Author Topic: 163  (Read 5884 times)

Offline RotBaron

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3518
Re: 163
« Reply #90 on: July 10, 2013, 07:27:57 PM »
Is this the thread/basis for the increase in perk price?

I've probably taken the 163 up less than a dozen times. I'm rather unskilled with it, and at its price now will forever remain unskilled.

I really don't get the increase; it can only be used out of one base, it has a very short fuel duration, it is easy fodder for anyone with decent skills as a bomber gunner, if you catch one near the front lines it will be harassed all the way back to base and many will attempt to vulch it. Furthermore, the cannon trajectory is terrible. I certainly won't give anyone the opportunity to take ~90 perks away from me that I worked (yes, worked, in ~7 months I've been present for maybe a dozen Knight wins) hard for, often very hard. Not ranting about the lack of Knight wins, it is what it is,  just pointing out some of us don't get 25 free ftr perks on a very regular basis. 


Why spend resources modeling a plane that sits in the hangar for the majority of players? Time would be much better spent on planes like the J2M.




« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 07:32:25 PM by RotBaron »
They're casting their bait over there, see?

Offline BuckShot

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1721
Re: 163
« Reply #91 on: July 10, 2013, 07:33:05 PM »
Was the perk price increased?
Game handle: HellBuck

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23876
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: 163
« Reply #92 on: July 10, 2013, 07:39:56 PM »
Was the perk price increased?

Yes, from 50 to 100, which I can fully understand.

However, what  I don't get was the reduction of the Tempest's  perk price from 50 to 40... but that's a different topic :old:
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: 163
« Reply #93 on: July 10, 2013, 08:37:19 PM »
The change from 25% to 75% fuel has to be the dumbest change ever.
Because it was totally great to log onto the game when you had a spare hour only to find 25% fuel across every front and no fighting because of the lack of fuel.

That sure was the best.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline HawkerMKII

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1133
Re: 163
« Reply #94 on: July 10, 2013, 08:48:20 PM »
Because it was totally great to log onto the game when you had a spare hour only to find 25% fuel across every front and no fighting because of the lack of fuel.

That sure was the best.

but no one says anything about ords being down for hours on end
8th of November 1965, 173RD Airborne <S>

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23876
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: 163
« Reply #95 on: July 10, 2013, 08:51:59 PM »
but no one says anything about ords being down for hours on end


You can up and fight againts the other players without ords. You can't do the same without fuel.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Re: 163
« Reply #96 on: July 11, 2013, 12:30:59 AM »
The problem isn't the 163's perk price.  The problem is the concentrated strats near the 163 bases.

Bring back the zone strat system so bomber pilots have targets all over the map allowing them to avoid the 163's.  Then the 163's primary role will be defending HQ as it was when the perk price was originally set.

No perk price will stop 163's from attacking bombers as it is now without taking the 163 totally away from the average player.
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23876
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: 163
« Reply #97 on: July 11, 2013, 12:42:43 AM »
Bring back the zone strat system so bomber pilots have targets all over the map allowing them to avoid the 163's.  Then the 163's primary role will be defending HQ as it was when the perk price was originally set.


Additional zone targets of local importance, like extensive railyards (working as supply multiliers for the bases in their zone would be great. Simply removing the central strats  and going back to the old factory system not so much...
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3993
Re: 163
« Reply #98 on: July 11, 2013, 04:56:39 AM »

Additional zone targets of local importance, like extensive railyards (working as supply multiliers for the bases in their zone would be great. Simply removing the central strats  and going back to the old factory system not so much...
+1 to this
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7301
Re: 163
« Reply #99 on: July 11, 2013, 07:05:57 AM »
The 163 is now 25 perk points over the price I am willing to pay in perks for.

Well done to AcesHigh for hanger queening it for at least 1 player  :aok
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10


"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline Lodger

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: 163
« Reply #100 on: July 11, 2013, 09:36:18 AM »
If the perk price should be raised for the 163, I think it should be like letīs say 10% or so of the fighter perks the pilot has at the moment he wants to up it.

I have somewhat about 800 perks at the moment, so 80 perks would be a great loss for me, if I get killed/auger/whatever.
And so would it be for someone who has like 10,000 perks, if he loses 1000.

Everyone would think twice if upping a 163 is necessary or not.  :devil
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 09:39:21 AM by Lodger »

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: 163
« Reply #101 on: July 11, 2013, 04:45:41 PM »
No perk price will stop 163's from attacking bombers as it is now without taking the 163 totally away from the average player.

+1
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline RotBaron

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3518
Re: 163
« Reply #102 on: July 11, 2013, 05:42:30 PM »


No perk price will stop 163's from attacking bombers as it is now without taking the 163 totally away from the average player.


I'm not saying this be a smarthat, but  I believe you're missing a comma in that sentence, or if you are not then I believe I completely disagree with you.

If what you are saying is a perk price above where it was takes it away from the masses, then I agree.

On the other hand if you are saying the 163 should only be in the hands of the better players, well, then I disagree.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 05:46:24 PM by RotBaron »
They're casting their bait over there, see?

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: 163
« Reply #103 on: July 11, 2013, 06:21:25 PM »
So how many of you didn't early on either crash a 163 on take off or on landing?
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: 163
« Reply #104 on: July 11, 2013, 06:28:41 PM »
So how many of you didn't early on either crash a 163 on take off or on landing?

Just one?  The frist time.  More than one?  The second time  :o  :devil
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.