Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dirt911 on May 14, 2010, 11:11:00 PM
-
Am i just seeing ENY at work or was Firefly's perk price raised?What would it be raised for?
-
No idea, but if it was raised, probably for having an amazing gun.
-
maybe if you kept an eye on it for a couple of days instead of running to the boards to complain about it you could have figure out the answer yourself :D
-
maybe if you kept an eye on it for a couple of days instead of running to the boards to complain about it you could have figure out the answer yourself :D
werd.
The cost of a perked ride goes up and down depending on the number of players on.
-
I wasnt complaining Firefly is useless to me either way.But saw it was at 18 perks and wondered what happened.
-
The perk cost was raised to half of that of the Tiger. I believe they're 15 and 30 base cost respectively.
-
The perk cost was raised to half of that of the Tiger. I believe they're 15 and 30 base cost respectively.
Yes but I wouldnt see what it was raised for they lower the damage it can take and raise the perk price.Respectively the Tiger is fine and sherman was fine.All that is worth the price on the sherman is its 17lbr.
-
Yes but I wouldnt see what it was raised for they lower the damage it can take and raise the perk price.Respectively the Tiger is fine and sherman was fine.All that is worth the price on the sherman is its 17lbr.
The Firefly used to be far too cheap to begin with. If they had not changed the amount of damage it can take, the new perk price would have been still too low.
-
The Firefly used to be far too cheap to begin with. If they had not changed the amount of damage it can take, the new perk price would have been still too low.
Yeah and looks what it has done.Tigers upped we dont have one to kill the Tiger.No one wants to up a pathetically over priced tank.
-
It's about time they jacked up the cost. Did the T-34/85 get a bump as well?
-
It's about time they jacked up the cost. Did the T-34/85 get a bump as well?
Mr Paper Turret? No.
-
And since all thats upped is M4A3's and panzers Tigers dominate.Which is ridiculous they are upped more now then they were when firefly was low cost.
-
And since all thats upped is M4A3's and panzers Tigers dominate.Which is ridiculous they are upped more now then they were when firefly was low cost.
You can't judge anything from just two days of subjective observation right after some new toys have been added to the game. Wait, untill we can analyze the numbers in next tour.
And right now, most people will simply jump into one of the new M4s simply to try them out.
-
You can't judge anything from just two days of subjective observation right after some new toys have been added to the game. Wait, untill we can analyze the numbers in next tour.
And right now, most people will simply jump into one of the new M4s simply to try them out.
Snaily hit it on the head here...need to wait a few tours to get the newness off.
-
And since all thats upped is M4A3's and panzers Tigers dominate.Which is ridiculous they are upped more now then they were when firefly was low cost.
:huh i dont know about you but im quite happy that i can finally dominate the field of battle again in the Tiger tank even if not to the extent that we could in AHI. today i took out a nice 12 tanks (one of which was a tiger, and another a firefly) and 1 plane with pintle in a Tiger and could have killed much more if not for my idiocy of bringing 50% AP. I'm happier than ever before... you're going to see alot of racked up perk points used again due to the shermanVC pre-version 2.19 semi-domination of the battlefield being near nonexistant now and im going to be right there doing so. Tiger's will stalk their prey again... :)
Edit:You can't judge anything from just two days of subjective observation right after some new toys have been added to the game. Wait, untill we can analyze the numbers in next tour.
And right now, most people will simply jump into one of the new M4s simply to try them out.
just to add to the topic at hand, i already know of a bunch of drivers that prefer the M4 over the existing panzer (one of which being me). The in game M4s seem to be much more feasible than the pnzr and more accurate... in fact i think that the M4 75mm's eny value is too high. the 75mm HE and the calliope can destroy an entire V base and alot of airfield targets. Yes the 75mm cannon is weaker than a .30 caliber round but with its HE power why is it eny 35? i'd say stick it at 25 with the 76mm or 30.
-
He registered in April of 08, he's had more than a few tours to "get the newness off".
Oh wait, you were talking about the tanks?
-
I've been here nearly 10 years and I haven't started near this many threads....
-
i GV a lot and have been playing this game on and off for a very long time. The Tiger IMHO has always been worthless. Maybe its just me but I always seem to be the "one shot death" no matter what tank im in. I was upping shermans just to burn tank points when they were cheap but now that they are weaker then before and more expensive i dont see the point in using them. Gun may be more accurate but not worth the perkies if you ask me.
-
i GV a lot and have been playing this game on and off for a very long time. The Tiger IMHO has always been worthless. Maybe its just me but I always seem to be the "one shot death" no matter what tank im in. I was upping shermans just to burn tank points when they were cheap but now that they are weaker then before and more expensive i dont see the point in using them. Gun may be more accurate but not worth the perkies if you ask me.
just yesterday i sat on a mountainside with firefly 76 rounds pinging off me. dont call the tiger worthless anymore and it never was worthless in AHI. Back then you'd have people scream tiger tank at base #!!!!!!!! KILL HIM! BEFORE HE BLOWS US ALL UP!!! AIRSUPPORT NEEDED at # base!!!!!!! UP LANCASTERS!!! THERES A TIGER TANK!!!!! AHHHH!!!! IM DIEING!!!!
-
i GV a lot and have been playing this game on and off for a very long time. The Tiger IMHO has always been worthless. Maybe its just me but I always seem to be the "one shot death" no matter what tank im in. I was upping shermans just to burn tank points when they were cheap but now that they are weaker then before and more expensive i dont see the point in using them. Gun may be more accurate but not worth the perkies if you ask me.
Well, T-34/85s are still cheap....
-
Can spomeone explain generally what the perk system is trying to achieve?
I think we should all be clear what it is for and I am not sure though I can see good reasons for having it. I am not sure if it is to balance th game some how and if so to what end or for historical accuracy and or combination of the two or something else?
Anyway according to Wiki 2000 fireflies built but only 1347 Tiger 1's. It is not surprising the Tiger lost goroujd when 2 tanks built to counter it and the Panzer have been introduces i.e. The Firefly and the T 34 85.
1 in 4 British Shermans at Normandy were fireflies I understand which probably overall was less than 10%. It will be interesting to see what percentage will be Fireflies in game. If I was launching a tank mission I would want at least 1 firefly to avoid a Michael Wittman (or whatever his name was type incident) the 17 pounder is probably the equal of the 88 but the firefly armour should be very inferiour to the Tiger which I beleive it now is.
-
Yarbles,
The perk system is intended to control the overuse of powerful units that could otherwise imbalance gameplay, while still allowing iconic or fun WWII units to be available for players. E.g. free Me262s make just about every other fighter pointless, but are iconic WWII German fighters that at least some players will greatly desire to use. It also provides a reward system for using less potent units or playing on the outnumbered side.
Production numbers and service dates have nothing to do with perk status. We have units in AH that were produced in numbers ranging from below 100 to over 30,000.
-
Thanks.
On that basis I would say the perk on the firefly is likely to be too high but its a case of wait and see.
I think you would agree Karnak the Spit 14 is too expensive given that the 109 k4 isnt perked and that many people will fare better in a spit 8 or 16 anyway. I personally believe the 14 should be perked but at less than half the current rate.
-
I love the Firefly I mean don't get me wrong,but i just think it isnt worth what it costs now.I would pay say around 8-10 perks but no more.
-
I love the Firefly I mean don't get me wrong,but i just think it isnt worth what it costs now.I would pay say around 8-10 perks but no more.
the gun IS the firefly. and the gun is on par with the 88. therefore 1/2 the price of the tigerI cuz everything can get a chance to kill the firefly but not everything kills the tiger...simple as that
-
The King is dead.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,289415.0.html
Long live the King.
Well at least in the next patch.
-
Well right now im not paying a cent for the Firefly,bug with its gun shells makes them like shooting rubber.
-
Guys, heres the deal:
Before the new version (ie, the increased perk cost), it was "oh, a tiger upped? Hang on, I'll grab a firefly". Either the firefly was perked far too low, or the tiger was perked about 3 times as much as it should be.
Now what would you rather have? Hoards of tigers, or a reduced number of fireflys? htc HAD to do something, it was insane. People were racking up 30+ kills before being taken down by an A20.
The panzer and the M4(76) are both capable perfectly of taking down the tiger. Simple formula here, and I'l even share it with you...
2 shots to turret it + 1 shot to kill the engine when it turns to run = you get a kill on a tiger.
In real life, not even firefly drivers gave the tiger as little respect as it got when we had 4 perk fireflys. Stop whining just because you don't want to shell out some perks for a gun that owns, and don't want to pay extra for some armor.
-
Guys, heres the deal:
Before the new version (ie, the increased perk cost), it was "oh, a tiger upped? Hang on, I'll grab a firefly". Either the firefly was perked far too low, or the tiger was perked about 3 times as much as it should be.
Now what would you rather have? Hoards of tigers, or a reduced number of fireflys? htc HAD to do something, it was insane. People were racking up 30+ kills before being taken down by an A20.
The panzer and the M4(76) are both capable perfectly of taking down the tiger. Simple formula here, and I'l even share it with you...
2 shots to turret it + 1 shot to kill the engine when it turns to run = you get a kill on a tiger.
In real life, not even firefly drivers gave the tiger as little respect as it got when we had 4 perk fireflys. Stop whining just because you don't want to shell out some perks for a gun that owns, and don't want to pay extra for some armor.
Well now that the Tiger has been fixed and the Firefly's gun shell bug repaired,I believe that it may be seen the same as it was before the perk price was raised.
-
Well now that the Tiger has been fixed and the Firefly's gun shell bug repaired,I believe that it may be seen the same as it was before the perk price was raised.
:headscratch:
-
:headscratch:
Or let me re-write that,the Tiger was fixed and the Firefly had a bug with its shells.Now that both of the isues are fixed the perk price wont effect anything,as long as there are diehard Firefly drivers in AH the perk price means nothing.
-
I must have missed something - what was fixed on the Tiger and what was the bug with Firefly shells?
-
The only bug was that the M4A3 was had extra armor on th gun mantel (the area around the barrel of the gun), and that shell hits at angles greater than 70 degrees (hitting 70 degrees off of perpendicular to the armor) were being truncated at 70 degrees.
-
The only bug was that the M4A3 was had extra armor on th gun mantel (the area around the barrel of the gun), and that shell hits at angles greater than 70 degrees (hitting 70 degrees off of perpendicular to the armor) were being truncated at 70 degrees.
Oh i thought they fixed the Fireflys shells.They hit there target but act like rubber.
-
The Firefly's gun shouldn't be causing tiger to blow up at 2000 yds, if thats what you mean. Up close, and on the other tanks, its still very effective.
-
All I know is that the Tiger's gun was effective up to 1,600 meters,I have no clue what the effective ranges are on a tiger for the QF17lbr.
-
I must have missed something - what was fixed on the Tiger and what was the bug with Firefly shells?
the problem with the tiger was the damage model angle of shell impact. if shot in the the turret by any of the shermans it would show it hitting the top instead of the side. so instead of a 75mm round hitting 100mm of armor it was technically hitting 20mm. so basically if the sherman hit at 70 degrees from the vertical (on the side of the turret) it would turret the tiger.
-
ok, pretty sure that was for all gv rounds, not just the firefly/tiger example, but I see where dirt got it from.
-
the problem with the tiger was the damage model angle of shell impact. if shot in the the turret by any of the shermans it would show it hitting the top instead of the side. so instead of a 75mm round hitting 100mm of armor it was technically hitting 20mm. so basically if the sherman hit at 70 degrees from the vertical (on the side of the turret) it would turret the tiger.
Your first sentence is partially correct but the rest of your post is completely wrong. The problem was simply that hit angles were being truncated to 70 degrees. Hits below 70 degrees work as expected, hits above 70 degrees were treated as 70 degrees.
-
Your first sentence is partially correct but the rest of your post is completely wrong. The problem was simply that hit angles were being truncated to 70 degrees. Hits below 70 degrees work as expected, hits above 70 degrees were treated as 70 degrees.
so what would that mean for a 75mm shell hittin 100mm of armor at 70 degrees?
-
so what would that mean for a 75mm shell hittin 100mm of armor at 70 degrees?
It means nothing has changed for this case ;)
-
It means nothing has changed for this case ;)
i am confused beyond belief right now... :lol
-
i am confused beyond belief right now... :lol
I'm confused that you are confused ... :rolleyes:
-
From 70o to 90o has been "added" to the damage model. Before the patch, any hit at an angle of 70o to 90o = 70o.
I think part of the confusion in people's minds is "what is 90o?
It is straight down. (Isn't it?)
A perpendicular hit to a tank, i.e. right in the side, ---------->, is 0o IIRC.
Or, maybe I'm the confused one.
wrongway
-
A perpendicular hit to a tank, i.e. right in the side, ---------->, is 0o IIRC.
Or, maybe I'm the confused one.
wrongway
You are. :D
It's the other way round. In this context, 0° is a perpendicular hit, 90° is a shell flying parallel to the surface.
-
That would make no sense. It wouldn't negatively affect a tank to have shell hits 70-90 degrees being truncated at 70, infact it would help the tank, since hits impacting flat on the armor would register as hits at 30degrees off of perpendicular. Somethin like this: \\ <== as opposed to [] <== .
See what I'm saying? I think AWwrgwy is correct. Shells impacting perpendicular to the armor are 0 degrees, while shell hits parralel to the armor are 90 degrees
-
You can't have a 90 degree hit. That passes parallel to the armor. 0 degrees is a maximum force hit as it has no deflection. Treating a hit with 85 degrees of deflection as a 70 degree hit adds penetrating power that shouldn't be there.
-
OK, I see what you are saying karnak. Ty for the help.
0 degrees is perpendicular to the armor.