Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on October 11, 2008, 04:56:03 PM
-
What does "unbalancing" mean? That's my question. Is there an agreed upon definition? It doesn't seem that way. Yet the word is always thrown out when we discuss which aircraft should be perked. So, let's hear it from the experts. :P Enlighten me. :pray
-
It's really pretty simple. HTC decides which aircraft are perked and by how much.
-
It's really pretty simple. HTC decides which aircraft are perked and by how much.
You answered a different question, not mine.
-
When I have a dozen Bourbon and Cokes then switch to beers, THATS unbalancing...
-
It means any aircraft that is not already perked will never be perked, because any aircraft good enough to be considered worthy of perking already has a large base who wants to see it kept free.
-
What does "unbalancing" mean?
An example would be taking the training wheels off of the Wirblewind.
-
When it comes to perks, I think it means when a plane represents a vast majority in the number of kills thereby becoming the "plane of choice" for the majority of the arena, that plane has unbalanced the arena and is then perked. The spit16 while a pretty darn good plane, dose NOT have a vase majority of kills each month. It may have the most, but not by much which means other planes still are competing with it. So it doesn't "unbalance" the arena.
-
When it comes to perks, I think it means when a plane represents a vast majority in the number of kills thereby becoming the "plane of choice" for the majority of the arena, that plane has unbalanced the arena and is then perked. The spit16 while a pretty darn good plane, dose NOT have a vase majority of kills each month. It may have the most, but not by much which means other planes still are competing with it. So it doesn't "unbalance" the arena.
So your answer is scoring excessively more kills than other nonperked aircraft?
-
What does "unbalancing" mean? That's my question. Is there an agreed upon definition? It doesn't seem that way. Yet the word is always thrown out when we discuss which aircraft should be perked. So, let's hear it from the experts. :P Enlighten me. :pray
Unless I've been misled, the purpose of perk points is to limit the use of planes which saw limited service, not to compensate for superior performance.
- oldman
-
Unless I've been misled, the purpose of perk points is to limit the use of planes which saw limited service, not to compensate for superior performance.
- oldman
In that case, HTC would never had unperked the TA 152 ;)
-
Like an La-7 with 3x20mm cannon? Or the formerly perked 152? :D
-
Unless I've been misled, the purpose of perk points is to limit the use of planes which saw limited service, not to compensate for superior performance.
- oldman
By that standard, AHII should GIVE you perks for flying sorties in 109 G-6s.
-
In that case, HTC would never had unperked the TA 152 ;)
Well, you have to admit there is a difference between "limiting the use" and "quashing it's use completely."
-
"Unbalancing" means to unleash the Dogs of War!
Let loose those F4U-1Cs...no perks!
Let loose those F4U-4s.....no perks!
Just cut loose these two Dogs of War and find out what "unbalancing" means.
-
What does "unbalancing" mean? That's my question. Is there an agreed upon definition? It doesn't seem that way. Yet the word is always thrown out when we discuss which aircraft should be perked. So, let's hear it from the experts. :P Enlighten me. :pray
Example of balanced:
Aircraft "usage"
P-51D 8.46%
Spit XVI 7.44%
N1K2 7.11%
F6F-5 4.99%
SeaFire 4.53%
F4U-1D 4.42%
La-7 3.79%
A6M5b 3.46%
Typh IB 3.44%
P-38L 3.12%
An example of unbalanced (hypothetical)
Aircraft "usage"
P-51D 48.46%
Spit XVI 5.44%
N1K2 4.11%
F6F-5 2.99%
SeaFire 2.53%
F4U-1D 2.42%
La-7 1.79%
A6M5b 1.46%
Typh IB 1.44%
P-38L 1.12%
If the numbers got to be like this, the Pony would be slapped with a perk. But the numbers don't look like this, so there is no aircraft that has clear dominance.
-
When it comes to perks, I think it means when a plane represents a vast majority in the number of kills thereby becoming the "plane of choice" for the majority of the arena, that plane has unbalanced the arena and is then perked. The spit16 while a pretty darn good plane, dose NOT have a vase majority of kills each month. It may have the most, but not by much which means other planes still are competing with it. So it doesn't "unbalance" the arena.
does that mean if the Whole Bishop team flew spit 16's for a couple tours we could get it perked :O :lol :rofl
-
It took 4 or 5 months before HTC finally perked the F4u-1c. Its not something they did or do lightly.
Most planes have either a significant weak spot, something that prevents it from dominating.
Or, a foil, another plane that can keep it from becoming too strong, too much used.
E25280 nailed it exactly. As did Patch's.
Turn either of the uber F4u's loose and in 4 months time you'd see an arena that was 50% or more F4u's.
Both in usage, and in kills.
Imagine the tiger without perks. That would be "unbalancing" for the ground war.
Some say the Wirble is unbalancing now, I say it just requires a change in tactics.
-
when a chick gets two different size breast implants.
-
What if the numbers looked like this:
Aircraft "usage"
P-40B 48.46%
Spit XVI 5.44%
N1K2 4.11%
F6F-5 2.99%
SeaFire 2.53%
F4U-1D 2.42%
La-7 1.79%
A6M5b 1.46%
Typh IB 1.44%
P-38L 1.12%
Would we call the P-40B "unbalancing" and perk it?
Granted your original example was with the P-51D in that spot, but I would expect an aircraft to be perked long before it reached the 48% mark. Maybe 25% like the famously quoted percentage for the F4U-1C? With the number of competitive aircraft we have in the game (today), an even lower percentage like 12-15% should raise eyebrows.
Yes, the P-40B example is an intentional exaggeration: these numbers don't say as much about aircraft performance as we might think. Case in point is the P-51, which isn't the best arena plane in the game (we all agree on that), but it is often the most popular. If the P-40B had "unbalancing" usage numbers, we all agree that it should remain unperked nonetheless.
Another variable is pilot quality. Suppose that all of the people who fly the Spit16 suddenly have the abilities of someone like drex. Even if the usage percentages remained the same, the Spit16 flown to the best of its abilities would change the face of the arena, whereas if the same thing happened to P-40B pilots (or FM-2, A6M, etc) everyone would be able to adapt. Even if every P-51 were flown by skilled pilots, it would not be a game changer.
These are my concerns about the usage definition of "unbalancing." I think it's a definition that sort of works, like the 3rd grader who finds a long division shortcut that yields the right answer 75% of the time. Moreover, the usage definition doesn't really capture our intuitive notion of what it is for an aircraft to be unbalancing: to be used very frequently is not the same as use that makes an average pilot deadly.
-
If someone's reply to your question is "not good enough" for you. Email HTC and ask them.
-
What if the numbers looked like this:
Aircraft "usage"
P-40B 48.46%
Spit XVI 5.44%
N1K2 4.11%
F6F-5 2.99%
SeaFire 2.53%
F4U-1D 2.42%
La-7 1.79%
A6M5b 1.46%
Typh IB 1.44%
P-38L 1.12%
Would we call the P-40B "unbalancing" and perk it?
Granted your original example was with the P-51D in that spot, but I would expect an aircraft to be perked long before it reached the 48% mark. Maybe 25% like the famously quoted percentage for the F4U-1C? With the number of competitive aircraft we have in the game (today), an even lower percentage like 12-15% should raise eyebrows.
Yes, the P-40B example is an intentional exaggeration: these numbers don't say as much about aircraft performance as we might think. Case in point is the P-51, which isn't the best arena plane in the game (we all agree on that), but it is often the most popular. If the P-40B had "unbalancing" usage numbers, we all agree that it should remain unperked nonetheless.
Another variable is pilot quality. Suppose that all of the people who fly the Spit16 suddenly have the abilities of someone like drex. Even if the usage percentages remained the same, the Spit16 flown to the best of its abilities would change the face of the arena, whereas if the same thing happened to P-40B pilots (or FM-2, A6M, etc) everyone would be able to adapt. Even if every P-51 were flown by skilled pilots, it would not be a game changer.
These are my concerns about the usage definition of "unbalancing." I think it's a definition that sort of works, like the 3rd grader who finds a long division shortcut that yields the right answer 75% of the time. Moreover, the usage definition doesn't really capture our intuitive notion of what it is for an aircraft to be unbalancing: to be used very frequently is not the same as use that makes an average pilot deadly.
If their numbers looked like that for a number of months strait then yes the P40 should be perked. It has nothing to do with the plane itself it all has to do with the game play. Should one plane become so dominate that it consistently month after month exceeds the next nearest plane by as big a margin as 25% is should be perked, even if its a P40. The idea here is not not have one plane that everyone sees and says "crap, I'm dead" That would take away the fun and unbalance the game. Some rides are perked right out of the gate. I'm sure during testing before they are added HTC staff see how dominate a plane could be, not just by a "drex" type, but by any one.
The spit16 is easy to fly, easy to kill with, but also easy to shoot down. Sure there are somoe guys that are much harder to kill than other, but the same goes for most any other plane in here. Most of the top sticks don't fly the spits as they are easy mode planes for them and they are looking for more of a challenge.
-
If their numbers looked like that for a number of months strait then yes the P40 should be perked. It has nothing to do with the plane itself it all has to do with the game play. Should one plane become so dominate that it consistently month after month exceeds the next nearest plane by as big a margin as 25% is should be perked, even if its a P40.
Now truly the silly penny hath been dropped in the stupid machine.
-
Now truly the silly penny hath been dropped in the stupid machine.
No need for invective BnZ. The Fugitive gets points for consistency, although I admit I was surprised to see him bite the bullet.
-
Example of balanced:
Aircraft "usage"
P-51D 8.46%
Spit XVI 7.44%
N1K2 7.11%
F6F-5 4.99%
SeaFire 4.53%
F4U-1D 4.42%
La-7 3.79%
A6M5b 3.46%
Typh IB 3.44%
P-38L 3.12%
An example of unbalanced (hypothetical)
Aircraft "usage"
P-51D 48.46%
Spit XVI 5.44%
N1K2 4.11%
F6F-5 2.99%
SeaFire 2.53%
F4U-1D 2.42%
La-7 1.79%
A6M5b 1.46%
Typh IB 1.44%
P-38L 1.12%
If the numbers got to be like this, the Pony would be slapped with a perk. But the numbers don't look like this, so there is no aircraft that has clear dominance.
I don't agree ...
Now if the Pony did have the 48.46% usage and accounted for 30%+ "kills" ... then it would truly be an "unbalancing" aircraft and would probably then be perked.
"Usage" by itself will never determine if a plane is perked or not ... you have to look at it's "kills" too.
-
I think the usage definition confuses a test for unbalancing with that in which unbalancing actually consists.
If an aircraft's usage approaches a threshold percentage, say 12%, then the probability that it is unbalancing, for the sake of argument, might be .8. If it's 15% then maybe the probability that it's unbalancing is ~.9, and so on. But no use percentage ever means a probability of 1, that is, certainty that the aircraft is unbalancing. Usage percentages are a test for unbalancing, but high usage is not what unbalancing is.
The same goes for K/D ratios. They are a good test for unbalancing, but not always accurate because the way aircraft are used in the arenas is highly variable (not to mention pilot quality). K/D ratios are a good test of unbalancing, but not what unbalancing actually is.
-
Unbalanced simply means....... SHAWK is on the other team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<S> 999000
-
No need for invective BnZ. The Fugitive gets points for consistency, although I admit I was surprised to see him bite the bullet.
I'll bite on it too . . .
I see what you are saying, but I think you are ignoring that aircraft usage will tend to self-regulate over time. The P-40B would never achieve usage levels like that because, all things being equal, it will be handily pwned by most of the plane set. The world simply does not have that many masochists that would continue to fly a poor performing plane with so low a chance for success except against other like planes.
In other words, after a certain amount of frustration, that P-40B driver will graduate to a higher performing plane until he starts to have success (at whatever benchmark he sets for himself).
What you have to watch out for, therefore, is a situation arising where the top performer starts to leave all others in the dust. We don't see that here. Generally speaking, the "collective wisdom" (using term loosely) of the AH population has found relatively equal success in three airframes, and even then they make up less than 25% of total fighter usage. That is a fairly good measure that the current set is balanced. If it wasn't, players would naturally gravitate to whichever aircraft had the advantage.
-
perks have nothing to do with usage. If it did the spit 16 would be perked. You can't swing a dead cat with out hitting a spit16 these days. However, a spit 16 doesn't dominate an arena, and there for does not effect game play, so its not perked.
-
perks have nothing to do with usage. If it did the spit 16 would be perked. You can't swing a dead cat with out hitting a spit16 these days. However, a spit 16 doesn't dominate an arena, and there for does not effect game play, so its not perked.
Doesn't this statement contradict your earlier post? Maybe not, but forgive me for being confused. :o
You and E25280 seem to be in disagreement here about usage and perks. He seems to contend that the Spit16's usage is high, but no more than other non perked aircraft like the P-51D and N1K. I also think he's of the position that if the Spit16's usage approached, e.g. 15% of all kills and deaths, it would be time to perk it.
-
My only input on this particular topic is this....
Perked planes should ALWAYS be available. ENY should not prevent anyone from flying a perked plane. Let ENY affect the Perk Cost of the perked planes, but regardless of the ENY, if you have the perkies to buy the ride you should be allowed to fly it....
-
Doesn't this statement contradict your earlier post? Maybe not, but forgive me for being confused. :o
You and E25280 seem to be in disagreement here about usage and perks. He seems to contend that the Spit16's usage is high, but no more than other non perked aircraft like the P-51D and N1K. I also think he's of the position that if the Spit16's usage approached, e.g. 15% of all kills and deaths, it would be time to perk it.
usage of the spit 16 could be at 8 %, but its k/d could be at 35% It isn't used any more than every other plane, but now its dominating the arena by killing more than a third of all planes. Thats what happen to the C hog. it got to the point that the only plane that could compete against it was the C-hog, so every body flew it. Like I said, usage dosn't matter, how the plane effects the arena does. Should HTC find evidence that the P40 was as awesome a plane as they showed in "Pearl Harbor" (with our buddy Ben) then the plane would effect game play in the arenas and be perked.
It's all about game play. The more fun the arenas are the more people who join after their 2 weeks are up, the more money for HTC.
-
I'm right behind fugitive on this one. Usage only tells part of the story, Kill % tells a bigger piece.
If both usage and kill% are double the next nearest plane then you probably have a game play problem.
As annoying as the spit16 can be its nowhere close to that in either usage or kill %.
-
Comparison of "usage" stats using kills and deaths vs. purely percent of kills, September tour:
Usage:
P-51D 8.70%
Spit XVI 7.65%
N1K2 7.30%
F6F-5 5.13%
SeaFire 4.65%
F4U-1D 4.54%
La-7 3.90%
A6M5b 3.55%
Typh 3.54%
P-38L 3.10%
Kills Only:
P-51D 8.94%
N1K2 7.95%
Spit XVI 7.78%
F6F-5 4.47%
Typh 4.12%
SeaFire 4.08%
La-7 3.85%
F4U-1D 3.81%
A6M5b 3.27%
Spit VIII 2.78%
The figures are remarkably similar, with 9 of the top 10 aircraft appearing on both lists. The P-38L drops off the kills list I am sure because of people like me who use it as a ord dump truck, and therefore it only has a .72 K/D ratio.
Again, I think this speaks to the self-regulating nature of a large population. The highest K/D ratio on the list is the Typhoon, yet it's usage is relatively low vs. the big 3. If it was considered an "easy" plane to fly and have success in, you would see more people in it. The fact that we don't is due to the trade offs involved, and many people just are not willing to give up agility for speed and firepower. To me, that implies balance.
-
Yet the P-51D numbers show that many people are willing to give up agility for a little speed and almost nothing else... :devil
-
Yup, the numbers prove the point that the best arena aircraft are not necessarily the ones with the most use or the most kills. In this case, love of the P-51 is the explanation for what we see. Except for hauling ordinance, the 190D-9 is clearly a better aircraft below 20k ft for the kind of fighting you do in a P-51, but people want to fly a P-51 regardless.
The 190D-9 accelerates better, climbs better, rolls better, has more firepower, and is faster below 20k ft than a P-51. Come to think of it, the only reason the 190D-9 should have a higher ENY than the 51 is the lack of a/g ability and flight time.
-
A B-29 with a "Fat Boy" in the bomb bay would be unbalancing. Extreme example, but IMO apt.