined.

But a fighter that doesn't do very well in killing, nor is being used much at all.... has no negative impact.

Very simple. But again, you may now just cry "is not" without any actual arguments.

Lusche done.

[Karnak]

Krusty,

You continue to somehow not get it.  I cannot fathom how you do not see that usage totals and K/D ratios tell us as much as we are going to know about an aircraft's impact.

You argue that it would be unbalancing, and in my thread I even pointed out that was a possible outcome that could only be determined by unperking it and, if it proved to be unbalancing it could simply be reperked.

You, on the otherhand, use no data at all and simply insist ou are right.  You do claim my data is not actually data, but you can't explain why it isn't data.

[Bronk]

Karnak, Lusche ... see line 4 of my sig for answers.

[Krusty]

Karnak, Lusche ... see line 4 of my sig for answers.

You clearly don't understand english Bronk. What I have typed (my issue with this argument) is clear-cut and laid out as plainly as can be. He's using a metric wrench on an imperial bolt. The two are incompatible. He's trying to use numbers to gain credibility, then making up illogical interpretations to get the answer he wants. So he's either 1) not understanding what he's doing or 2) deliberately attempting to use numbers to falsely boost his perceived position in the argument, "pulling the wool over" on the general populace.

(from whom he's trying to gain support)

[Lusche]

You clearly don't understand english Bronk. What I have typed (my issue with this argument) is clear-cut and laid out as plainly as can be. He's using a metric wrench on an imperial bolt. The two are incompatible. He's trying to use numbers to gain credibility, then making up illogical interpretations to get the answer he wants. So he's either 1) not understanding what he's doing or 2) deliberately attempting to use numbers to falsely boost his perceived position in the argument, "pulling the wool over" on the general populace.

(from whom he's trying to gain support)

Show me were any of my interpretatinns is "illogical". Step by step! I use data free available to anyone, and try to come to conclusions, step by step.

You are still crying "is not!" and just stompingyour feet with any actual argument. You are even dodging actual discussion.

"deliberately attempting to use numbers to falsely boost his perceived position in the argument, "pulling the wool over" on the general populace."

Unlike you, I have a thesis first, then examine the data, then coming to an opinion. If I find data to support that, fine, If the data contradicts my opinion, my opinion is wrong and has to be changed. I strife for common sense and most important objectivity.

You however, have always a opinion, and you will stick to it even when ave no facts or even clever arguments to support it.

To see you tell people "He needs to take a class on research or on writing a thesis paper. He's using incompatible methods and conclusions." is irony par excellence.
Somehow I seem to have had much luck in university that none of my professors ever told me such thing. Phew!

[Bronk]

Lusche ... have a beer for me. You sir are no pseudointellectual.
<S>

[Lusche]

Lusche ... have a beer for me. You sir are no pseudointellectual.
<S>

Snailman looking for dictionary... must be an insult.. certainly it is... 

[Karnak]

You clearly don't understand english Bronk. What I have typed (my issue with this argument) is clear-cut and laid out as plainly as can be. He's using a metric wrench on an imperial bolt. The two are incompatible. He's trying to use numbers to gain credibility, then making up illogical interpretations to get the answer he wants. So he's either 1) not understanding what he's doing or 2) deliberately attempting to use numbers to falsely boost his perceived position in the argument, "pulling the wool over" on the general populace.

(from whom he's trying to gain support)

The hypothethis has been openly stated.  The data supporting it has been openly stated.  A method to test it has been openly stated.  There is no wool other than that over your own eyes.

You claim the numbers are incompatible, but you cannot at all explain how or why they are incompatible.  I am sorry, but your insistance that they are incompatible is insuffient evidence of their incompatability.

[Bodhi]

...

[Yarbles]

Uh... He's using a list of numbers that really don't tell you anything. He's basing his argument on kill/death ratios, which tell you nothing about the plane itself. Only a systematic, exhaustive, research-intensive categorization of every sortie ever flown, how it was flown, how it ended, would clarify what the kill/death means.

And that's as absurd as trying to count the numer of raindrops in the ocean.

He's putting more emphasis on the kill/death than is really there. He bases his entire qualitative conclusion on a flawed sampling of quantitative data. It's a mismatch and he's creating conclusions where the data does not lead.

quote]

He bases his argument in relative terms and on in game data.

Consideration: Not to unbalance the game.

Planes which have a significant in game advantage: 262,Tempest. What they have in common is a high k/d.

The Spit 14 does not share this characteristic and so is unlikely to confer the same advantages as in practice it consderably is less succesfull and less sos than some unperked planes.

(Now if the perk value was removed form the temperst and 262 do you think the K/D would go up or down).

Unbalance the game means confer a significant advantage in such a way that this plane becomes the obvious choice in obtaining good performance in terms of winning fights i.e. K/D. Spell it out and the data is very persuasive.

This is not science but the available evidence on the "balance of Probabilities" suggests it would not unbalance the game to unperk the Spit 14. It is based on inference from real data. Your Evidence is supposition from raw data about speed, weapons and turn rate etc but it is what happens in paractice in the game itself that is important and meaningfull in this context.

Your interpretation of one set of data might lead you to certain theoretical conclussions but you cannot ignore what goes on in practice.

[Noir]

I don't need no data to say that the spit14 pretty sucks for a perked plane at AH alts....if the factories were more important It wouldn't be true.

EDIT : ok I didn't reread myself, I meant that if the AH factories were more important, the spit14 would be a great tool to protect them.

[Yarbles]

I don't need no data to say that the spit14 pretty sucks for a perked plane at AH alts....if the factory were more important It wouldn't be true.

Agreed though I dont know what the last bit means

[Noir]

Agreed though I dont know what the last bit means

edited 

[moot]

If the spit14's perk worthiness is so arguable, HTC should just test it for a few months.  That should be enough to have some hard evidence to clear any confusion.  If free perk night didn't hurt anyone on the day they added the Me262, a plane that's hard to fly and only arguably perk-worthy isn't going to turn the arenas upside down.

[Yarbles]

If the spit14's perk worthiness is so arguable, HTC should just test it for a few months.  

Yep I think that should do it. Obviously there would be some initial grumbling as any change will have some effect and it would get used more (by me anyway) but I dont think it will unbalance anything.

Personally as Ive said already I think unperking a plane like the 14 would mean everyone would have a go in the way they do with a new plane. It would therefore bring a bit of extra value to the game with little effort form HTC.

If it started taking over like say I think an unperked Tempest would I would re perk it.