Myth: SpitXVI is "slow"

[Anaxogoras]

The Spit XVI is not imbalancing as is clear due to the fact that it is not A) the most used aircraft and B) not remotely close to the most used aircraft ever.

Until it meets at least the first of those criteria, it cannot even be argued that it is imbalancing.

Unperk the Spit XIV and it would not meet either of these criteria, yet it is perked nonetheless.

[shreck]

Spits are for kids                           

[BnZs]

The Spit XVI is not imbalancing as is clear due to the fact that it is not A) the most used aircraft and B) not remotely close to the most used aircraft ever.

Uh...wasn't it the *second* most used aircraft? That is "not even remotely close" to being the most used aircraft?  

Until it meets at least the first of those criteria, it cannot even be argued that it is imbalancing.

Hmmm...so if the C-Hog should be unperked and its usage does not exceed that of the P-51D, it should remain unperked?

Myself, I say the "usage" standard has never been really tested for most perked planes anyway. If it were to be tested and failed, say even the Tempest failed to capture 20% of all sorties, would you be content with leaving it unperked?

[BnZs]

Found some stats I was looking for, for the whole of 2008. Thanks to Lusche for compiling them.


The P-51D was more used than the SpitXVI. But only 10% or so more.


The SpitXVI actually enjoyed a slightly higher k/d than the P-51D, which is *highly* surprising even to me. An aircraft that is 20mph slower possessing a higher k/d ratio might mean something. Of course, looking at the types of aircraft that enjoyed higher k/ds than either aircraft again casts great doubt upon the usefulness of k/d numbers.


This one is interesting....It would seem that if the SpitXVI was not competed with by some other fairly effective and popular members of the Spitfire family, it might indeed become the most popular type, by a wide margin




 

[detch01]

Again, HTC has never defined the word "imbalancing". You are defining it for them.

No, actually he's not, he's taking the logical step. We know two things for sure about the perking system: first, HTC has already perked an airplane because of its unbalancing affect on game play - the F4U1-C; second, we know that HTC does have a definition of what does and what does not consitute an unbalancing affect on game play, even though the details of that definition have not been made public. From what we know of the perking system and the spixteen's current perk status, the inference that it does not meet the requirements of HTC's definition is a fairly safe one to make. As I understand it, when the F4U1-C was introduced it became the dominant choice of ride in the arena by a large enough factor for it to affect the game. Hence the perk.
The Spit MkXVI isn't perked so the only information we can take from that is that HTC does not (yet) consider the MkXVI sufficiently unbalancing to perk it, performance-wise, useage-wise or otherwise.
The fact of the matter is that it is you who is trying to force a redefinition of what does and does not constitute grounds for perking an airplane in the game. And, doing so with the tricks of bush-league demagoguery. Twist or spin that any way you want and you'll still be pissing into wind. One would hope you have the sense to close your mouth before you drown in it.

asw

[Anaxogoras]

we know that HTC does have a definition of what does and what does not constitute an unbalancing affect on game play

How do we know this?  This is crucial to your argument.

That they're shooting from the hip and making perk decisions ad-hoc is consistent with the game we have today.

[BnZs]

The standard for perkage cannot be TOO deeply carved in stone, because the Ta-152 apparently once was considered perkable, but now is an unperked ride.

And, doing so with the tricks of bush-league demagoguery. Twist or spin that any way you want and you'll still be pissing into wind. One would hope you have the sense to close your mouth before you drown in it.

Heh, once again someone resorts to vitriol...why do you find it necessary, if you are as clearly "right" as you think you are? Shut my mouth? If I am clearly wrong, then silencing me is surely unnecessary, correct?

[Karnak]

Uh...wasn't it the *second* most used aircraft? That is "not even remotely close" to being the most used aircraft?  

How about you try to learn how to read?  Hmm?  Does that sound like a useful plan?

[Steve]

The SpitXVI actually enjoyed a slightly higher k/d than the P-51D, which is *highly* surprising even to me.

  I think one contributing factor to this could be that the 51 is used much more in attack role than the spixteen. Ord carrying sorties....

[Saxman]

N/M, misread the chart.

[BnZs]

How about you try to learn how to read?  Hmm?  Does that sound like a useful plan?

Huh

The Spit XVI is not imbalancing as is clear due to the fact that it is not A) the most used aircraft and B) not remotely close to the most used aircraft ever.

By "most used aircraft ever" are you referring to the C-Hog? Because your sentence could also be interpreted to mean you were claiming the SpitXVI has never been close to being the #1 aircraft in usage.

I don't blame you for being unclear. I will blame you for opening yet another vial of vitriol because of you were unclear...WTF?

[Karnak]

I obviously meant the F4U-1C.  If I hadn't, the word "ever" wouldn't have been there, nor the "not remotely close" line.

The idea that the Spitfire Mk XVI and F4U-1C are on par with eachother in terms of effect on the game is obviously wrong.  You keep equating the two, yet the fact that the P-51D is used more than the Spitfire Mk XVI and yet the F4U-1C was used far, far more than either the much more famous P-51D or Spitfire Mk IX should give you some idea that you are either not factoring something into your calculations or you are not weighting the criteria correctly.

[BaldEagl]

I get it now... BNZ is trying to catch up to Karnak's post count.   

[BnZs]

The idea that the Spitfire Mk XVI and F4U-1C are on par with eachother in terms of effect on the game is obviously wrong.  You keep equating the two, yet the fact that the P-51D is used more than the Spitfire Mk XVI and yet the F4U-1C was used far, far more than either the much more famous P-51D or Spitfire Mk IX should give you some idea that you are either not factoring something into your calculations or you are not weighting the criteria correctly.

You are not factoring in that it has been a long time since the F4U-1C was introduced. Looking at the performance objectively, the F4U-1C is not clearly superior to the SpitXVI. In fact, it is not clearly superior to the much faster Typhoon, or the better-turning, better accelerating N1K. The logic of protecting an MA already awash in free quad cannon birds from what amounts to a very well-armed F4U-1D simply does not work. The only logic that really does work for perking the C-Hog is to prevent it from comprising a majority of F4Us in the main arena.

If it were unperked now, after the initial spike settled down it *might* claim the #1 spot in total usage, although the popularity of the P-51D remains a big hill to climb. It almost certainly would not comprise 20% of sorties or even 15%. That is an unrealistic standard in a plane set that contains nearly 60 fighter models. It is a standard that has never been tested on the other perk planes and has not been tested on the C-Hog in years. It is a standard you might hesitate to use if it ever was tested and the planes you consider perk-worthy failed to make the benchmark.

[BnZs]

I get it now... BNZ is trying to catch up to Karnak's post count.   

Someone making a post this devoid of information is accusing ME of padding my post count?