Spitfires in tour 110: Late war

[Lusche]

Ok ... Snail Man ... 

 ... sorry

[grizz441]

Well, it can't be both ways.  There's an alternating criterion for perking that people make use of depending on the specific airplane.

On the one hand, when people say "Perk plane x because it's 12% of the arena" we respond "true, but it's popular because of, e.g. its fame, it does not have perkable performance."

Then, when people say "Perk plane x because it has perkable performance" we respond "true, but it's flown by noobs, so that's why it makes up 12% of the arena."

Which is it going to be?

If the spit16 was 20mph faster or so at cruising speed I'd say perk it but as it is, it's only a very good TnBer with no recourse if someone extends.

[Anaxogoras]

How was I not "civil" ? ... by pointing out the obvious in reference to his pompous "intellect" statement ? ... sorry about that ... NOT.

You didn't say "crybaby" about BnZs' statement.  You said it about people who disagree with you about perking.

Both.

There is no simple number that will tell you "perk" or result in specific ENY value. Never will be.
You have to look at the whole picture.

It can't be both, or you put yourself in the position of questioning HTC's decision to perk the Spit XIV.  Then we can switch rolls and I will use a vague and indeterminate notion like "unbalancing" to tell you that you've never reached the burden of proof for unperking the XIV.

[Anaxogoras]

Does a plane completely dominate an arena with excessive numbers and at the same time, does it kill just about everything in it's path with excessive frequency ?

To address this proposed definition, does it matter to you that these conditions could occur with an aircraft that does not have dominating performance?  Historical fame and a following of skilled virtual pilots might make an aircraft perk-worthy, by your definition.

For the sake of argument, let's use your definition.  Are you committed to unperking the Spit XIV?  It seems to be the least-used perk plane and it's K/D ratio is lower than some unperked planes.

[SlapShot]

To address this proposed definition, does it matter to you that these conditions could occur with an aircraft that does not have dominating performance?  Historical fame and a following of skilled virtual pilots might make an aircraft perk-worthy, by your definition.

For the sake of argument, let's use your definition.  Are you committed to unperking the Spit XIV?  It seems to be the least-used perk plane and it's K/D ratio is lower than some unperked planes.

If the Spit 1 fell into the "definition" ... then yes, it would need to be perked for the sake of gameplay.

At this point in the Aces High evolution ... I believe that the only 2 planes that need to be perked are the 163 and the 262.

The CHOG / Tempest / Spit XIV need not to be perked anymore due to the fact that planes have added to the hanger (since the time they were perked) that neutralize the dominating effect that they did have "back in the day" ... simply ... the criteria that required them to be perked does not exist anymore IMHO.

[Anaxogoras]

Forgive me, but I do find the irony a little stinging that after all this talk of burden of proof for arguing against the way HTC has done things, you come out and advocate a change far more radical than my modest little proposal of 3-5 perks for the XVI.

[Steve]

Forgive me, but I do find the irony a little stinging that after all this talk of burden of proof for arguing against the way HTC has done things, you come out and advocate a change far more radical than my modest little proposal of 3-5 perks for the XVI.

So what does a guy fly who is new to the game and has no perks?

And why do you care about how many people fly the spixteen?  Can't kill them?

[Anaxogoras]

So what does a guy fly who is new to the game and has no perks?

And why do you care about how many people fly the spixteen?  Can't kill them?

Point 1: The Spitfire VIII?

Point 2: I'm only looking for consistency in what is perked and what is not.  I'm about 8:1 K/D against the XVI this year, so killing them is not the issue.

[SlapShot]

Forgive me, but I do find the irony a little stinging that after all this talk of burden of proof for arguing against the way HTC has done things, you come out and advocate a change far more radical than my modest little proposal of 3-5 perks for the XVI.

Not ironical at all ... I said ... IMHO ... but if left as is, it's ok with me too.

There are better arguments to un-perk planes than there are to perk planes. All the comparisons that have been brought forward about the CHOG vs the Spit 16 better suit the argument to un-perk the CHOG as opposed to perk the Spit 16 ... because the Spit 16 could be used as a balancing force when CHOGS come flying off a CV.

Most of these whines are from people who pigeon hole themselves into flying 1 particular aircraft and the plane that they whine about is most likely kicking their arse every time they encounter one. So it's people who limit themselves (self-imposed) by their plane choice that want to limit others to suit their idea of game play.

[Steve]

: I'm only looking for consistency in what is perked and what is not.  I'm about 8:1 K/D against the XVI this year, so killing them is not the issue.

Ya, it's a holier-than-thou stance you are taking. You audaciously assume everyone has the skills, physical tools, computer  hardware, and most importantly: time,  to put into the game in order to become proficient enough to have fun(read as get kills now and then) in more "challenging" rides.

 Some people have one arm, arthritis, have slowed reflexes due to age, poor eyesight, crippled digits or other health issues.  Others have only a few hours each month to play.  Others don't have the money to invest in a joystick and must fly with a mouse, or they merely have the most rudimentary stick.  To me, it is the height of arrogance to want to perk rides like the spixteen and make it that much harder for these people to have a good time.

[Anaxogoras]

There are better arguments to un-perk planes than there are to perk planes. All the comparisons that have been brought forward about the CHOG vs the Spit 16 better suit the argument to un-perk the CHOG as opposed to perk the Spit 16 ... because the Spit 16 could be used as a balancing force when CHOGS come flying off a CV.

I've been saying for many pages that I would be fine with the C-Hog being unperked if the XVI will remain unperked.  To me that's simply being consistent.

---------

Edit:  I'm not going to reply to Steve's troll.

[Steve]

Edit:  I'm not going to reply to Steve's troll.

It's not a troll.  You simply don't have an answer to my assertion. This will be clear to any who read it.

[SlapShot]

I've been saying for many pages that I would be fine with the C-Hog being unperked if the XVI will remain unperked.  To me that's simply being consistent.

---------

Edit:  I'm not going to reply to Steve's troll.

I think that arguments that don't impose limits would get the "ear" of HTC more than arguments that "limit" (I could be wrong).

Don't know if Steve is trolling or not ... regardless ... his points are still valid.

[Anaxogoras]

No, it's just another example of someone who attributes an opinion other than their own to character flaw; it's a surrepticious ad hominem.

[Steve]

No, it's just another example of someone who attributes an opinion other than their own to character flaw; it's a surrepticious ad hominem.

No. It is convenient for you to read this into my statement as it would allow you to pretend my words hold no merit. However, it took but moments for another to see the validity of my points. That you refuse to do so is indicative that you are being stubbornly obtuse in order to stick to your point or else you really don't see my point. I'm confident it's the former. I routinely encounter people who will stubbornly run their head into a wall rather than admit others might have good points. It's kind of funny.