Author Topic: Give us AMRAAMS ... (Read 1407 times)

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #60 on:** January 24, 2002, 02:11:05 PM »

Lephturn, I didnt ask HTC to revise LA7 damage model, I ask to have AMRAAMS to fight against it

20 kills in three tours is anecdotal experience, more than 100 is anything but anecdotal. Based on that, I dont consider this thread an empty of sense "whine".

And, tell me, what do you mean when you say "disagree all you want"? Disagree with what? with you? with Tac? with wulfe? with karnak?

Even more, what do you mean with "wasting everybody's time", am I wasting your time? Am I asking you to even take time to reply this thread? Do you have some real experience based on numbers to even reply to my initial post? Perhaps, like the Wulfe case, what is anecdotal is just your own experience against La7, think on that... For your knowledge, Tac alone have, probably, more twice the La7 kills of yours plus Wulfe ones, and that IS a fact for me, not just anecdotal experience.

If some people with a realy lot of La7 kills comes here to tell you, hey, we really find some problems damaging La7, and some others with almost no La7 kills come here to tell us, hey, we dont have any problem killing that plane, what would be the correct step, to give credit to the first ones or to the second ones?

As in the example I gave earlier, if some one comes here to tell us he found a lot of problems to "break" a mosquito, I'll be the last one to tell he is wrong, based on the few mosquitos I've killed.

MrLars · « **Reply #61 on:** January 24, 2002, 02:54:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE

If some people with a realy lot of La7 kills comes here to tell you, hey, we really find some problems damaging La7, and some others with almost no La7 kills come here to tell us, hey, we dont have any problem killing that plane, what would be the correct step, to give credit to the first ones or to the second ones?

How 'bout someone that has both killed and been killed in La7's. I fly it alot and there doesn't seem to be anything uber about it except it's speed and acceleration. Factual data is needed IMO in order to prove your point since the view on the La7's ability to absorb damage depends on which end of it's guns you're on.

Lephturn · « **Reply #62 on:** January 24, 2002, 03:17:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Lephturn, I didnt ask HTC to revise LA7 damage model, I ask to have AMRAAMS to fight against it

20 kills in three tours is anecdotal experience, more than 100 is anything but anecdotal. Based on that, I dont consider this thread an empty of sense "whine".

And, tell me, what do you mean when you say "disagree all you want"? Disagree with what? with you? with Tac? with wulfe? with karnak?

Even more, what do you mean with "wasting everybody's time", am I wasting your time? Am I asking you to even take time to reply this thread? Do you have some real experience based on numbers to even reply to my initial post? Perhaps, like the Wulfe case, what is anecdotal is just your own experience against La7, think on that... For your knowledge, Tac alone have, probably, more twice the La7 kills of yours plus Wulfe ones, and that IS a fact for me, not just anecdotal experience.

If some people with a realy lot of La7 kills comes here to tell you, hey, we really find some problems damaging La7, and some others with almost no La7 kills come here to tell us, hey, we dont have any problem killing that plane, what would be the correct step, to give credit to the first ones or to the second ones?

As in the example I gave earlier, if some one comes here to tell us he found a lot of problems to "break" a mosquito, I'll be the last one to tell he is wrong, based on the few mosquitos I've killed.

Sigh, you just don't get it. I don't care how many of your "experiences" you have, they are not controlled tests and they don't mean a damn thing, other than you might want to do some controlled tests on that topic to see if there really is a problem. Until you do, you are pissing in the wind, and that's a fact. The only thing you will accomplish is to get folks all stirred up over something that you don't even know is a real problem. I don't care who comes here with what "experience", until somebody does some controlled tests to collect some actual data, it's not likely anything will get changed. Period.

Also, this is a waste of MY time because I don't want folks reading this to be taken in and bother HTC about a supposed La7 durability problem when nobody has bothered to see if there really IS a problem at all. It's called FUD, and you spanish fellows seem to be very adept at it. If you do take the time to test and there really is a problem you can demonstrate ... wow HTC might take a look at it and fix it as they have in the past. Imagine that. I'm spending my time trying to minimize the pointless whining and encourage people to do some tests instead. One of those things will get results, and the other is useless. You choose.

Lephturn

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #63 on:** January 24, 2002, 04:06:36 PM »

Lephturn, add a big "IMO" at the beginning of your posts.
You dont what folks reading this, so this is a waste of your time? Are you a censor, right?
And, please, clarify, what are you telling us about the SPANISH people?

I suppose, you know that we are NOT telling that La7 is undestructible, just that it is noticieably harder to break that any other one. A controlled test will be too complex, you must select a plane, and try to kill a lot of times the rest of the planeset fighters to achieve a clear result. Then select another plane and so on. As a final result, you probably will have some idea about what plane is the hardest to kill with each other plane. Repeat the test from a lot of angles and ranges and so on. The test would be so time-consuming that I consider a better way just to ask people with a lot of experience killing La7s and every other plane. If they find La7 the hardest to kill, then they share my feeling.

As an example about "laboratory tests", here is a post in A&V about Breda MGs, I had no experience with them, so I did a controled test, the result was that these MGs can kill, with no much effort, the drones. Now go to the MA, pick up a 202 and start trying to get kills... ...surprise, "real" world is much different than the controled test one, no way to kill a single fighter.

The one than dont get it seems to be just you. Here there are several possible, perfectly valid, and civilized replies to the thread topic:

1 - Yes, I have killed a lot of planes, and La7 is really hard to break (dont know whether it is right or not, MY CASE).

2 - Yes, I have killed a lot of planes, and La7 is really hard to break. And it is wrong modeled BECAUSE (some good reason).

3 - Yes, La7 is the hardest fighter to destroy, AS IT SHOULD BE, BECAUSE (some good reason, and punt).

4 - Disagree, I've killed a lot of planes, and La7 is as easy to break as anyother else (MrLars reply, and what should have been your reply, without the rest of the crap comments).

5 - Disagree, I've killed a lot of planes, and La7 is as easy to break as anyother else. And this is wrong, because La7 should be much more durable, BECAUSE (some good reasson, and punt).

MrLars, if you have enough kills with this plane, then your point is perfectly valid for me (no need to prove you have that feeling). My post has not the "perverse" intention of force all the people to have the same "feeling" as me. Just the opposite.

Tac · « **Reply #64 on:** January 24, 2002, 04:54:02 PM »

"It's called FUD, and you spanish fellows seem to be very adept at it"

Below the belt

MrLars · « **Reply #65 on:** January 24, 2002, 04:55:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE

MrLars, if you have enough kills with this plane, then your point is perfectly valid for me (no need to prove you have that feeling). My post has not the "perverse" intention of force all the people to have the same "feeling" as me. Just the opposite.

I tried to pull my stats vs the La7 but it seems the score page is hosed. Your position that the La7 is more durrable than it should be, while being strictly anecdotal, does have some validity if you are consistantly seeing this. I, on the other hand do not see it one bit but that is still more anectdotal evidence. Until there is some empirical evidence of what you speak then, given all the varibles associated with an MMOG and the rather inconsistant nature of the net these days, I guess the best thing to do is either run tests to prove one or the other or just let the problem stay inplace since HTC will not make changes because of some peoples perceptions.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #66 on:** January 24, 2002, 05:41:12 PM »

Lars, I haven't said that La7 is more durrable than it should be, just because I dont really know how durable was the real La7. What I said is that if find disturbing that durability, now there are two main points:

1 - My appreciation is bad (even having more than 100 La7 kills).
2 - My appreciation is right, but nothing is wrong cause La7 was a very durable plane.

Tac, while waiting for LTurn clear explanation, what does FUD mean?

Lephturn · « **Reply #67 on:** January 24, 2002, 05:49:38 PM »

Whatever, you just don't get it. You could just test it and save all this hassle. I'll stop trying to explain that now since it seems to be pointless.

TAC, your right, that was not a good remark. I should have been more specific. RAM and MANDOBLE... asuming they are not the same person... seem to engage in a lot of FUD. I shouldn't generalize, as I'm sure there are plenty of Spanish folks that doesn't apply to. I appologize to all the other Spanish folks I painted with that same brush. No matter how simple it is to test something, or even what the tests show, Mand and RAM both seem to ignore it and keep building that FUD. I doubt they do so with intent, but the effect is the same. All Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, with little to no facts or evidence.

And this part's just for you Mand. IMO

Lephturn

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #68 on:** January 24, 2002, 06:01:29 PM »

Whatever FUD means, I preffer one thousand of spanish FUD posts than a single insulting one like yours.

I can find out barely what FUD means, and that is a direct insult to:
1 - ALL the AH spanish comunity, even more, all the spanish.
2 - Then to RAM, not present here to deffend himself.
3 - A public insult personally to ME.

In any case, a deplorable, coward and pathetic (imagine I insert here "american", "russian" or "whatever country") attitude. mostly after Tac post, being the detonator of an empty apology message.

Go back to the school and pay for some "manners" leassons.

Lephturn · « **Reply #69 on:** January 24, 2002, 06:12:46 PM »

LOL, don't take an appology well do you. Well I suppose I didn't really appologies to you, but to all the other Spanish folks I may have offended.

My mistake was generalization, not innacuracy in my view. I'll try to be more specific in the future.

FUD, as I wrote above, simply means Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. It's a term used for when somebody tries to use means other than factual, normally to sway public opinion. As I mentioned, although I don't believe that you and RAM did that intentionally, I think the effect is the same.

Lephturn

MrLars · « **Reply #70 on:** January 24, 2002, 06:18:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Lars, I haven't said that La7 is more durrable than it should be, just because I dont really know how durable was the real La7. What I said is that if find disturbing that durability, now there are two main points:

That's why I said percieved, I understand that you hadn't ment that there WAS a problem but rather there was the perception of a problem on your part. Asking if there were other people having this same perception is a valid question for this NG IMO.

Quote

1 - My appreciation is bad (even having more than 100 La7 kills).
2 - My appreciation is right, but nothing is wrong cause La7 was a very durable plane.[/B]

There needs to be a bit more leeway here to account for net lag and such IMO. So either of those conclusions need to be qualified with all the variables included.

Thrawn · « **Reply #71 on:** January 24, 2002, 06:27:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lephturn
FUD, as I wrote above, simply means Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

LOL! And here I thought it was fediddleing Useless Debate.

-ammo- · « **Reply #72 on:** January 24, 2002, 06:34:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE

I suppose, you know that we are NOT telling that La7 is undestructible, just that it is noticieably harder to break that any other one.

who is the "we" in that statement. More anectdotal evidence..I see no difference in how much effort on my it takes to down a LA7 in AH, than any other comparable fighter.

Seems to me that Leph is just telling it like it is mandoble. It "feels" this way or that doesnt cut the logic test.

You feel insulted, you feel that the entire Spanish community is insulted, I say blahh. You throw a whine about the LA7's durability and try to convince all that frequenht this board and he calls you on it. Nothing more. This whine resembles one of our old compadre's--- RAM's. That is what he is refering to.

I have enjoyed the online company of several Spanish guys here, and this has nothing to do with them, it only has to do with this nonsense of a post.

(it seems to me that the P-38 is more than durable after its rework...but I havent whined to the community over it.)

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #73 on:** January 24, 2002, 09:00:18 PM »

Here's that film. I think the La7 is the first kill, but I could be wrong. Either way, watch how many cannon rounds impact him before his plane is disabled. Watch how many cannon rounds impact the Zero later in the film, and nothing falls off.

It's all about the angles you hit them with and where you hit them. Like I been sayin' the whole time.

I don't need a 100 kills of each plane type to see that the damage model is a little different than what you think it is.

http://www.geocities.com/weissdr1/download.html
-SW

Hangtime · « **Reply #74 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:28:08 AM »

IMHO chutes are too hard to kill.

Chit, yah hose the silk, put 500 rounds into his risers and STILL the guy wont plummet.

And whats with all the suicidal parachuteist bomb laden terrorist former fighter pilots? One round into the torso, and BOOM! the fediddleers all blow up!