20 eny 190a8 really....

[Karnak]

If the P-51D cannot be perked, and I strongly suspect it cannot be for business reasons, then perking things like the P-47M, La-7, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9 and La-7 are nonsensical.  Having perked units that never get used because they aren't worth the perk cost (see Mk XIV, Spitfire and Ta152H-1) doesn't make the perk system better, it just means developer resources were wasted on the creation of that unit.

[ink]

I think every plane should have a perk price......every one of them.

then a training arena to earn perks....

using the AI to train....gaining perks to use.....

players that have been here longer or with a higher K/D should be worth more to shoot down.....

unless of course you are surrounded by green and he is alone then he wont be worth much but if he kills you while surrounded by green you will be worth more....

I wish they could implement something like that....points being awarded by the number of friendly and enemy in immediate area and not just plane type.

[Karnak]

Ink,

I think that would create an arena of runners.  You increase the penalty for dying too much and people will avoid fighting when they think they might lose.

[Lusche]

I think every plane should have a perk price......every one of them.

then a training arena to earn perks....

using the AI to train....gaining perks to use.....

So you want even less player A2A combat than we have today? Why?

[bozon]

Each of us has a different reason to want a plane perked. Some want them perked based on performance. I'd like to add a rarity factor. P47M/N were not representative of the thunderbold family. Neither did the ta152 representative of the 190 lineage. 3 gun La7s were not the norm, or F4Uc. All these planes have a place in the game, but I'd rather if the typical historical models are the ones we meet the most. Also, perk cost and earning adds some interest. There is no point in arguing about ENY values when I have nothing to spend them on. Perking the La7/109K/P47M at 1-2 points will not make them disappear. They all have very capable models that are just one small step down the lineage that are currently almost never used. How many La5s and G14s do you see? I want the population ratio of La5/La7, P47Dxx/M and 109G14/K4 reversed.

All the above is just my opinion and you are free to disagree. We do not call the shots anyway, so this argument is just bits and blips in cyberspace.

[ink]

Ink,

I think that would create an arena of runners.  You increase the penalty for dying too much and people will avoid fighting when they think they might lose.

So you want even less player A2A combat than we have today? Why?

no obviously I would not want that....no friggin way its hard enough to get some to fight as it is......

that coupled with earning more perks for being out numbered....and less for being in a hoard....you guys dont think that would encourage more to fight?

no matter what I would not want to see less fighting.....

[Lusche]

that coupled with earning more perks for being out numbered....and less for being in a hoard....you guys dont think that would encourage more to fight?

If all fighters would cost some perks, the need for perks would rise massively.
And getting perks for fighting AI in a 'training arena'  would then simply mean that the great majority of players would have to spend  a lot of time there to be able to afford flying in the main arena. More players fighting AI = less players fighting each other in the main. It's a simply economic calculation.

Earning more perks for being out numbered would not offset that, as only a small minority of players could benefit from that.

[ink]

If all fighters would cost some perks, the need for perks would rise massively.
And getting perks for fighting AI in a 'training arena'  would then simply mean that the great majority of players would have to spend  a lot of time there to be able to afford flying in the main arena. More players fighting AI = less players fighting each other in the main. It's a simply economic calculation.

Earning more perks for being out numbered would not offset that, as only a small minority of players could benefit from that.

I see what you are saying

[Tank-Ace]

I agree.  There are a whole host of planes that I'd use if they did perk them.  I'd use the Mossi and Tiffy for porkin' runs even if they did add in small perk cost (the Mossi's 30 ENY is a bit high, but I'm not going to complain  ), I use them both a lot.   

Also, there are many planes that could certainly use a 1-2 perk cost.  Candidates are the P51D, La7, Spit16, P47M, Ta152, 109K-4, 190D-9, Lancaster, B24's, B17's, and maybe a few others.  HTC has done a good job with the the gv's, I think they could/should pass along adding a small perk cost to a host of   

I disagree. Instead of the spit 16 being the crutch ride, it would be the spit 8. Or the P-51B (it flies damn near identical to the D).

And it's primarily the speed and engine power of the K4 that give it even a chance at perk status. If it were perked,  just about everything in the same class of performance would warrant perking, since almost all are superior in some other aspects as well. Look at the F4U-1A, and the Ki-84. both have similar strengths in speed or climb, but are far better dogfighters.

The K4 isn't any all that dominant unless flown with a very high degree of skill. And the same applies to the 262. Or any other plane for that matter. I've dominated fights in an F-4, so should we perk it?

You cannot simply use perks to curb dweebishnes. You can't effectively limit tard use of one specific plane without hurting it's usage by players that actually use it to fight. You've got to may incentives for playing in a different way, and make the unwanted method of playing less effective.

[Karnak]

Its funny watching Bf109K-4 fans talk smack about their own plane in order to draw attention away from it.  The F4U-1x is out performed by the Bf109K-4 in most air-to-air attributes, particularly in climb and speed.  The Ki-84 is more nimble, but far slower with poorer climb performance and its altitude performance is rotten.

[Tank-Ace]

How much does altitude performance come into play in the MA's. Really not that much. Not saying that it isn't important, only that it isn't necessarily relevant. And the Ki-84 is right up there with the K4 as one of the best fighters in the game.

As for the - 1, yes it has poorer performance as far as climb and acceleration, but down low, it's pretty fast. It's also more maneuverable, and just a more flexible fighter all around.

IIRC, you've said other non quantifiable factors go into ENY, and I think the same should be true of perk price. Beyond that, are the P-51, K4, Ta 152, Spit 16, B-24, and others truly perk worthy? I don't feel they are, as they have to be flown by an ace, or at high altitude in order for their superiority to become apparent.

But the Tempest? The Ar 234? The B-29? the 4-hog? Those are all visibly and significantly superior unless they are being flown in a way that highlights their weakness to the maximum possible degree.


And one final issue, if we perk all the high altitude interceptors, the newer players are left with planes that are rather mediocre at altitude.

[Karnak]

Bf109K-4 shouldn't be perked unless a whole raft of other aircraft are perked at the same time.

I just object to the exaggerations of its weaknesses and the minimizing of its strengths.  I would much rather encounter an F4U-1x when in the Mossie than the Bf109K-4.  I'll admit that Ki-84s are pretty bad too, but at least I can disengage (run) from them if I choose to do so.

As to high altitude performance, how important it is depends on the player and what they want to do.  I would love to have the Mosquito Mk 30 for the sole purpose of high altitude bomber interception.  I like the Mk VI for its history and looks, but there are times when I really, really want high blown engines on it.

[Butcher]

As to high altitude performance, how important it is depends on the player and what they want to do.  I would love to have the Mosquito Mk 30 for the sole purpose of high altitude bomber interception.  I like the Mk VI for its history and looks, but there are times when I really, really want high blown engines on it.

Yeah I would love to see more mossies added, especially the Mk XXX, last I read being 415 mph at at, problem is our mossy barely gets above 24k even then cant chase down bombers.

True its fast, but consider the buffs are flying full speed as well, I had a hell of a time trying to catch up to B24s at 25k, let alone get into any shot other then dead 6.

[gyrene81]

Yeah I would love to see more mossies added, especially the Mk XXX, last I read being 415 mph at at, problem is our mossy barely gets above 24k even then cant chase down bombers.

True its fast, but consider the buffs are flying full speed as well, I had a hell of a time trying to catch up to B24s at 25k, let alone get into any shot other then dead 6.

you mean the speed charts are wrong?

[Karnak]

gyrene81,

Current Mossie chart:


The one you grabbed was from before its update.