Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on February 07, 2009, 12:17:46 PM
-
So, after presenting the idea of popularity + k/d ENY and seeing it roundly rejected, I investigated ways to rank aircraft by performance. The idea is to come up with some kind of objective way to assign each aircraft a number that reflects a wide cross section of various performance statistics. 442w30 encouraged my efforts and allowed me to borrow his scheme and tinker with it as I saw fit (thank you).
To assign a rank for a peformance stat, e.g. speed, you take the individual aircraft's performance stat, subtract that average for all aircraft, and then divide by the standard deviation. This is called the Zscore:
Zscore = (x-avg)/stdv
The result is generally a number between -2 and +2, and anything higher or lower is extreme. For example, for top speed at sea level the La-7's zscore is 1.58, while the A6M2's is -2.05.
These are the performance categories:
Top speed at sea level
Best speed at <10k ft (altitude varies by aircraft)
Best speed at >10k ft (altitude varies by aircraft)
Climbrate at sea level
Climbrate at 10k ft
Climbrate at 15k ft
Maximum sustained turn rate (flap use depends on aircraft)
Minimum turn radius without flaps
Minimum turn radius with full flaps
Primary weapon lethality
Secondary weapon lethality
Primary weapon firing time
Secondary weapon firing time
Primary weapon ballistics (meters/sec)
Secondary weapon ballistics
Combat flight time (no drop tanks)
Ordinance capacity
Roll rate at 200mph
Roll rate at 300mph
Roll rate at 400mph
Cockpit visibility (from http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Planes.asp (http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Planes.asp))
Dive acceleration (from 150mph to 400mph using auto-speed)
Energy retention (cutting the engine at 400mph level flight, measuring time to 150mph)
Level acceleration 200-300mph
To emphasize or minimize the impact of certain categories, they are all assigned a modifier, like .25 or 2.5, depending on their degree of importance (these numbers are debatable). With 24 categories, all modifiers added together equal 24, and then the average of the modified Zscores is that aircraft's rank. After lots of tinkering and adjusting, these are the modifiers I have assigned and below you will see the results:
2.5 Top speed at sea level
1.5 Best speed at <10k ft (altitude varies by aircraft)
.25 Best speed at >10k ft (altitude varies by aircraft)
1.5 Climbrate at sea level
1.0 Climbrate at 10k ft
.25 Climbrate at 15k ft
1.5 Maximum sustained turn rate (flap use depends on aircraft)
.75 Minimum turn radius without flaps
.75 Minimum turn radius with full flaps
1.75 Primary weapon lethality
1.75 Secondary weapon lethality
.25 Primary weapon firing time
.25 Secondary weapon firing time
1.25 Primary weapon ballistics (meters/sec)
1.25 Secondary weapon ballistics
1.0 Combat flight time (no drop tanks)
.25 Ordinance capacity
.25 Roll rate at 200mph
.75 Roll rate at 300mph
1.25 Roll rate at 400mph
.5 Cockpit visibility (from http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Planes.asp (http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Planes.asp))
1.0 Dive acceleration (from 150mph to 400mph using auto-speed)
1.0 Energy retention (cutting the engine at 400mph level flight, measuring time to 150mph)
1.5 Level acceleration 200-300mph
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3481/3260131413_56d57fcc21_o.png)
Some of the results are surprising, like the low score of the N1K. If I were to emphasize its positive traits and minimize its negative traits with the modifiers, aircraft like the P-51D and 190D-9 would be very low on the list and the Spitfire XVI would be at the top. This is to say that these numbers simply reflect performance on paper and do not reflect how aircraft are used in the arena. The Hurricane IIC is more effective than its score reflects because people love to furball, and it scavenges on the aircraft the fast ones force to turn. Likewise, the P-47N is very high on the list even though it is rarely used as a fighter in the arena: its roll rate at 400mph is tied for #1 with the P-38L, it has good firepower with high ballistics, it's fast and has a long loiter-time over a combat area; yet few people find the fighting style that makes use of its strong points worth pursuing.
The one statistic I wish I had, but which is difficult to measure, is durability. If someone knows of a good way to test aircraft durability, please let me know. Taking account of it would bump the Spitfires down a bit, but the XVI, XIV and VIII would still rank among the top aircraft.
-
Are the modifiers you assigned just for the LA7? Or are they constants for all planes? I'm a little lost on that, please explain.
-
Are the modifiers you assigned just for the LA7? Or are they constants for all planes? I'm a little lost on that, please explain.
The modifiers are for all aircraft. I apologize if I did not explain them enough.
Let's use speed at sea level as an example, again. With a modifier of 2.5, the La-7's Zscore is 1.58 x 2.5 = 3.95. The A6M2's Zscore is -2.05 x 2.5 = -5.13. All of the modified Zscores are averaged, and that becomes the aircraft's rank which you see in the list above.
-
I have to get over the shock of seeing my name in a thread...
My contribution was simply to introduce Z-Scores to Anax and give him a basic spread sheet framework to begin his project with. The rest of you cannot imagine how much work he has done on this project and how much time he has put into it. :salute
Anax, I started a little project and need P39D and Q data. Could you please send me that? Feel free to send me the spreadsheet too. I'd enjoy looking it over.
-
At first glance, I spot the major tool of the trade for town busting, the Me 110G somwhere in the middle.
The hordes would be ever thankful for that - like having ENY 20 and 110's still available to roll bases NOE with 30 110's ;)
-
The heavy gun package on the 110G is so powerful that it has a raw z-score of over 4.0 IIRC that puts it in the 99.9997% range. In fact if this were a survey where the data was from a sample size rather than a whole population, that score would be labeled an "outlier" and throw out. However this is a population driven work and thus all data must be included. He has the lethality of the primary and secondary weapons at a 1.75 modifier which weights the gun package a lot.
-
Why no 262 or 163? Do they skew the data that much? Did you remove them from your averages?
It doesn't surprise me that the Nik is somewhere near the middle based on your dependence on averaging averages. It does everything reasonably well and has no excessive flaws, but is also generally outclassed in something by most late war aircraft.
Nice attempt, but as you say, the weightings you give are easily debatable. For example, someone looking for an aircraft in more of an attack role would certainly not assign only .25 to ord capability and firing time, and would not be quite as needful of a good top speed at sea level as the hefty 2.5 you give that category.
-
The heavy gun package on the 110G is so powerful that it has a raw z-score of over 4.0 IIRC that puts it in the 99.9997% range. In fact if this were a survey where the data was from a sample size rather than a whole population, that score would be labeled an "outlier" and throw out. However this is a population driven work and thus all data must be included. He has the lethality of the primary and secondary weapons at a 1.75 modifier which weights the gun package a lot.
And that shows in my opinion how difficult it os to find a purely objective and quantifiable approach to ENY, because there are ever changing factorsthat you can't really put into numbers.
To stick to the 110G example, your arguments are not completely uncionvincing from a pure statistical approach. But it fails to take into consideration what the primary role of the 110 in MA gameplay really is, and that a much higher ENY for that plane would have a detrimental impact on gameplay.
Furthermore, like E25280 already said, while the comparison between the different planes within a specific category is quite objective, the weighting of all the categories to get any kind of ranking is not. It's largely subjective and can be debated a lot.
-
Furthermore, like E25280 already said, while the comparison between the different planes within a specific category is quite objective, the weighting of all the categories to get any kind of ranking is not. It's largely subjective and can be debated a lot.
Yes, but despite its imperfections, this kind of approach is superior to simply making an ad-hoc guess. It's a fallacy to say that because it can't be done perfectly, it ought not to be done at all (which I know you didn't say, but it's nearly the conclusion I see you regularly make in these discussions).
-
:rofl Why ???? because you say so? :rofl
-
:rofl Why ???? because you say so? :rofl
What?
-
You claims of superiority. All but made me fall out my chair in laughter. :rofl
-
You claims of superiority. All but made me fall out my chair in laughter. :rofl
And I stand by it. :aok I'll stand by any decision based on quantitative data over a hunch, any day, any week, any year.
-
Always easy to find exceptions or quirks ,
but on balance that is a very good list from Top to Bottom :)
-
The use of ac in rolls they were never really intended to do defies quantification.
But you just keep on a trying. :aok
-
And I stand by it. :aok I'll stand by any decision based on quantitative data over a hunch, any day, any week, any year.
As has been pointed out, your hard coded system would have an adverse effect on gameplay compared to the ad hoc one we have now simply due to the placement of the Bf110G-2 on your list.
In otherwords, yours is inferior as presented.
The fact is, there is a lot of complexity involved and you simply cannot use simple numbers to weight all of that complexity.
You also completely skipped the whole issue of aircraft handling quirks as they are largely subjective. That doesn't mean they aren't there though.
-
Karnak, what you really mean to say is that this list mostly reflects the air-to-air ability of our fighters. ;) It would be easy to set the modifiers to more greatly emphasize town-pounding ability.
-
Karnak, what you really mean to say is that this list mostly reflects the air-to-air ability of our fighters. ;) It would be easy to set the modifiers to more greatly emphasize town-pounding ability.
Right, but you can't ignore the fact that aircraft in AH are used for multiple things when you set ENY and that those things have an effect on gameplay.
-
I applaud you efforts at developing a "Grand Unified Theory" for ENY and Aircraft Performance. This is no easy task, and as you can see, there are many differing points of view.
I would have to question values for the A6M5B and the Hurricane IIC.
Good luck with further refining your approach.
<S> Baumer
-
One thing I notice is that you seem to be rating on a linear system. Once top speed drops to a certain point turning and firepower count for more than speed. I expect other traits will also fallow a curve as well.
-
What would happen if you gave all categories the modifier of 1.0? Instead of you deciding what is important ie top speed on the deck that would give an idea of the best over all fighter....yes...no. Never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the pack but it seems by giving those vaules it's jilting the scale. Because top speed on the deck is not the single best feature of an AC.... well not in AH atleast.
-
What would happen if you gave all categories the modifier of 1.0? Instead of you deciding what is important ie top speed on the deck that would give an idea of the best over all fighter....yes...no. Never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the pack but it seems by giving those vaules it's jilting the scale. Because top speed on the deck is not the single best feature of an AC.... well not in AH atleast.
No linear system will produce accurate results.
-
What would happen if you gave all categories the modifier of 1.0? Instead of you deciding what is important ie top speed on the deck that would give an idea of the best over all fighter....yes...no. Never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the pack but it seems by giving those vaules it's jilting the scale. Because top speed on the deck is not the single best feature of an AC.... well not in AH atleast.
Although I agree with karnak on this one, for the sake of investigation, these are the unmodified scores:
F4U-4 0.74
Spit XVI 0.57
Spit XIV 0.55
P47N 0.51
F4U-1A 0.45
Tempest 0.43
F4U-1D 0.42
F4U-1C 0.41
P51B 0.39
P51D 0.38
Spit VIII 0.37
P38L 0.36
P47D-40 0.36
190D-9 0.31
F4U-1 0.28
P47D-25 0.25
KI84 0.24
190A-5 0.22
LA7 0.20
P38J 0.19
109 K-4 0.18
Spit IX 0.17
109 G-14 0.16
F6F 0.16
P47D-11 0.14
109 G-2 0.11
109 F-4 0.09
190A-8 0.08
LA5 0.08
TA152 0.08
C205 0.03
N1K2 0.02
190F-8 -0.01
YAK 9U -0.01
Mossie -0.03
Spit V -0.03
109 G-6 -0.05
110 G -0.05
C202 -0.06
Typhoon -0.07
Seafire IIC -0.10
P38G -0.11
KI61 -0.18
YAK 9T -0.22
P-39Q -0.31
FM2 -0.33
110 C -0.42
P40E -0.42
Hurri IIC -0.43
P-39D -0.50
A6M5 -0.51
Hurri IID -0.60
Spit I -0.67
P40B -0.68
Hurri I -0.69
F4F -0.73
109 E-4 -0.75
A6M2 -0.81
-
LMAO 190 A5 above the 109 k4.
This thread gets better and better. Glad I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that.
:rofl
-
LMAO 190 A5 above the 109 k4.
This thread gets better and better. Glad I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that.
:rofl
Well, duh, that's what happens when you don't use the modifiers. :rofl He wanted to see the raw scores and so I gave them to him.
That said, I changed two categories to better reflect the ability to gun down a town. Instead of firing time for the weapon banks, it's now total destructive capacity for those weapon banks. I bumped down speed asl, ballistics and combat time a bit, and gave these categories a weight of 1:
Tempest 0.81
F4U-4 0.68
Spit XIV 0.61
Spit XVI 0.58
F4U-1C 0.56
P47N 0.47
P38L 0.45
F4U-1A 0.43
LA7 0.42
110 G 0.39
Spit VIII 0.37
F4U-1D 0.34
109 K-4 0.33
P51D 0.32
TA152 0.32
190D-9 0.31
Mossie 0.31
F4U-1 0.30
P38J 0.30
P47D-40 0.30
N1K2 0.29
P51B 0.29
KI84 0.28
Typhoon 0.25
190A-8 0.21
P47D-25 0.21
P47D-11 0.20
109 G-14 0.17
LA5 0.17
F6F 0.13
Spit IX 0.13
YAK 9U 0.07
190A-5 0.06
C205 0.05
109 G-2 0.03
109 F-4 0.00
P38G -0.01
109 G-6 -0.05
190F-8 -0.08
Spit V -0.09
Seafire IIC -0.19
YAK 9T -0.20
KI61 -0.21
P-39Q -0.22
C202 -0.32
Hurri IIC -0.40
P-39D -0.42
FM2 -0.48
P40E -0.56
110 C -0.64
Spit I -0.71
A6M5 -0.77
F4F -0.82
Hurri IID -0.87
Hurri I -0.93
109 E-4 -1.02
P40B -1.02
A6M2 -1.06
It's an interesting experiment. I'm still wondering if horizontal turn shouldn't be emphasized more to help the A6Ms and Hurri IIC.
-
Look at the hurri IIc placement... funnay.
-
Look at the hurri IIc placement... funnay.
I know. The trouble is that if I give more emphasis to horizontal turn, the Spitfire XVI will leap to the top of the list. ;)
-
P-38L..109K4...Ki-84
I think the list's clearly show that the result is not better in any way than what we have now. Still inconsistancoes, and it's still highly debatable. The individual category rankings are quite objective, but the assigned weight is purely subjective.
No one would be delighted more than old Lusche to have a trulyy objective, rational, easy computable system... but I can't see how that could be done.
-
I think you're seriously over-weighting the weapons.
If you look at the some of their parts, I would HARDLY rate the 110G over ANY F4U (much less the 109K-4, P-51D, any Jug, the N1K2, etc. etc. etc.) in terms of overall combat capability. It's a good gun platform and strike craft, and if someone isn't paying attention she can give you a nasty surprise, but the 110 is THOROUGHLY out-classed as an air-to-air combatant.
For that matter, the Tempest doesn't belong at the top of the list. She's fast, yes, but maneuverability is average at best and performance begins to drop off significantly with altitude. 1v1 and assuming equal pilots and starting positions the F4U-4 will win about 90% of engagements between the two unless the Tempest turns tail and runs away (which is usually what happens). Her gun package isn't as good, but the -4 just has better capability of getting her guns ON target. Doesn't matter if your guns are bigger if the other guy is the one who has the shot.
-
I know, combine your last ENY theory with this new one..... yeaaa that's the ticket. :lol
-
The last list I posted was just an experiment, saxman. Fwiw, the intention of these ratings is to reflect the ability of our aircraft in an arena setting, and for that the Tempest might be superior. Otherwise I wouldn't be weighting speed at sea level so much, either. ;)
I think there's a bug in the acceleration category. The Hurri IIC and A6M would do much better if I only used acceleration up to 250mph.
-
For that matter, the Tempest doesn't belong at the top of the list. She's fast, yes, but maneuverability is average at best and performance begins to drop off significantly with altitude. 1v1 and assuming equal pilots and starting positions the F4U-4 will win about 90% of engagements between the two unless the Tempest turns tail and runs away (which is usually what happens).
But that's the reality of MA combat, and that's what's makin the Tempest so dangerous: The ability to engage & disengage at will combined with massive firepower.
In a pure duel, F4U4 would rule, but the Tempest pilot doesn't have to play the F4U-4's game. Hence the Tempests much higher perk price
In a DA ranking, I would place the -4 above the Tempest, but not in a MA list.
If you look at the some of their parts, I would HARDLY rate the 110G over ANY F4U (much less the 109K-4, P-51D, any Jug, the N1K2, etc. etc. etc.) in terms of overall combat capability. It's a good gun platform and strike craft, and if someone isn't paying attention she can give you a nasty surprise, but the 110 is THOROUGHLY out-classed as an air-to-air combatant.
But Axas list is envisioned as being a base to compute ENY. ENY has to take lot more ino consideration than pure air combat performance. Again, imortance for and impact on gameplay is playing a huge role.
-
Otherwise I wouldn't be weighting speed at sea level so much, either. ;)
Hmm you'd need different eny for each side. Since rooks are at 1000k, bishies flying the horde noe and nits who couldn't find their arse with a map.
:D
-
Why no 262 or 163? Do they skew the data that much? Did you remove them from your averages?
Yes. Looking at just top speed; adding both of them would make the difference between the propeller driven a/c's top speed negligible.
-
Hmm you'd need different eny for each side. Since rooks are at 1000k, bishies flying the horde noe and nits who couldn't find their arse with a map.
:D
I fly nit some. The only arses I'm looking for are rooks and bish. I do just fine finding them. :aok
-
The planes' effective performance are more than the sum of their many attributes. I bet anyone 10$ that they never could come up with a numbers based system that beats "subjective" human attribution of ENY. Everything else being equal, the human hunch-based system will win every time.
-
Here's the deal, no matter what you do with the modifiers, the one-trick wonders are never going to do well with the scheme I'm presenting here. Most of all, I'm talking about the A6M and Hurri IIC. Both of these aircraft make a living scavenging off the enemy aircraft their faster countrymen force into a defensive turn. Even if I change the acceleration figure to only 150-250mph, these aircraft still do not match up well against the rest.
Even the 110G, besides being off the chart in firepower, has good energy retention, turns surprisingly well, and carries lots of ordinance. That's enough to move it up the list with the right modifiers. To move the Hurri and A6M up in the list, I would have to weight turn rate and turn radius and almost nothing else.
-
The planes' effective performance are more than the sum of their many attributes. I bet anyone 10$ that they never could come up with a numbers based system that beats "subjective" human attribution of ENY. Everything else being equal, the human hunch-based system will win every time.
Just like the 5 ENY of the Ta-152, eh? :devil
-
One thing I notice is that you seem to be rating on a linear system. Once top speed drops to a certain point turning and firepower count for more than speed. I expect other traits will also fallow a curve as well.
One of the statistical issues with this is that some categories are rated more than once. Top speed has three categories, ASL, <10k, >10k. So out of 24 categories it represents 12.5% of the total (raw) result. Of course if it gets distilled down to just Top Speed, then the P47N would be the top of the heap and this is meant to be for MA play, not FSO play. Turning also has 3 categories. Gun package has more than that, lethality, firing time, and muzzle velocity; and all three are for primary and secondary guns, 25% of the raw score.
Yes Karnak all of these scores are on a curve. The Z-Score curve is a bell curve. -2.00 = a score that is just over 2% better than all the rest of the POSSIBLE scores. Possible not necessarily meaning exisiting. -1 = better than just under 16%, 0.00 = right at 50%, 1.00 = better than just over 84%, 2.00 = better than just over 97%. So you see (or maybe not) that the better or worse a score is, the further up the curve it is and in reality the more impressive it is.
Because of the nature of Z-Scores and the bell curve, a 2.00 in one category is the SAME as a 2.00 in another, or any other like number. Z-Scores turn apples and oranges comparisons into Apples to apples. That is true of the raw z-scores of course. Adding any modifiers like Anax has done changes that to some extent, but only in so far as it makes the new ratings tailored to a specific subject, in this case MA A2A. Naturally it goes without saying that those modifiers are subjective.
-
you must take into consideration that it's often only a couple of factors that make a plane successful/popular i.e
good guns + good turner = win
good guns + fast = win
fast + good turner = win
good guns + lot of ammo = win
your new lists suggests the mossie better than the tiffie? not a chance. :)
Not that i agree with ENY by numbers, but if i a plane excells at 1 or more categories perhaps a multiplier should be applied.
-
P-38L..109K4...Ki-84
I think the list's clearly show that the result is not better in any way than what we have now. Still inconsistancoes, and it's still highly debatable. The individual category rankings are quite objective, but the assigned weight is purely subjective.
No one would be delighted more than old Lusche to have a trulyy objective, rational, easy computable system... but I can't see how that could be done.
Unfortunately you are probably correct ... What I do think this can be used for best, is for the individual to figure out certain things. An example: Someone who struggles with gunnery and need guns that shoot for a long time, require less lead. They also are much better when in a turn fight than when BnZing. They would put in modifiers to emphasize what they need from the a/c, and de-emphasize what is moot for them. The result, all things being equal, would be the rides that would suit them best. I have used a trimmed down version of this for comparing my FSO ride vs the expected opponents rides to figure out where we have a usable advantage. A real advantage not an opinion based advantage. Sometimes you are surprised by how little a difference really is. Or how large it is! :)
-
your new lists suggests the mossie better than the tiffie? not a chance. :)
Yes, that was with a modification to emphasize the ability to gun down a town.
This list is maybe the best yet?
Tempest 0.77
F4U-4 0.67
Spit XIV 0.63
Spit XVI 0.63
F4U-1C 0.52
LA7 0.40
F4U-1A 0.39
Spit VIII 0.39
P47N 0.38
P38L 0.36
F4U-1D 0.32
190D-9 0.28
KI84 0.27
P51D 0.27
109 K-4 0.26
P51B 0.26
P47D-40 0.23
F4U-1 0.22
N1K2 0.21
P38J 0.21
TA152 0.21
Typhoon 0.21
110 G 0.20
Spit IX 0.16
109 G-14 0.15
190A-8 0.15
LA5 0.15
Mossie 0.14
P47D-25 0.14
P47D-11 0.13
F6F 0.10
190A-5 0.06
YAK 9U 0.06
109 G-2 0.01
C205 0.00
109 F-4 -0.01
Spit V -0.01
109 G-6 -0.10
P38G -0.10
Seafire IIC -0.11
190F-8 -0.13
Hurri IIC -0.17
YAK 9T -0.21
KI61 -0.24
P-39Q -0.29
P40E -0.31
C202 -0.34
FM2 -0.34
P-39D -0.45
A6M5 -0.54
110 C -0.56
Spit I -0.64
F4F -0.66
Hurri IID -0.75
109 E-4 -0.81
Hurri I -0.84
A6M2 -0.94
P40B -0.96
-
Not an actual new ENY proposal, just for discussion.. how about this:
(http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2893/enyfa0.jpg)
If interested, I can post the formula which was used to devise the "new " ENY values.
-
Nice list lusche only thing is why the jump of "5". Eny IMO should be more progressive and not as "notchy" as a 5 point jump.
-
Just like the 5 ENY of the Ta-152, eh? :devil
I didn't say HTC were a perfect model of inerrant attention to keeping the ENY values up to date.. If they were, though, no number crunching could compare.
-
Not an actual new ENY proposal, just for discussion.. how about this:
If interested, I can post the formula which was used to devise the "new " ENY values.
Why did you stop it at 30 eny? I like this list more than the current list. :salute
-
Why did you stop it at 30 eny?
because I didn't notice list was trunctated. :o
here's the missing part:
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2248/eny2qw1.jpg)
-
I didn't say HTC were a perfect model of inerrant attention to keeping the ENY values up to date.. If they were, though, no number crunching could compare.
Do you think HTC would agree that they've paid insufficient attention to keeping ENY current?
-
Lusche, a couple questions:
Hurri IIC ENY at 10 seems a little low? The plane can't reach 300mph ias.
Why is the ENY for the 38J and 38L the same? The 38L is clearly the superior aircraft.
I'm surprised that you have the 109G-2 with higher ENY than the G-6.
I agree with Bronk that chunks of 5 is too big.
What is your formula?
-
I don't know their schedule, or what the to-do list looks like. I do think it wouldn't take more than one morning or afternoon debating it amongst themselves, if just Pyro or HT on their own couldn't do it in that much time... but that's just my outside guess. Either way, my bet stands. Condensing ENY values from the thin air of subjective feeling of what each plane can and can't do in everything that happens in the MA is something number crunching can't compete with. By the time it does (the time it takes to come up with a competitive model), you could have gut-felt your way to the right integers 10 times over.
I think it would be more realistic to ask HTC to change the worst offenders to some proposed value (e.g. 152, 47N), before asking them to evaluate such a complex system as one that actualy would find the right values for the whole plane/vehicle set. Unless one of us here is such a computational genius and knows a simple enough algorithm that'd spit out accurate enough values.
-
Fair enough. I respect that opinion.
I think what we all agree on is that ENY needs review.
-
Lusche, a couple questions:
Hurri IIC ENY at 10 seems a little low? The plane can't reach 300mph ias. The ability to carry 2 500 lbers 4 hizzoookas holds e well turns like the devil himself.
Why is the ENY for the 38J and 38L the same? The 38L is clearly the superior aircraft.Not enough difference except for the hard core 38 nuts to tell.
I'm surprised that you have the 109G-2 with higher ENY than the G-6.
The G-2 is a much easier AC to get the most out of would you not agree?
I agree with Bronk that chunks of 5 is too big.
Hell has just froze over.
What is your formula?
Piqued my interest also.
-
Unless one of us here is such a computational genius and knows a simple enough algorithm that'd spit out accurate enough values.
I know one guy I think... <cough> you <cough>
:D
-
Bronk, if the G-2 is easier then it's ENY should be lower. Also, I'm not a 38 nut, but the roll rate superiority of the 38L is about as obvious as differences can be.
The Hurri IIC does not retain energy well. It's one of the worst, in fact.
-
Bronk, if the G-2 is easier then it's ENY should be lower. Also, I'm not a 38 nut, but the roll rate superiority of the 38L is about as obvious as differences can be.
The Hurri IIC does not retain energy well. It's one of the worst, in fact.
Woops I some how transposed the positions of the eny for the 109s sorry.
The L roll rate, IIRC is only much better at higher speeds.
There has been some discussion that the 2c's E retention in game is much better than RL. That's why I added that.
-
I know one guy I think... <cough> you <cough>
:D
You know.. now I can think of a reason for why HT asks for bribes..
Fair enough. I respect that opinion.
I think what we all agree on is that ENY needs review.
So do it.. Start a thread for each plane (just to avoid too much cross-talk if there's more than two or three) that has an obviously odd value, where everyone on the forum tosses arguments for or against a value suggested in the OP (e.g. 8 for both.), till one value comes out on top. Survival of the fittest ENY integer.
Once that's done, then working on a full planeset algorithm will be the best issue to sort out.
-
double post.
-
Lusche, a couple questions:
Hurri IIC ENY at 10 seems a little low? The plane can't reach 300mph ias.
Why is the ENY for the 38J and 38L the same? The 38L is clearly the superior aircraft.
I'm surprised that you have the 109G-2 with higher ENY than the G-6.
I agree with Bronk that chunks of 5 is too big.
What is your formula?
To answer the last question: There is none. ;)
It took me two minutes to make that list. I didn't think much about it but went just alphabetically through that list and assigned the ENY value to it by instinct.
It's based on a subconscius mix consisting my knowledge about performance (based on lots of testing), experience of flying and fighting against them and a lot of consideration about gameplay impact.
And I did not expect the list would be agreed on by everybody as is. But that wasn't my point either: As initally stated it's not a real new ENY proposal.
I just wanted to show that in the end such a subjective list (though I claim it's still based on lots of reasoning ;)) will come to similar results as a very laboriously computed one, which will meet at least as much debate and will also require a lot of manual "subjective" adjustments
(109G-6 6 G-2: I think may just have rated G6 ENY a tad lower because of the heavier armament - the 13mm guns do make a difference
P-38L: I don't see that plane as "clearly superior" to the 38J
Hurricane II: Turn on a dime, easy to fly, no bad handling, good roll and 4 Hizookas. A wirbel turret on wings)
-
Going to get flamed for this but here it goes.
Why not start eny values at 1 or 2 rather than 5? Once eny kicks in your sometimes outnumbered bad enough that it would help the equalize the sides. Isn't that what ENY is there for? Or maybe start adding a perk cost to lower eny planes once % of a side reaches a certian level. I know I know guys with a gazzilion perks won't care... but the perk cost is in addition to the eny value. So once eny reaches 3 your LA7(as example) cost 3 perks(also an example). Usually the low number side gets hammered from both sides so this may help. Just throwing ideas out there.
-
P-38L: I don't see that plane as "clearly superior" to the 38J
Exactly the same in performance, but with the extra goodies of dive brakes and boosted ailerons. That's as unarguable a case for superiority of one plane over another as you are likely to get in AHII
-
Exactly the same in performance, but with the extra goodies of dive brakes and boosted ailerons. That's as unarguable a case for superiority of one plane over another as you are likely to get in AHII
IMHO that's an advantage, but not being "clearly superior"
Seems I'm a bit more restrained on using superlatives ;)
-
IMHO that's an advantage, but not being "clearly superior"
Seems I'm a bit more restrained on using superlatives ;)
Clearly superior means just that, it does not mean massively superior, "OMG, the J doesn't stand a chance in a fight with the L" or any such thing. You might could argue about how much of an advantage the P-38L has because of these additions, how much of a difference this should make in ENY numbers, but some sort of edge going to the L is undeniable.
-
Is this a language difference thing? "Clearly superior" means just that, as BnZs says.
-
Yes... the .45 cal handgun is "clearly superior" to the .40 cal handgun. (of the same design) ;)
-
Going to get flamed for this but here it goes.
Why not start eny values at 1 or 2 rather than 5? Once eny kicks in your sometimes outnumbered bad enough that it would help the equalize the sides. Isn't that what ENY is there for? Or maybe start adding a perk cost to lower eny planes once % of a side reaches a certian level. I know I know guys with a gazzilion perks won't care... but the perk cost is in addition to the eny value. So once eny reaches 3 your LA7(as example) cost 3 perks(also an example). Usually the low number side gets hammered from both sides so this may help. Just throwing ideas out there.
Valid question, I don't know if HT has ever explained it here but from talking to him -
The ENY calculation ALWAYS results in a number.
If ENY values started at 1 you would start getting restricted immediately unless sides were perfectly even.
By setting the lowest ENY value to 5 it allows for small imbalances without any restrictions.
ENY values have been out of whack ever since they started to be used to limit planes usage when arenas became imbalanced.
If a plane became 'popular' usually within a few tours it received an ENY of 5.
We had very few ENY 5 aircraft before it was used to limit usage.
-
"clearly superior" means something along the lines of "self evident" or "needs no discussion" -- whereas the differences are so minute that one can say there is an advantage, but it's not "clearly" or "self evident" -- it's a tone/word choice/semantics issue, but I understand what he was trying to say.
-
The ENY calculation ALWAYS results in a number.
If ENY values started at 1 you would start getting restricted immediately unless sides were perfectly even.
By setting the lowest ENY value to 5 it allows for small imbalances without any restrictions.
ENY was set way before any of these limitations were ever imagined and coded into the game. I don't think that has anything to do with it. On top of that, one side has to almost have 50% of the arena before even an ENY limitation of 1 ever kicks in (my beef is that ENY limitations don't kick in SOON enough!!), so I don't think that's a major problem with having 1 ENY planes.
-
ENY was set way before any of these limitations were ever imagined and coded into the game. I don't think that has anything to do with it. On top of that, one side has to almost have 50% of the arena before even an ENY limitation of 1 ever kicks in (my beef is that ENY limitations don't kick in SOON enough!!), so I don't think that's a major problem with having 1 ENY planes.
If you had plane ENY values of 1 as soon as the arena numbers weren't perfectly even you would start getting limited.
Thats why the lowest plane ENY value is 5, it allows for small imbalances without any restrictions.
The only time the actual ENY calculation equals zero (might actually be 1) is when all 3 sides have the same number of players.
As stated the lowest ENY plane value of 5 is to provide a small buffer that allows small imbalances without restrictions.
50% sounds a little high (unless it has been changed).
Remember it is all relative to overall arena numbers.
300/300/350 might not produce any ENY restictions, but the same 50 extra players on one side in a lower overall numbers arena would. i.e. 100/100/150 probably would.
-
Duplicate post - ignore
-
Hi Kev, nice to see you about again sir. <S>
-
Hi Kev, nice to see you about again sir. <S>
TY.
Hoping to get back into the game once I get a decent broadband connection.
Using a 3G mobile broadband at the moment, it's not even worth trying lol.
-
Besides having near identical performance in other categories, the P-38L has a better ordinance package, and that's not debatable.
What's more, at 400mph ias, the 38L is tied for #1 with the 47N for best roll rate in the game, whereas the 38J's roll rate at the same speed is nearly 3x slower. That's also not debatable.
I use the term "clearly" because the pertinent categories are not debatable, and I use "superior" because the 5" rockets are better than the 3.5" rockets, and a faster roll rate is better than a slower roll rate. Hence, the 38L is clearly superior to the 38J.
-
Also if ENY started at 1 or 2 the rewards for downing such an aircraft with something like a Spitfire Mk I or P-40B would be excessive. Yes, it is hard to down a Spitfire Mk XVI with a P-40B, but not that hard, not hard enough to justify 40-50 perk points for it.
-
Clearly superior means just that, it does not mean massively superior, "OMG, the J doesn't stand a chance in a fight with the L" or any such thing. You might could argue about how much of an advantage the P-38L has because of these additions, how much of a difference this should make in ENY numbers, but some sort of edge going to the L is undeniable.
Clearly superior, but not massively superior.
When your spread is 5 points, it must be superior by a fairly large margin to be kicked up a category, yes?
You really only have 8 levels. If both planes have a 20 ENY, then both rate somewhere around that fourth level. One may be on the high end of fourth, the other on the low end of fourth, but both fourth.
Neither are so good as to rate a three, and neither so bad as to rate a five.
Not sure why such angst.
-
Clearly superior, but not massively superior.
I absolutely agree. The meaning of those two phrases is very different. The former is about how easy it is to detect the superiority, and the latter is about how superior something really is. ;)
-
Also if ENY started at 1 or 2 the rewards for downing such an aircraft with something like a Spitfire Mk I or P-40B would be excessive. Yes, it is hard to down a Spitfire Mk XVI with a P-40B, but not that hard, not hard enough to justify 40-50 perk points for it.
I agree on the Spit 16 and such aircraft like the N1K, or all other unperked ENY 5 planes. However, I think perked planes should have a lower ENY than 5. Downing a Tempest in a P-40B should be worth way more perks than those you get for a 16.