Myth: SpitXVI is "slow"

[BnZs]

the spixteen is too easily beaten to be perked....seriously....now, if you went to a furball and saw 85% of all the players there were in a spixteen....

Actually, if I went to a furballs and 85% of planes there were SpitXVIs, I would consider that fact in and of itself to be irrelevant to question of perkage.

[B4Buster]

This thread has provided me qith quite a bit of entertainment...but now I think I'll speak up

I don't need to crunch a bunch of numbers...Spit 16 should not be perked because:

There are many people who play the game, that fly Spits because it's what their country had flown in WW2. What other plane do people that want to represent the RAF, (or outher countres that flew the spit) have that's all around a capable fighter for the MAs?

The Hurricane is WAY too slow to really compete
Typhoon isn't a good turner at all
Mosquito is tricky for someone who hasn't flown it, and is also a horde magnet

After the Spits, in the situation the Spit 16...what do they have? Yeah, they can fly numerous other planes with RAF markings, but that isn't the same IMO. Telling a Brit he can't fly a Spit 16 without paying up would be like saying us Americans couldn't fly P-51s without paying up for them...it's all the same.

Another reason why it shouldn't be perked...
There are many people in the game that play once or twice a week if lucky. Many people say "Oh, people need to jump out of the Spit and learn a 'real' plane". Well, that isn't a possibility for alot of guys. The Spit 16 is convenient in the fact that someone can jump in it, and still compete with the regulars. I imagine getting knocked down every sortie isn't fun...it gives this type of person a chance.

If the Spit were perked, the poor fellows would have to use perhaps a few months worth of built - up perk points to buy one because of their limited playing time.

You "perk the spit fanatics" need to mellow out a bit. If you're getting wacked by them that bad, send me a PM and I'll let you join my plane while I'm fighting one, you might learn something 

[Lye-El]

If it's killing you that much maybe you should be flying it to live longer. Or play in the AvA last I knew they only allow the lower performance planes in there.

[B4Buster]

If it's killing you that much maybe you should be flying it to live longer. Or play in the AvA last I knew they only allow the lower performance planes in there.

That is a very untrue statement.

[grizz441]

Unless that plane is the SpitXIV...

Honestly, my problems with this standard are 1. It hasn't really been tested for any of the perked planes except for the F4U-1C several years ago. 2. I think that if everything were unperked, and every noob was given equal access to them, several perk planes might not make the kind of k/d "benchmarks" people are setting for perkage. 3. It *STILL* leaves open a possibility that a player-favored type could be perked while a type of approximately equal capability would not be, which seems terribly arbitrary.

At least you didn't completely sidestep my point.  Only half a side step.  A step in the right direction though.

[BnZs]

At least you didn't completely sidestep my point.  Only half a side step.  A step in the right direction though.

What is there to sidestep? You believe usage and k/d are important. I believe they are arbitrary and unreliable indicators because they are too dependent on factors that have nothing to do with relative aircraft performance. You presumably disagree.

Using them could at least conceivably lead to a situation where one aircraft has a perk price/low ENY and another aircraft basically equal in capacity is unperked/high ENY. I believe this possibility alone makes usage and k/d untenable for use as a standard. Presumably you disagree.

 I believe that if an aircraft enjoys what amounts to near complete a2a superiority over a large number of other fighters in the set it should probably be perked, you apparently do not.

As I told Skyrock, I believe that even if a given airplane accounted for 85% of usage, that alone would *not* be a reason for perking.  I'm presuming you disagree with me here as well.

We are at an impasse on the matter because we begin from completely different premises about what the perk system should and should not do.

[Steve]

A I believe that even if a given airplane accounted for 85% of usage, that alone would *not* be a reason for perking. 

Well this is counterindicative to your own argument. You want the spixteen perked because it renders many planes irrelevant.
 Planes not flown are irrelevant. If a plane was using 85% of all sorties, there would be many planes in the set that would be unflown, and thereby irrelevant. This is the very crux of your argument.

Now go ahead and tell me how I'm wrong because you are the only person who ever makes valid points.  Tell me how wrong I am  even though I'm merely echoing a point you made.  This should be interesting.

[E25280]

I believe that if an aircraft enjoys what amounts to near complete a2a superiority over a large number of other fighters in the set it should probably be perked, you apparently do not.

This assertion is your fundamental flaw.  You pretend as if your data shows a "near complete superiority" when there is data that is just as relevant that says it does not enjoy such a large advantage in the typical MA environment.  But you are too blinded by your own crusade to even consider anything outside your hand-picked "supporting" data.

I said this all the way back on page 10, and I think it bears repeating.

So many words, and you still miss the point . . .

The Spixteen is killed by all other planes almost as often as it kills all other planes.  Meaning, whatever advantages it has A) can be overcome B) are not so large as to make pilot skill irrelevant and/or C) has offsetting disadvantages that you are not accounting for.

If it was so clearly and absolutely superior to all the other non-perked aircraft in the game, we would see them to a larger degree than we do.

But good luck chasing your windmills.

[BnZs]

Okay Steve.

Plane "X" is being flown for 85% of all sorties. Let us say that one of the planes *not* being flown much at all is plane "Y". But plane "X" is not in fact more capable than plane "Y"...they are about equal. That means that "X" being present even in very large numbers does not really effect the viability of "Y" for anyone who chooses to fly "Y". I would not see the justice of a situation where "X" pilots were punished with a perk price or lower ENY while "Y" pilots were rewarded with a more perks/higher ENY for flying something basically equal in capability.

An interesting real world example is the HurriIIC in the EW arena. Some people, noting that the HurriIIc has some very large usage and k/d numbers in there have called for it to be perked in the EW arena. But, because almost the entire fighter set in there would seem to have a speed advantage (including the P-40B, 109E, and Spit MkI) or a turn advantage (A6M2, Hurri MkI), I do not think perking the HurrIIc in EW would be justified.

Well this is counterindicative to your own argument. You want the spixteen perked because it renders many planes irrelevant.
 Planes not flown are irrelevant. If a plane was using 85% of all sorties, there would be many planes in the set that would be unflown, and thereby irrelevant. This is the very crux of your argument.

Now go ahead and tell me how I'm wrong because you are the only person who ever makes valid points.  Tell me how wrong I am  even though I'm merely echoing a point you made.  This should be interesting.

[BnZs]

E, I am aware of the k/d numbers for the SpitXVI.

One of the interesting things you'll see in the k/d stats from 2008 is that the Fw-190 A5 has a slightly higher k/d in the LW MA than the SpitXVI. Putting them side by side the Spit is faster, turns much better, climbs and accelerates much better, rolls about as well, and its Hispanos+.50s are likely a better gun package than even the 4 cannon option on the 190.

Now, at this point, I must ask you...do you honestly think the A-5 is inherently more capable as a LW MA fighter than the SpitXVI? Or could it be that the kind of pilots who fly SpitXVIs vs. those who tend to fly 190 A-5s and the situations into which they are flown are what makes the difference in k/d?

If we agree that it is the latter, (and I think we all agree that the SpitXVI's stats are hurt badly by all the new pilots flying them) then those human factors are separate from the machine's actual capabilities and thus I reject using them as criteria for perk/ENY purposes as regards that machine.

[BaldEagl]

Putting them side by side the Spit is faster, turns much better, climbs and accelerates much better, rolls about as well, and its Hispanos+.50s are likely a better gun package than even the 4 cannon option on the 190.

You can't be serious.

[BnZs]

Bald, take a look at Gav's roll rate scores.
The SpitXVI rolls a little better than all 190s at 200mph, the 190s roll a little better at 300mph, especially the A5, and a little better at 400mph, although at that speed the difference actually appears to be more narrow than it was at 300mph. Yep, "rolls about as well" is a fair way to describe it. Don't remember whether these numbers come from the 2 cannon or 4 cannon package on the A-5.

Edit: I realize you may also have been questioning my reference to the "4 cannon option on the 190". I was talking about the 190 A-5's 4 cannon package. According to Dokgonzo's, a 4 cannon 190 A-5 is somewhat more lethal than a SpitXVI, however, the MG/FFs have inferior ballistics and short duration. So even calling lethality between the 190 A-5 and the SpitXVI a "wash" would be exceedingly generous to the 190.

You can't be serious.

[MajWoody]

Paleeeeeeeeeeeaase let it die already.

[Oleg]

lol, even HiTech said screw it!

I wonder, why this thread didnt die yet. At least, after hitech reply.

http://kippentuin.nl/ramblings/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/somebody_wrong.png

[Anaxogoras]

So we're all agreed that the Spit XIV should be unperked, right?