A6M

[Lusche]

 

[Karnak]

The "market forces" method would probably be the most objective one available.  It would have to be tracked separately for GVs, fights, bombers and boats while excluding perked units from consideration.  Such a method could update the ENY values of units automatically and on whatever time interval desired, I'd suggest a week or month.

[BnZs]

The "market forces" method would probably be the most objective one available.  It would have to be tracked separately for GVs, fights, bombers and boats while excluding perked units from consideration.  Such a method could update the ENY values of units automatically and on whatever time interval desired, I'd suggest a week or month.

And under that system the P-51D would be the highest ENY plane month after month, year after year, above planes that out-perform it in every way under MA conditions, simply because of "name recognition". That is just one example, off the top of my head.

[Lye-El]

All that do have followed my postings over the time know how much I am a numbercruncher, a stats freak, a bizarre proponent of being rationale and objective I am. If I would see any way to "get the ENY right" in a purely objective way, I would be all for it! 

Yeah, I could tell. I opened up the link you provided........and my eyes went all googly. 

[Karnak]

And under that system the P-51D would be the highest ENY plane month after month, year after year, above planes that out-perform it in every way under MA conditions, simply because of "name recognition". That is just one example, off the top of my head.

"Popularity" is a value.  In addition, the market system removes as much human sentimentality from the equation as possible.  I suspect the P-51D would drop in usage a bit as time went on and the P-51B might pick some of it up.

[Lusche]

And under that system the P-51D would be the highest ENY plane month after month, year after year, above planes that out-perform it in every way under MA conditions, simply because of "name recognition". That is just one example, off the top of my head.

i do agree... I dislike pure "popularity" being the sole factor too.

The top 10 most "popular" planes (derived by adding kills&deaths) include the F4U-D, Seafire, F6F, Il2, P-38L (and even the Lancaster...bombers have ENY too ). Hardly planes worthy of being at ENY 5 and thus the first ones taken away from the hording side when ENY limiter is setting in.

[BnZs]

"Popularity" is a value.

Not in air combat.

 In addition, the market system removes as much human sentimentality from the equation as possible.  

Uhhhhh....where do I begin with that? Madison Avenue EXISTS because human sentimentality is a huge factor in a market system.

[Angus]

On that thought, I was always for "zones of a timeframe", - i.e. some fields mustering only some aircrafts etc.
Could add some depth into the game IMHO.

[Karnak]

Not in air combat.

Uhhhhh....where do I begin with that? Madison Avenue EXISTS because human sentimentality is a huge factor in a market system.

It isn't perfect by any means, but it is miles better than your totally subjective suggestion.

[BnZs]

It isn't perfect by any means, but it is miles better than your totally subjective suggestion.

A system based on performance numbers is "totally subjective"? 

More subjectivethan going by whatever plane is in fashion this month? 


"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 



EDIT: I admitted my system has elements of subjectivity. Your system, however, dodges this objection only by passing the buck on all decisions on to the player base-the "market". There are endless examples of situations where both a good product is under-valued in relation to its efficacy and where other products are over-valued relative their actual attributes in side-by-side comparison. There is more agreement than division among ACM experts on what attributes represent greater efficacy in a dogfight. Better to hammer it out and compromise and come up with something workable and sensible than toss the whole thing out because "perfection" remains elusive.

[dirt911]

its still flys good at high speed and alt but who wnts to climb 5 thousand ft above enemys just for good flyin

[splitatom]

i personally think gv other than the tiger and firefly shouldn't have any envy because it just causes a pain in a gv battle area
la personaly should have an envy of 3

[SmokinLoon]

So Lusche... do you think the stats you provided are a good source of reasoning regarding the ENY (the more I read those the more I see LARGE gaps in reasoning)?  What do you propose???  I've heard nothing but "let it be" from you.  You counter and counter again anything anyone suggests about applying a scoring system.  What is your suggestion for fixing the obvious errors in the ENY and OBJ scores???  If we or HTC or anyone cant come up with a statistical manner of scoring these aircraft, then just hwo do we do it?

btw... as I've said before: Seperate the bombers from the fighter and fighter/attack aircraft.  They are two (three) different monsters.

[moot]

If we or HTC or anyone cant come up with a statistical manner of scoring these aircraft, then just hwo do we do it?

The way it's done now. Educated arbitrary from the guys that wrote the code and have unrestricted access to the planes' full stats.

[Lusche]

So Lusche... do you think the stats you provided are a good source of reasoning regarding the ENY (the more I read those the more I see LARGE gaps in reasoning)?  What do you propose???  I've heard nothing but "let it be" from you.  You counter and counter again anything anyone suggests about applying a scoring system.  What is your suggestion for fixing the obvious errors in the ENY and OBJ scores??? 

I think I explained rather well in an earlier post what my main point / target in this discussion is.
And I don't think that there are that much "obvious" errors in ENY as you might think they are- And I do think that there is not one simple, easy, purely objective way to "fix" eny. I have my own opinion about a few individual values, and they stem from "usage" and performance under typical MA circumstances. I strive to be objective while doing that, but again I don't believe there is a purely objective way to do it, and certainly not one that will end all those ENY arguments.

Thats the reason I "counter" any way of simply computing ENY by a scoring system. And the thing I really critizise is the belief it's doable to be that objective. As soon as you weigh the different performance categories, you are getting subjective again.

BTW, I still didnt see a real proposal for such a scoring system yet. I just read "it should be done". But not how it actually should be done. That would be very interesting to see.

Why not put up a table with all the things  you would factor in and how to weigh them. Add some flesh to your idea. A "this is how I would do it" is often more convincing than a "they should do it differently"

And then we can argue, squabble and pursefight about that details