Spitfires in tour 110: Late war

[E25280]

blah blah blah

Whatever claims you want to make, the fact remians the Pony sees more use than the XVI.

Therefore, the XVI is not "overused."

Last tour, the Pony had a higher overall K/D ratio than the XVI.

Therefore, the XVI is not "unbalancing."

There is NOTHING that would be gained by perking the XVI, other than encouraging MORE concentration of use in the Pony, Nik and/or LA.  Then you would in all likelihood whine about that, too.

[Guppy35]

The Pony is not double-superior to anything except the 190As and Fs. Its out-standing strength is top speed, where it is exceeded by the D9, 109K4, and La7. The latter two out-turn the P-51 as well. It is severely challenged by the Typhoon (actually, Typhoon is  faster down low) which also turns slightly better and the P-47N (practically neck and neck with the Pony at WEP.), which also its equal in maneuverability. It is a poor angles fighter in general. Compared to the set, as far as I know the only fighters which it both out-runs and out-turns are the 190 A-5, A-8, and F-8, and the A-5 can give it a run for its money in a maneuvering fight. Its firepower is about as average as it gets, and its climb and acceleration also leave something to be desired.

You are in fact the one arguing from a position of ignorance and thus spewing nonsense.

I'm assuming the P51D is your bird then?  Look at it from the perspective of having someone take away your bird.  You can argue against it, just as I can argue against perking Spit 16s. 

A lot of guys love the 51D.  I can't see taking it away from them because it doesn't fit with my view of the AH world.  And I can't see taking away the Spit 16 for the very same reason.  I could argue that you should fly the B pony instead of the D just as the argument can be made for the 8 v the 16.  They are close enough, but not quite the same.

But I won't because I'd rather have folks flying what they want to fly whatever their reasons

[BnZs]

I'm not making claims, I am stating facts about performance as modeled in the game. You are the one who can't bring anything to the table but an ill-defined and vague word like "unbalancing" and personal rancor.

The SpitXVI has a lower k/d ratio only because it sees enormous use from the newest of the new AND enormous use from players at all levels in desperate situations, like base defense. Whereas the P-51D is typically used in a very "safe" hit and run manner from position of advantage. (Don't jump on me please Pony guys, you know what I say is true.) I'd like to see K/T numbers for the XVI vs. the P-51, as I consider kills/time a far more telling look into a plane's true effectiveness.

There is NOTHING that would be gained by perking the XVI, other than encouraging MORE concentration of use in the Pony, Nik and/or LA.  Then you would in all likelihood whine about that, too.

Both the unmaneuverable Pony and the 325mph N1K fail to be double-superior to as much of the set as does the SpitXVI. The La7 is a bit of a problem and also deserves a light perk price IMO because of the number of planes it is double-superior to, but as I say, the La is already curtailed by the most severe lack of fuel range in the set, outside of the 163

[BnZs]

You would be incorrect in that assumption Gupp. I put a little time in it every tour, but I fly a wide variety. I lean more towards the 47s and 190s as "all time favorites". In fact, I believe that if the P-51D's maneuvering performance were improved just abit to fall more in-line with what history says its relative abilities were, it would deserve perking. I believe the business viability or lack thereof of perking THE most popular American plane is one reason why HTC is reluctant to take a look at the P-51's turn performance in-game.

The rest of your argument is invalid IF we accept the concept of some planes being perked. You do not apparently, fine, just say "I don't believe ANY planes should be perked" and have done. If we do accept that some planes should be perked in the LW MA, then saying "But the SpitVIII isn't quite the same as the SpitXIV" is like saying "But the F4U-1A isn't QUITE the same as the F4U-4".

I'm assuming the P51D is your bird then?  Look at it from the perspective of having someone take away your bird.  You can argue against it, just as I can argue against perking Spit 16s. 

A lot of guys love the 51D.  I can't see taking it away from them because it doesn't fit with my view of the AH world.  And I can't see taking away the Spit 16 for the very same reason.  I could argue that you should fly the B pony instead of the D just as the argument can be made for the 8 v the 16.  They are close enough, but not quite the same.

But I won't because I'd rather have folks flying what they want to fly whatever their reasons

[Anaxogoras]

Define "unbalancing."

[Karnak]

I'm not making claims, I am stating facts about performance as modeled in the game. You are the one who can't bring anything to the table but an ill-defined and vague word like "unbalancing" and personal rancor.

You are not stating facts, you are stating opinions and feelings while trying to pass them off as facts.

The Spitfire Mk XVI can hardly be ubiquitous when it has less than 10% of the kills, even assuming the K/T is favorable.  Is it common?  Yes.  You have failed to show how being common means it should be taken away from the newer players, because that is all a low perk cost will do.  Frankly, the argument that it helps HTC get new paying subscribers sounds pretty likely and that is a very important consideration given the fact that it isn't breaking the game.

If your goal is to get people to use other aircraft, then you are going to have to perk a whole bunch more besides the Mk XVI.

[Guppy35]

You would be incorrect in that assumption Gupp. I put a little time in it every tour, but I fly a wide variety. I lean more towards the 47s and 190s as "all time favorites". In fact, I believe that if the P-51D's maneuvering performance were improved just abit to fall more in-line with what history says its relative abilities were, it would deserve perking. I believe the business viability or lack thereof of perking THE most popular American plane is one reason why HTC is reluctant to take a look at the P-51's turn performance in-game.

The rest of your argument is invalid IF we accept the concept of some planes being perked. You do not apparently, fine, just say "I don't believe ANY planes should be perked" and have done. If we do accept that some planes should be perked in the LW MA, then saying "But the SpitVIII isn't quite the same as the SpitXIV" is like saying "But the F4U-1A isn't QUITE the same as the F4U-4".

Just asking.   Do you believe the difference between the VIII and the XVI is the same as between a 1 Hog and a 4 Hog?

If you do, then I can accept your argument.  I don't see that kind of difference in the Spits by any means as they are engined the same, with the VIII being a bit heavier due to extra fuel in the wing leading edges, the retractable tail wheel and the full span wings.

[E25280]

Since you seem to be stuck on your own way of thinking instead of seeing this from an objective perspective, I'll try a different line . . .

In any situation, it is the person asking for change who has the responsibility to show #1) why change is needed and #2) that the proposed change would be better than the status quo.

You have done neither. 

There is no evidence change is needed because #1) the plane is not overused and #2) the plane is not dominant as shown by the kill stats. 

You have also offered no benefit that would be had by perking the aircraft other than #1) you would see less of them (which is not considered a "benefit" to many) and #2) it would make BnZ feel better. 

In fact, there is every likelihood there would be negative consequences of perking the aircraft, which are #1) extreme complaining by anyone who loves the aircraft #2) denying the "easymode ride" to new players (not that I particulary buy that argument, but you seem to cling to it) thus lowering retention for HTC and #3) further concentration of use in already high-use aircraft such as the Pony/Nik/whatever i.e. limiting the very variety of aircraft encountered (which is the opposite of what you claim you want to see).

[E25280]

Define "unbalancing."

That is a fair request, but not easily answered.  Best you can say is "you would know it if you saw it."

For instance, last month's tour (Usage=Kills+deaths, universe is fighters only):

Model   Usage    K/D Ratio
P-51D   10.7%   1.1523
SpitXVI   8.7%   1.0839
N1K2   5.3%   1.1519
F4U-1D   4.4%   0.7207
Typh   3.8%   1.4805
La-7   3.8%   1.0694

Nothing looks "unbalanced."  No plane dominates "usage" or has extraordinary K/D ratios.  If anything, this is actually becoming more unbalanced than it was in the past when the Pony, Spixteen, Nik and LA-7 had near-equal usage.

This is a hypothetical example of what I would consider to be an "unbalanced" situation, say if the Tempest was unperked:

Model   Usage    K/D Ratio
Temp   24.8%   1.8805
P-51D   5.2%   0.8523
SpitXVI   5.0%   0.8395
N1K2   3.3%   0.9200
F4U-1D   2.4%   0.5207
La-7   2.1%   1.0694

In this case, the Temp is overused and overpowering all the opposition.  One of four planes you meet tends to be a Temp.  The only reason its K/D ratio isn't higher is because of all the Temp vs. Temp fights.  This would indicate a perk-worthy aircraft IMO.

Last tour, the only plane that approaches the "unbalanced" hypothetical unperked Temp scenario is the Pony, not the Spixteen or LA-7, which always seem to be the targets of "perk-it" whines.

[Saxman]

Out of curiosity, does this weed out losses to ground fire? The F4U-1D is going to see much more usage as a bomb truck than the others, and those losses would skew the results.

[E25280]

Out of curiosity, does this weed out losses to ground fire? The F4U-1D is going to see much more usage as a bomb truck than the others, and those losses would skew the results.

No, they are total kills + deaths.

If you go to the kill stats page (old one, not sure how to do this on the new one) you can select the model vs. model option and use the F4U-1D vs. All Models to get your answer.

[E25280]

 

Had to look . . .

Spitfire Mk XVI has 2580 Kills of P-51D
P-51D has 2871 Kills of Spitfire Mk XVI

Yep, time to perk the Pony!

 

[Banshee7]

The pony WAS the greatest aircraft of WW2, ya know!








 

[crazyivan]

The pony WAS the greatest aircraft of WW2, ya know!








 

Yeah but the spitfire is ah  lookah   Like someone said. Blame the pilot not the plane.

[BnZs]

The %sorties argument does not work. Here is why:

Some apparently want a plane to constitute 20% of all sorties before it can be perked. However, the only plane that ever achieved that was the C-Hog back when the game was young and the plane set was much less varied. I believe that if you today unperked the C-Hog it would not capture 20%. In fact, it is mathematically demonstrable that it is very unlikely for all the currently perked planes to capture 1/5 of the MA "market share" ever again. Tempest, F4U-4, C-Hog, 262, SpitXIV (leaving off the 163 because it is not available arena-wide.)...five planes, each with a lot going for them. If the whole MA flew ONLY them, in equal numbers, then they would have 20% of use apiece. If they were NOT flown in equal numbers, then one of them would fall below the 20% benchmark and thus would deserve to be unperked...right? And of course, not everyone in the MA would actually choose one of these five all the time, so the chances of all five currently perked fighters consistently achieving the magic 20% of all sorties would be nil. I would be surprised if even the Tempest alone managed a consistent 20%. It would be interesting to check use stats for the DA lake if possible. Just off the top of my head, I don't think the crowd is typically anymore than 50% perk rides, probably less.

So since use stats are useless, what are we left with? The cold hard performance numbers of the plane relative the rest of the set,  numbers which a great many people opining on this thread appear to have been ignorant of. Most  especially, if an airplane's numbers show it to be double-superior to very large chunks of the plane set under typical MA conditions, that to me seems like a far better argument for perking. Far better indeed than notion that if, say the P-40B, achieved a certain use benchmark it would need to be perked.

I do not think perking the SpitXVI would "force" people into fly any plane, especially the Pony, an airplane inferior to the SpitXVI in every respect except top speed and requiring a totally different style and mindset.

Rather, I think it would *allow* people to fly a wider variety of middling-performance aircraft without eventually getting frustrated and saying "Screw this, I'm taking up a Spit!", or just grabbing one the really fast b'n'z planes and avoiding committed engagements with SpitXVIs around.