Revisiting the F4U-4 perk cost debate

[Puke]

I think you make very good points for a case to have the F4U-4 unperked.  I doubt it'll do anything though.  It appears to me that the F4U-4 may really only be perked so that people will utilize the -1D and -1 because most would gravitate to the -4 if it was free.  To interject more of my personal opinions, I actually like the perk system.  However, rather than see the -4 unperked, I'd like to see some other aircraft added to the perk list such as the D9, G10, 51D, LA7 and maybe the Yak (because I hate those things!)  I think we need a good amount of low-cost perk rides along the price of the F4U-1C.  But basically, that whole economic strata is non-existant in the game and the perks hover around 50 and more.  That can seem pricey to someone not used to risking his perk points.  A nice warm up on a 5 perk point G10 would get people used to the whole earn/spend and supply/demand thing in the game.  And get rid of the perk icons...you'll find out soon enough when engaging a perk aircraft and then you can call on the radio for help.  That blazing neon sign letting the whole arena know you have something to lose doesn't seem to work well in my opinion.  Oh well.  Just me rambling a little here.

[Red Tail 444]

...you'll find out soon enough when engaging a perk aircraft and then you can call on the radio for help. [/B]

...and call loudly. (points to La-7 addicts)  

In all seriousness, good point on adding perks to certain rides. Although few need to come with the heavy 50+ perk cost, I see no problem with 5, 8, 10, 15, etc., perks for various rides..heck I usually blow 50-200 a night, when I have that many to blow, that is. I gotta costly habit

I have no real knowledge or concern as to which planes should /should not be perked, I'll let the AH Gods single out the unworthy.

Gainsie

[Wilbus]

Compare it to the Ta152 aswell, then we have two planes to unperk

[Frost]

Let's just try to stick to this plane in this thread

[Glasses]

Why's that Frost? I mean certainly if you're lobbying to unperk a 1945 "Super Aircraft"  the Ta152 would be at the top of the list, heck for even lower perk costs or unperking it all. Except for useage in the MA now for the simple few fans of the plane who fly it from time to time, 20 perks doesn't hurt that much now. So even if you lose this neutered plane and get killed in it it won't hurt you. But the F4U-4  although it's climb rate is nothing compared to unperked aircraft,look at an aircraft like the Ta152 it climbs badly rolls worse, doesn't accel as it's supposed to  so some have said, and it doesn't achieve the historical speed it was known for and it's "Amazing performance at altitude" ,yet for some reason it's perked because it would otherwise "unbalance the arena". The F4U-4 certainly has a performance advantage over the other unperked planes mainly at high altitude ,especially in acceleration and since there isn't any unperked aicraft to compensate or compete with it I'd think for the time being it should be perked although its cost reduced.

Look, I'd be all for perking those on your list including the G-10 but then it would leave the LW ,for example, without a contemporary to the P51-B which would be the G-14 they'd have a 2 generation Gap.  The same would go if they opted to perk a plane like the N1K2 which was much more rare than the Ki-84, we cannot for the time being perk the N1K2 because it would leave the Japanese planeset without an later war aircraft or a formidable aircraft for MA use,since everything else they have are mid war examples.

The F4U-4 will probaly still remained perked but at much lower cost. Probably at Ta152 levels,unless of course when 'fixed' the usage increases considerably of the Ta152 in the arena in which case I'd think the perk cost would rise, but most likely it won't.

[-ammo-]

Didn't HTC just lower the perk cost considerably for the TA152??  What's to complain about in regards to its price?

The dora is faster than the F4U-4 up till 15K. The Pony's will stay right with it as well up till about 17K

[Frost]

Why is what Glasses?

If your asking why we should stick to talking about the -4 in this thread that started out talking about the -4 then the answer should be self-explanatory.  I would rather not see the thread hijacked (although i would agree that the TA-152 is a sorry perk plane).  If you wish to talk about the TA-152 then by all means start a thread.

If you take a look at the data you will see that the unperked planes listed compete very well with the -4.  The G-10 climbs better (much better), is faster and has better acceleration than the -4 at every alt.  The other unperked planes listed are matched or better than the -4 below 15k where 95% of the fights take place.

I don't want any other planes to be perked.  But I definately believe that the data supports the fact that the -4 is perked much to high.

[Kweassa]

Issuing light perks(4~5 points?) on the planes P-51D, Bf109G-10, Fw190D-9, La-7, and the N1K2-J will each greatly increase the usage of P-51B, Fw190A-5 and A-8, La-5FN, Bf109G-2 and G-6, and the Ki-61 IMO. Also, the perks for the Spit14 and F4U-4 should be downed a bit.. (20~30s?).

 Ofcourse, filling out some of the gaps in the planeset(the gap between the Bf109G-6 and the Bf109G-10, and the SpitfireMkIX and the Spitfire MkXIV seems to be the largest) will also help.

 So.. give the RAF a 1944 Spit9, give the LW a 1944 Bf109G-6(or a G-14 ), maybe a Ki-44 to the IJAAF... and the arena would be full of mid war planes. Nicely matched, balanced, free planes existing for all countries.. and some of the monstrous performers a bit rare in comparison, the even better performers like the Spit14 and F4U-4 would be more rare, and the Tempy/262 planes would be just as now very rare to find.

 This would help the arena to boast some nice diversity.

 Either that, or everyone deprived of their "dweeb machines" end up in Spit9s and N1K2s, and balance is even worse off!

[Kweassa]

Frost, that is because the agenda behind perking planes don't just apply to one plane. It should be a universal thing. When one part of "perk planes" is to be changed, all the other perk planes should all be changed in relation in some sort of way.

 If the F4U-4 should be unperked, so should the Ta-152. Much the same, the other way around, since the Ta-152 perk cost has gotten lower, so should the F4U-4 costs.

ps)

 Anybody think Typhoons should be perked? Somehow, I have this churring feeling deep down in my gut that when the La-7 gets perked, all the people who hoarded to the La-7 might just move to the Typhoon, since all the planes that boast simular deck speed would be perked. Maybe an even lower perk of 1~2 points if La-7, G-10, D-9, P-51 sort of planes are perked at 5?

[Frost]

I disagree with you there Kweassa.  Evaluation of perk planes should be of each individual plane and it's effect on the MA.  Just because they lowered the price on the TA-152 doesn't mean they should lower the cost on the 262.  

People are always saying to provide data to back up requests.  That is what I tried to do with this request specifically about the -4.  At the minimum I think I've shown a very strong argument for lowering the cost on the -4.

[Glasses]

Essentially Frost what I meant was said by Kweassa , and I do agree the F4U-4 should have it's perk value reduced! No question about that. Not so far as to unperk it completely, I put the example of the ta152 (as you said a sorry perk plane) to prove my point that a lesser aircraft such as this one which lacks performance that it should have is a perked plane, so it would rule out the unperking completely the F4U-4, if measures would not be taken with other perked aircraft. I wasn't lobbying for the Ta152 nor complaining about the perk cost, I think it's fine,  I was just making comparisons to prove my point.

[Frost]

I misunderstood you earlier Glasses.  I understand now and agree with what you are saying.  I was just afraid of this turning into another perk system debate and losing the focus on the -4 performance comparison.

[Red Tail 444]

Definitely lower the perk cost on the -4, but whats the point in giving 1-2 perks for the planes most of the people gravitate to? if they want to fly an La-7 or g-10, let'em pay thriugh the nose like the rest of us

ther only hog I want to see perkedm50+ will be the -4B or -4C...too bad we won't see them in AH. THEy would imbalance the arena for sure. (off topic, but did either of these see combat in WW2? I've heard conflicting reports).

In any event, Frost you make excellent points. How far HTC will go in agreeing with your argument is another story, however. I'll keep the fingers crossed.

[Wilbus]

My appologises for sami-hijacking this thread, was trying to point out that the F4u-4 isn't the only plane that needs unperking. Tha TA152, is worse at everything at all alts except for possibly above 30-35k or so, why is why I brouhgt that up.

So once again, my appologise.

Let's just face it folks, the perk idea is good in theory, but put to piss poor use, planes are perked because they came in very late (with exception for the C hog which was perked for overuse) or were produced in very few numbers. Not because they are damn freaking uber good, because the F4u-4 ain't, and the Ta152 in AH sure as hell don't come close to anything that resembles a good plane.

I could very well agree on unperking the F4u-4, problem is the F4u-1D won't be flown at all if it is so best thing would be same price as for the 1C IMO, chose between speed/climb or cannons. Most people would go with cannons except for those who are good pilots and favour a better plane with weaker guns.

[Innominate]

The 1C was built only in small numbers.

Unfortunatly, the n1k2 came into the war both very late, and was built only in small numbers.