Hello? chirp chirp anyone out there?

[Swoop]

Ya know, until Roc chimed in with "You are welcome to waste pixels arguing about it though" all I was thinking was how this thread has gone to a polite, very professional discussion with Brooke ensuring he'd responded to any point or query made by the player base.  Reminds me of a conference call I just took part in....  Brooke.

Roc, shush, you're not helping.

[ROC]

Roc, shush, you're not helping.

Wait, so I'm obligated to listen and accept viewpoints but not voice mine? O...K  then.  That's probably not going to happen Swoop.  People are going sideways over whether or not the TBM should or should not be in an upcoming event, I simply pointed out that they will, in fact, be there.

[Brooke]

Honestly I don't think this day in WW2 events should be used in your data. Unless you are willing to use FSO data.

This day in ww2 is hugely different than scenario.

"This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea" and the Coral Sea scenarios share what is the most-important aspect of setup for torpedo bombers:  auto ack lethality at 0.02, no 5", no quad 40 mm.  That has an enormous impact on torpedo bombers and how they work.  I don't know what the FSO settings were.  Also, neither This Day nor scenarios are squad based, and I think that has an impact on how people play.

However, if anyone wants to examine the FSO settings to see if they are the same and then to gather statistics from logs, they can do so.  It's all publicly available data.

[Devil 505]

"This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea" and the Coral Sea scenarios share what is the most-important aspect of setup for torpedo bombers:  auto ack lethality at 0.02, no 5", no quad 40 mm.  That has an enormous impact on torpedo bombers and how they work.  I don't know what the FSO settings were.  Also, neither This Day nor scenarios are squad based, and I think that has an impact on how people play.

However, if anyone wants to examine the FSO settings to see if they are the same and then to gather statistics from logs, they can do so.  It's all publicly available data.

That was the point that he was making, and part of why I think your data is incomplete. Your event features unlimmited lives and allows players to operate independant of the planned action. This behavior could either be beneficial or detremental to the pilot, but either way it is an uncontrolled variable that can skew your data set. FSO and scenerio events by definition do best at eliminating these variables. Whereas, TDI and Snapshots have no means to limit them.

[Devil 505]

Wait, so I'm obligated to listen and accept viewpoints but not voice mine? O...K  then.  That's probably not going to happen Swoop.  People are going sideways over whether or not the TBM should or should not be in an upcoming event, I simply pointed out that they will, in fact, be there.

Yes you're supposed to listen, Roc. That's why your the head of the scenario team. One would assume that a person in your position would be able to weigh all the viewpoints in an impartial manner and make decisions that best serve the event as a whole.

At least acknolege the existance of a disparity that requires some considderation. Don't just stand there touting "We'll stay the course." and "I'm the decider." If you want to get lippy with sombody trying to get your goat, fine. But your post to Swoop was out of line. Your attitude makes you look ignorant and unworthy of your position.

If you're dead set on having TBM's then bring something to the table to justify them. The ststus quo from past events is not strong enough anymore. If historical accuracy is a priority for scenarios, then whatever substitute is used for TBD's must be similar. The performance and strength of the TBM is not close enough.

[Swoop]

Wait, so I'm obligated to listen and accept viewpoints but not voice mine?

You didn't voice an opinion, you just told people that attempting to discuss what a lot of people seem to think is a valid point is a 'waste of pixels'.

I simply pointed out that they will, in fact, be there.

In an insulting manner.  As I say, you're not helping.  Comments like yours just wind people up.  Continuing to argue semantics wind people up.  You are winding people up.

Even if your opinion cannot be swayed, it's far more professional and polite to at least give your customers the impression that their concerns will be considered, not just rejected out of hand.

[ROC]

it's far more professional and polite to at least give your customers the impression that their concerns will be considered

? Really?  Fake it? 

How polite and professional would it have been to string them along?  Gee guys, what great arguments, what insight, you know, I really think you are on to something and I'm going to try really hard to make sure you are satisfied with the results. Thank you so much for sharing. That would give the impression that their concerns were still being considered.  Event comes out, TMBs are in.  How cheesy would that have been?  Lipservice is far more insulting than simply laying out a fact.

Now, if you think I could have phrased it better or differently, well Sir, that is a valid opinion and I'll consider that in the future posts.

[Brooke]

That was the point that he was making, and part of why I think . . .

The data isn't invalid.  The data is the data.  You can gather it from FSO's if you want and let us know what it says, but there are only two things that come to mind that would bias the TBM vs. B5N statistics.

1. If ack strength isn't sufficiently low.  Then, the extra robustness of the TBM will make an enormous difference.  If FSO auto ack can shoot down a B5N, or if either 5" or quad 40 mm or both are enabled, it is not comparable to the scenario or This Day environment.

2. If A6M2's are not attacking TBM's when they have the opportunity to do so.  I've never seen that happen in scenarios or This Day events, but two people commented on their squads choosing not to do so in FSO's.  I think it's an MA squad dynamic, which isn't present in scenarios or This Day.

[perdue3]

The data isn't invalid.  The data is the data.  You can gather it from FSO's if you want and let us know what it says, but there are only two things that come to mind that would bias the TBM vs. B5N statistics.

1. If ack strength isn't sufficiently low.  Then, the extra robustness of the TBM will make an enormous difference.  If FSO auto ack can shoot down a B5N, or if either 5" or quad 40 mm or both are enabled, it is not comparable to the scenario or This Day environment.

2. If A6M2's are not attacking TBM's when they have the opportunity to do so.  I've never seen that happen in scenarios or This Day events, but two people commented on their squads choosing not to do so in FSO's.  I think it's an MA squad dynamic, which isn't present in scenarios or This Day.

5" and quads are disabled in FSO.

Number 2 is an opinion which holds no validity. My FSO tactics carry into the MA and other events.

[Swoop]

Roc, any reply I could give you right now will be violating rule 4.  Therefore, I think it's just safer if I stop talking to you completely.

See you in the air over the pacific.   

[Brooke]

5" and quads are disabled in FSO.

What is autoack strength?

Number 2 is an opinion which holds no validity. My FSO tactics carry into the MA and other events.

Unless previous posters were untruthful about not attacking TBM's, it is a valid opinion.  I have never seen A6M2's in a position to attack TBM's not attack them in a scenario, and I've been GL of TBM's in every frame of every scenario that had them; yet there were two posters who talked about purposefully not attacking TBM's in FSO's.  I didn't say all squad members do this, so whether you as one data point do or don't isn't the issue.

[perdue3]

Excuse me, I was referring to "I think that is MA tactics" bit.

Ack setting is usually .3 in FSO.

[Swoop]

I have never seen A6M2's in a position to attack TBM's not attack them in a scenario

Me either actually.

[Brooke]

Excuse me, I was referring to "I think that is MA tactics" bit.

No, not MA tactics -- by "MA squads" I mean the squads that are organized in the MA and then play in FSO's as opposed to squads in scenarios.  For example, there is the "Army of Muppets" that is a squad in the MA and might be registered to play in FSO's.  In a scenario, though, there is no "Army of Muppets" squad.  A squadron in a scenario is just a label for the planes representing the historical squad in that battle, like "VT-2" or "JG 11" or "303 Sqn" or whatever.  Let me call them "FSO squads" instead of "MA squads" to avoid confusion.

Ack setting is usually .3 in FSO.

The TBM would be favored significantly over the B5N with that setting, I think.  That setting is 0.02 as in Coral Sea scenarios and This Days, so even though the B5N is much, much less sturdy, it doesn't matter vs. auto ack.

[perdue3]

The TBM would be favored significantly over the B5N with that setting, I think.  That setting is 0.02 as in Coral Sea scenarios and This Days, so even though the B5N is much, much less sturdy, it doesn't matter vs. auto ack.

When would the 1944 TBM-3 not be favored over the B5N?