Thank you for the salute Halo
However, to weigh in however feebly in the opinion spectrum, I despise the perk system and it appears some others do too.
It gives the best players more advantages that they need less than anyone else.
It's been mentioned before, but personally I think what you have said is just a popular myth. I admit it is quite difficult to set a standard on which pilot is a "veteran", and which is "average", but regardless of it all I believe the influence of "veterans" in the MA, at least in a large scale, is
close to non-existent.
The best players don't need any advantage to be the best - they've already got what it takes(even if we give the Tempests and F4U-4s, Spit14s to the 'average/rookie' pilots for free, they'd still be shot down regularly, striving for a 1:1 K/D ratio.
).
Nor have they become recognized as "the best" by using planes that require a lot of perks. I don't think we have statistics on this, but empirically, it seems most of the recognizable vets are usually P-51D/P-38L pilots, with speck of LW veterans in usually G-10s, and few more Spit/N1K2 veterans of PAC timezones. <- Note that all the suggested planes, are actually the best of free planes which I am looking forward to seeing them perked.
If there is any advantage that the vets gain from this system, it is that they get to fly the 'super planes' on their whim. But even that, is a product of how the certain planes are
priced, not a fault of the system itself.
A reverse perk system would be more balancing, but that would penalize the best players -- there is an injustice with either kind of perk system.
In regards to sort of a 'philosophical' discussion, it is very intersting to see people again and again referring to perk prices as a 'penalty'. Having to pay perk prices, are conceptually recognized as 'punishment'. Sort of reminds me of how many people view taxes
It often seems that arguing for or against perk systems consumes more energy than any other topic on Aces High forums, energy that might be more productively applied to other needs.
That is true.
But you must realize this: "other needs" do not form an alternative to this particular problem at hand. It can merely divert our attention to something else, temporarily. Once the excitement is over, sooner or later people will again start complaining about all the malicious kamikaze attacks, all the runstangs and Spit/Niki dweebs.
One way or another, people must face this problem, and either decide to 'tolerate' or 'object'. Of course, no matter how perfect a system there will always be complaints. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there's no way to at least partially treat the problem and make it better.
My vote is to kill the perk system in the Main Arena and encourage those who want more balanced historical rides to use the Combat Theater.
That actually might happen. If the MA is just full of Tempests and 262s, people will start looking for an alternative.
I don't believe anybody views the MA as 'historic'. Gameplay balance does not necessarily aquaint itself with history - meaning; there are people who don't care about history at all, but still want to see a MA nicely rounded and balanced out, without too many jets and rockets, and without too many planes of a certain type infesting the whole area.
And -- quit perking rides in Combat Theater! How the malady spreads! (Limit availability of some types as necessary, but without perking them.)
But the CT perks, work EXACTLY the way it is expected to be working, with EXACTLY the desired effect.
...
If there is one thing I can say, abolishment of perks, will bring to the MA a catastrophic disaster.
All the negative problems of the current MA, are direct results of non-structured gaming. The current perked planes, are the "absolutely unallowable" last resort planes that will kill the gameplay - that is why they are so heavily perked(in this case, the word 'punitive' does seem adequate).
It is not the existing methods of structure that people are dissatisfied with - it's the lack of structure, which fuels the certain types of activities solely concentrated on "winning the game no matter the cost", that people feel uncomfortable with.
If AH compares itself with the the growth of cities, AH is like Rome. A modern day city which evolved from the ancient times - where a certain "core" of gameplay components formed the very first stages of the "city". As new concepts and developments appeared, they were added around the "core" in a patchwork.
The result, is a very beautiful and impressive cultural city, with unfortunately a diabolical road system and messy patchwork of city blocks and zones - that's how current AH is like.
In the first stages of AH, where planes and pilots were few, the territorial combat didn't mean much. Everybody knew everybody, and they all enjoyed pure A2A combat. Even if there was a land-grab scheme, it was simplified, easy, and not even all that important. Important real-life concepts that influence large scale battles - such as attrition, logistics, economical structures, and etc etc. - weren't in the game.
As AH grew older, more and more concepts were added in to accomodate certain aspects of the game which were newly required with the growth of gamer population. A lot of them helped, but some aspects, just weren't compatible with how AH was designed in the first place.
Now, if we want to get rid of perks, we would have no choice but to ask HTC to implement a new MA, with all the current concepts and aspects of gameplay re-evaluated, re-designed, and restructured - like how one would build a totally new city in the modern times. Preplanning and structuring.
I suspect that kind of restructuring is what we might expect from the AH2:ToD mode. The MA will remain as it is. But that does mean, that the current problems of the MA will also be preserved.
Then I say we find a method to 'tweak' the gameplay without having to add in any major/new gameplay system that would take time and resources - *shrug* the only real alternative for doing that, is using the perk system. No other choice at all.
