another dumb wish

[E25280]

No one seems to know what "unbalancing" is, and I frankly don't care.

You've been given an example of what unbalancing is and shown what unbalancing is not.  The fact there is no hard and fast rule is what has you all hot and bothered.

You frankly don't care -- there is the crux of your problem.  You only care about your own agenda and don't care to examine the issue from any other standpoint.

As for the OP's idea -- don't like it.  Perks being used as a "reward" seems a much better idea to me that simply handing them out to a new player for free.  Perking all planes with a 10 ENY and up simply means fewer competitive rides for the new and average players, which as Karnak pointed out can only be detrimental to player retention.

[phatzo]

I think that anoob getting some perks on first payment isn't that bad an idea. But only say 200, not enough for your average 262 but on the way.

[Traveler]

In AW if you bombed the aircraft factory that aircraft became unavailable.  Until that factory was rebuilt.  Gave the strat targets some meaning. And provided a reason to plan and fly combat air patrols missions around strat targets.

[Karnak]

no because it adds a penalty for death, instead of being able to up, HO, die over and over and over in a La7.   People already stated that they are too impatient crybabys to have any sort of time out for deaths, so this is the other approach.

and if a noob wants to up a 262 and blow all their perks in the first hour..  well that would be a pretty moronic thing to do... oh well.

Too much of a death penalty fills the arena with cowards.  Unlike reality, there is nothing in AH really forcing people too fight and if the penalty for dieing becomes too steep, then people won't fight except when the odds are massively in their favor by either altitude, numbers or something else.

[BnZs]

The fact there is no hard and fast rule is what has you all hot and bothered.

It would get any remotely thinking person hot and bothered.

Let us say tomorrow the regime in whatever country you live in declares you "vzornqed" and you have to pay more taxes. Now they can't tell you exactly what "vzornqed" is, and it doesn't seem to correlate well with your income, criminal record, carbon footprint, tobacco usage, height, weight, or Dylan album ownership. But be assured you are definitely "vzornqed", ya just gotta trust 'em on this one. It's for the best. 

I'm hardly ashamed to admit that I don't care about something that seems arbitrary and undefinable.

[E25280]

It would get any remotely thinking person hot and bothered.

Let us say tomorrow the regime in whatever country you live in declares you "vzornqed" and you have to pay more taxes. Now they can't tell you exactly what "vzornqed" is, and it doesn't seem to correlate well with your income, criminal record, carbon footprint, tobacco usage, height, weight, or Dylan album ownership. But be assured you are definitely "vzornqed", ya just gotta trust 'em on this one. It's for the best. 

I'm hardly ashamed to admit that I don't care about something that seems arbitrary and undefinable.

What is the hard and fast rule that defines love?
What is the hard and fast rule that defines beauty?
What is the hard and fast rule that defines ugliness?
What is the hard and fast rule that defines what would be a "fair trade" for someone's most prized possession?
What is the hard and fast rule that defines "right"?
What is the hard and fast rule that defines "wrong"?
etc. etc. etc.

You must lead a very bothered existence if you do not like anything that can not be put in a box.  There are many things in life that are both relative and not definable by "objective criteria." 

The key term there is relative.  You can not define by a set number what "unbalanced" would be in the arenas because it necessarily depends on what is going on with the rest of the plane set.

Slapshot already gave you a definition of what unbalancing is.  You can continue to pretend it isn't sufficient, but it was accurate.

[StokesAk]

What if we only enabled Spit1's at all the bases?

[BnZs]

Ha, the great problems of the human condition now? I still think that for a *game* a consistent definition could be arrived at.

The key term there is relative.  You can not define by a set number what "unbalanced" would be in the arenas because it necessarily depends on what is going on with the rest of the plane set.

You could easily define unbalancing by a set number, usage for instance. However, the only benchmark I've ever heard for "too much" usage was 20%. We have no indication whether or not most of the currently perked planes would draw 20% usage under today's MA conditions, because the proposition has not been tested. It is not even certain the C-Hog would today draw 20% if unperked.

[Anaxogoras]

You've been given an example of what unbalancing is and shown what unbalancing is not.  The fact there is no hard and fast rule is what has you all hot and bothered.

An example of "unbalancing" is not an explanation of the term, nor does it count as knowing what the term means.  If you say that the term has no definition then you have no right to the term yourself.

Again, we sound like we're in a Socratic dialogue, even more so because the student always gets tired of Socrates and tells him to piss off when he insists on a definition and not a mere example.

I understand your point about a lot of human language not having exact definitions, and I agree with it.  But "unbalancing" is a term that should have definition, much like "mass," "momentum" and other scientific terms, because they are all artificial.  We have explicitly created them for a specific purpose; they did not arise out of the natural history of our species.

Slapshot already gave you a definition of what unbalancing is.  You can continue to pretend it isn't sufficient, but it was accurate.

Slapshot is on record as admitting that the SpitI could possibly be perked according to his definition, so I cannot accept it as viable.

[E25280]

Slapshot is on record as admitting that the SpitI could possibly be perked according to his definition, so I cannot accept it as viable.

Then the problem is yours, not his.  You "cannot accept" anything that does not fit your agenda.

Why don't you boys give HTC a call and ask them to give you their set criteria for what is unbalancing, and then demand that they remove the term from the help pages if they can't.  Let us all know how that works out for you.

[Anaxogoras]

Then the problem is yours, not his.  You "cannot accept" anything that does not fit your agenda.

My agenda is that a good definition of "unbalancing" should never allow for the Spit I to be perked?  Ok, I admit that, and I'm proud of it.

Come on, you can do better.

[E25280]

My agenda is that a good definition of "unbalancing" should never allow for the Spit I to be perked?  Ok, I admit that, and I'm proud of it.

Come on, you can do better.

No, I am not going to bother to say anything more.  I just did a search for Slapshot's exact definition and realized you two have been on this merry-go-round for MONTHS.  You are either just enjoying the attention, too blinded by your own agenda, or too dense to comprehend.

Just not worth my time anymore.

[Larry]

The only perks that I think should be given away is when someone first subscribes and that should only be 50-100 in each category. Everyone else would have to earn their perks.

[branch37]

i agree with any system that reduces the number of spit 16s, P-51s and other "uber" planes and that encourages greater use of the other planes.....just my opinion. 

[Chalenge]

This entire thread is a whine about pwnage.