Spitfires in tour 110: Late war

[WMLute]

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 apparently the C-Hog back when the game was young and the plane set was much less varied. I believe that if you unperked everything that would not happen. 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 airplanes 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.

Spend some time at Dweed Lake in the DA.  (no perks there so a good example of what you want)

Pay attention to how many Tempest and Chogs you see and the general way they are used/flown.

[Saxman]

Tempests, C-Hogs, 4-Hogs and Ponies are the predominant rides. Most of them coming in from about 17k or higher (couple guys in particular I've seen called out on that, too). Most of them make a couple BnZ passes through to pick up their two kills, then run like hell if they encounter a co-alt and e con.

[BnZs]

Spend some time at Dweed Lake in the DA.  (no perks there so a good example of what you want)

Pay attention to how many Tempest and Chogs you see and the general way they are used/flown.

I've spent quite a bit of time there. The Tempest, Chog, and F4U-4 are very popular, however, just from personal observation, I don't see their aggregate use as being any higher than 50%. They would have to comprise at least 60% of all sorties flown for each to reach the magic 20% of use mark, and even at that, if one of them were more popular than the others, thus taking a bit of the "market share", it would knock the other two below the magic 20% figure. Any person who thinks about it will realize that the 20% figure is an impossible standard to meet with today's plane variety and the number of die-hards who only fly in their favorite types.

[Krusty]

BnZs is right. I've mentioned something similar before. Back when "20%" was the claim there were less than 1/3 the fighters we have currently in-game. Folks don't realize how many of the planes in the plane list are NEW.

[Karnak]

You want the Mk XVI perked, you need to justify it.  Nobody has ever made a valid argument for it yet.  Saying it is "double plus good" is just BS hyperbole.

[crazyivan]

You want the Mk XVI perked, you need to justify it.  Nobody has ever made a valid argument for it yet.  Saying it is "double plus good" is just BS hyperbole.

I prefer the spit VIII. Don't know why, just do.

[gpwurzel]

Personally I prefer the spit V, with the IX a close 2nd - at the end of the day, the newbs need to have a plane they have a chance of getting kills in. If a more experienced player wants to use the XVI, is it that much of a big deal?

Is it a good bird - oh yes. I rarely if ever fly it - which, as a brit, is a bit odd, but my personal preference is as above.

Most of the time I'm on, I see a lot of bnz planes, always higher than me, making a pass then hauling it for all their worth - makes for interesting fights at times.

ymmv,

Wurzel

[BnZs]

You want the Mk XVI perked, you need to justify it.  Nobody has ever made a valid argument for it yet.  Saying it is "double plus good" is just BS hyperbole.

We are not familiar with the term "double-superior"? ?????

As used today, it generally means one fighter aircraft is superior to another in both thrust/weight ratio and wing-loading (more properly: lift-loading). IOW superior in both E-fighting and Angles fighting capacity. If I were using it in this sense, the SpitXVI would be indeed be double-superior to a great many planes in the set.

However, I am using the term somewhat more loosely here to indicate airplanes which are less maneuverable than the SpitXVI AND which are slower or lack the sufficient speed margin to be able to disengage reliably. This slight bending of definitions still leaves the XVI superior to a great deal of the plane set. In doing this, I have generously allowed your "side" of this debate to give the ability to simply run away from the SpitXVI more importance than it perhaps deserves. One does not control airspace by running away.

I'm not sure what to make of someone who is innocent of such common lingo as "double-superior" nonetheless choosing to argue with me on a matter of aircraft performance. And people arguing with me about the perkability of the XVI who do not even know its top speed at sea-level, turn-rate, etc, that is just laughable.

[Anaxogoras]

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

So you can only give me an example of an unbalancing airplane, and not actually tell me what "unbalancing" is itself.  Are we in a Socratic dialogue?

In the past, I have suggested that ENY/Perks be based on K/D ratios and, or, use, and the suggestion was roundly rejected.  Ultimately, the rejection is correct: K/D ratios are easily skewed by who uses an airplane, e.g. P-38J, and popularity is skewed by factors other than performance, e.g. P-51D.

We are still without a working definition of "unbalancing," but the term is used all of the time to say this should be perked, and that not.  It is all ad-hoc.

My only reason for saying the XVI should be perked is that the F4U-1C is perked.  They are different aircraft, no doubt, but their strengths balance out, even to the slight advantage of the XVI.  But I wouldn't care if we unperked the F4U-1C.  I don't think it would cause armageddon in the main arena, and at least it would be a step toward consistency and I could stop saying the XVI should be perked.

You want the Mk XVI perked, you need to justify it.  Nobody has ever made a valid argument for it yet.  Saying it is "double plus good" is just BS hyperbole.

I've given a valid argument that you simply ignored.  But here it is, super simple:

The F4U-1C is perked.
The XVI is as good as the F4U-1C.
Aircraft of similar performance should both be perked, or not perked (fairness principle)
Therefore the XVI should be perked, or the F4U-1C should be unperked.
QED.

[BnZs]

Tempests, C-Hogs, 4-Hogs and Ponies are the predominant rides. Most of them coming in from about 17k or higher (couple guys in particular I've seen called out on that, too). Most of them make a couple BnZ passes through to pick up their two kills, then run like hell if they encounter a co-alt and e con.

The number of Ponies is clearly irrelevant to the point I was making, as they are unperked in the MA as well. In my observation, I think they are a little less common in the DA lake than the MA, being what we call "double-inferior" to the omnipresent Temps and F4U-4s.

[Steve]

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       K/D Ratio
P-51D       1.1523

Sorry about that.     

[Oldman731]

dont know where you are coming from with that comment oldman. 

if a long term player was flying a Spit so what???   

What makes me so  about these anti spit threads is all of the haters thinking spit drivers can't fly anything else and use that as an excuse for their obvious lack of ACM ability to be able to defeat it.

If you can fly a spit at total pwnage level (see Kazaa)  then you have no place to comment on who should or shouldnt be flying it.

Good day to you sir!

And good day to you!

I suspect you really do know where I'm coming from.  The Spit (and here I mean the 8, 9 and 16) is an easy plane to fly and to get kills with.  Its climb and maneuverability are not much worse than a Zeke, it's guns are not much worse than a FW 190A8, it doesn't stall unless you're trying to stall, and it's reasonably fast.  I think it's a great plane for people to learn on.  But once you've learned how to fly and fight, it seems to me that you should move on to something more challenging (which is just about any other fighter), if only from personal pride.  Even kids move on from t-ball.

As Akak and others have pointed out, there's no particular reason why I should care what other people are flying, and I certainly don't mean to imply that there should be restrictions on free choice.  I've always mentally excluded Brits and Canadians from the Spitfire equation because the plane is almost an article of faith for them, but I have real trouble respecting a non-English Commonwealth vet who flys the poster queen of easy-mode airplanes. 

Simple as that, really.

- oldman

[oTRALFZo]

Couple years ago when I first started, the whine was directed to LAs.
Seems to be now a days that you see is majority of spit16. I personaly dont have any feelings either way and just find them challenging to get in your gunsight, but once you do, they are fragile birds. As far as the Tempest..its my favorite ride, but please dont unperk it. Lute is right..your gonna have the same mess as in the DA which is why I choose not to fly there anymore.

Im just confused about the D9 having such a high perk value, IMO..I would have it set the same as a pony.

[RoGenT]

Just for sake of convo here. What do you think would happen if both the 16 and the pony would set to be perked plane?

I think more people would fly the LAs, Temps, F4u4, Spit14s  C-hog., etc etc?



(I always forget what other corsiar is perked)

[Karnak]

The F4U-1C is perked.

True.

The XVI is as good as the F4U-1C.

False.

Aircraft of similar performance should both be perked, or not perked (fairness principle)

True.

Therefore the XVI should be perked, or the F4U-1C should be unperked.
QED.

False, due to the Mk XVI not being as good as the F4U-1C.