Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Biggamer on June 06, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
-
This is not a rant due to dieing to a 163...but is the 163 perked high enough?should it be perked more? should it be perked less? opions please thank you <<S>>
-
should be free :cheers:
-
I like the idea of bumping up the perk value about 3 times what it is right now.
-
ghi wants F3 view for 163 too
-
Considering the susceptibility of a 163 to explode from small calibre rounds I think it is priced right. :old:
-
You need to look at the K/D vs the main bombers used to hit the strats.
Last tour a 163 had a K/D vs B17s = 3.8/3 = 1.27 K/D vs the other player
vs B24s = 3.6/3 = 1.2 K/D vs the other player
vs Ki67 = 2.7/3 = .93 K/D vs the other player
So the player upping a perk plane has an almost equal chance of losing it before killing all 3 Free bombers in a formation.
The exception looks to be the lancs, but they lack a lot of defense so it does not shock me. They made the choice to carry more bombs to the strat when they took off.
Most 163 pilots really suck. if they don't ram you they spray all over hoping for a hit. Its only the good sticks who already have large perk banks that can make the 163 work so well.
-
You need to look at the K/D vs the main bombers used to hit the strats.
Last tour a 163 had a K/D vs B17s = 3.8/3 = 1.27 K/D vs the other player
vs B24s = 3.6/3 = 1.2 K/D vs the other player
vs Ki67 = 2.7/3 = .93 K/D vs the other player
So the player upping a perk plane has an almost equal chance of losing it before killing all 3 Free bombers in a formation.
The exception looks to be the lancs, but they lack a lot of defense so it does not shock me. They made the choice to carry more bombs to the strat when they took off.
Most 163 pilots really suck. if they don't ram you they spray all over hoping for a hit. Its only the good sticks who already have large perk banks that can make the 163 work so well.
Yes, yes, I see... wait... you're not Snailman! I demand a bar graph!
I wouldn't mind seeing the 163 perked higher. The thing is so fast and small that , if used properly, it still wouldn't get shot down.
-
So if thing was perked another... 25 points or so just how would that effect its usage???
-
So if thing was perked another... 25 points or so just how would that effect its usage???
Minimal.
The 163 is 50 perks or so (every time I look anyway). I think making it 150 perks would be a fair price.
-
163 should certainly be raised to at least 100 perks.
-
Guess we could always suggest that the only way to have access to 163s to defend strats is to send a bottle of scotch to HT per week you wanna use them.
He likes the fancy stuff, btw.
-
it should cost the same as a flight of b29s.
300 perks at least.
-
it should cost the same as a flight of b29s.
300 perks at least.
:lol
-
They can be a pain in the butt to a two hour strat run. I always thought they should be perked a bit higher...120-150 :old:
-
Yes, yes, I see... wait... you're not Snailman! I demand a bar graph!
I wouldn't mind seeing the 163 perked higher. The thing is so fast and small that , if used properly, it still wouldn't get shot down.
ya forgot the pie Graph also :devil
-
if the perk price is raised.. The 163 should be enabled at any base and the next closest base in any sector with greater than 4-1odds attackers/defenders..
edit: actually, this should be done anyway :)
-
Why not also include 163 DLC pack where you can buy 163s for $20 with double ammo load and free to any field :banana:
Or the AH con ufos as $500 DLC!
-
I still believe the solution involves controlling the ENY and perk cost with an added "Use Factor" with some sort of reference to historical use values if practical.
As an example. Say I go into the MA. No one on the Rooks has taken out a 163 by chance. I up one for say 100 perks. Rook Player B goes to up on a 163 too and it is now 150 since one was already in play. Rook Player C wants a 163 but now the perk is 300. I would suggest this same system apply to all planes so during very high use planes like the Mustang Ds, P47Ms and Spit 16 and 109Ks be perkerked.
-
Randy, the idea is to encourage people to fly AcesHigh, can you imagine how many people you'd piss off with that system, especially Mission orientated players?!
-
Randy, the idea is to encourage people to fly AcesHigh, can you imagine how many people you'd piss off with that system, especially Mission orientated players?!
When there is an imbalance in the number of players per country, the current ENY systems limits low ENY planes now. Why not expand that system to include an imbalance in planes?
-
163 is fine where it is. Limited range, low amount of amo, and gos boom at the slightest touch.
-
I think that there is a good argument to be made that the 163 is too cheap. When perk values were adjusted this month, the fact that the 163 is only available at a few fields was not weighed into the analysis. It's not apples to apples when comparing it to other perk planes because it is only taken up when there is an opportunity to do so. When there is an opportunity to use it, its take rate is much higher than stats would otherwise indicate.
-
163 is fine where it is. Limited range, low amount of amo, and gos boom at the slightest touch.
True, but within it's range and while it still has ammo it's arguably the most capable plane in AH. The issue brought up in another thread is pretty valid - strat runners are laying on the line a lot more time and/or perks to hit the strats than the guy who can up a relatively cheap manned rocket and intercept them in 3 minutes. I'm all for the 163... it's a cool plane, but it should be limited in it's availability.
Perk the hell out of it and call it a day. That would probably limit them sufficiently and ensure the people who do use them aren't just using them for ram rockets after the taters are gone.
-
I rarely get on the perk wagon, but the 163 does need a bump in it's perk level.
-
ghi wants F3 view for 163 too
:lol :lol :lol
-
I'd like to see the damn things randomly explode, not only for historical reason but comedic reasons.
-
:huh :huh :huh :huh :devil :devil :devil Love them! :devil :devil :devil :devil Hate whiners! :devil :devil :devil Hey Way, quit being a wuss and talk to me! :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:
-
I think that there is a good argument to be made that the 163 is too cheap. When perk values were adjusted this month, the fact that the 163 is only available at a few fields was not weighed into the analysis. It's not apples to apples when comparing it to other perk planes because it is only taken up when there is an opportunity to do so. When there is an opportunity to use it, its take rate is much higher than stats would otherwise indicate.
if the 163 is available no one even bothers to watch or patrol the strat area. they wait till the red darbar is near the city and are up at 40k in 3 min.
the 163 should be the last ditch choice and not a complete substitute for actual air cover by piston fighters of the strat areas.
it should be so expensive that few would risk losing so many perks to use it on every single red darbar dot that passes along.
a good 163 pilot can wipe out a set of b29s at 1.0eny thats 300 hard to get perkies.
why doesn't the 163 cost 300 perks as well?
think about it.
you dont encounter many b29s in maps where strats have a 163 base because the b29 pilot knows he could encounter a swarm of not just 1 163 but 5-6. and if he kills them all they are back and attacking in 3 minutes because 50 perks to most who know how to fly a 163 is like upping a t34/85 at a spawn camp. they dont care if they lose 50 perkies.
the b29 and the 163 are the ultimate enemies in this game and both are only useful at the strats. the b29 takes too long to climb and its bomb drop pattern is to large for precision work that the other 4engine bombers can do better.
300 perks for b29s 300 perks for 163.
nothing less will even deter the cloud of disposable 163s that up repeatedly anytime anythign to shoot at is in range.
-
i upped a set of b29s sometime ago now and got to 34k it took me well over and hour i get to strats i shot down the same person 3 times in about20-25 mins those 3 163s most likly did not even cost him the prce of a single 262.. its pretty rare to see someone lose a 262 and up and lose 2 more why because that is around 500 points thats alot of perk points to through away you can up 3 163s for the price of a 262. The 163 is kinda cheap imho.if the small amount of fuel and ammo is the reason for it being such low cost is there a way to limit each person 1 163 per hour so if you lose 1 then you cant just keep reuuping them.i have had 163s chase me back to are strats before some have the fuel figured out some dont but they can be a pain they when up in mass like yesterday 20 of them at a time and if they did they just reupped
-
The first Mosquito Mk XVI that I lost was to an Me163 on a small map. I hit the strats with a cookie from 29,000ft, but the strats were close to the HQ and an Me163 lifted as I approached. The Mossie was fast enough that I was able to put enough distance between us that my bomb still hit before he could get to me, but I had no chance to escaping. After that I decided to not hit the strats on that map anymore. The time investment is too much just to get intercepted by Me163s.
If I hadn't been in a perk bomber I highly doubt that I'd have even gotten to drop my bombs. He'd have caught me before I was at the drop point.
-
Saying you get more perks by shooting down a perk plane is true but not to the huge extent as mentioned earlier. I upped a ta152 eny of 10 and shot down one b29 i landed 5 perks no where near the 100 you speak of. Even if i shot down three it would only be 15 perks. The 163 is 5 eny that's 2.5 perks per 29 and less for the free bombers the loss of 50+ perks would gut more the biggest question is time for the bombers.
-
I'm cool with them being over 100 perks.
Still won't stop me from taking one to tank town.
-
the perk cost should be raised because some other guy might lose his perks planes to it? :headscratch: most inane logic I have ever heard. In that case every plane should be perked because I might lose 200+perks in my 262 to some free airplane. If you dont want to risk the B29's dont hit the 163 strats with them...use 17's or Lancs.
-
HTC tries to encourage the reasonable use of everything they go to the trouble to code into this game. Obvious imbalances due to unintended consequences either immediately to the introduction, or over years as the game evolves is paid attention to by HTC as it effects their bottom line. As the case of the 163 is now demonstrating, it's over use 11 years later to slaughter bombers at very little personal risk to the 163 piloted player is unfolding.
Going to the trouble to make strats more important and worthwhile to invest bomber time into by players was listened to and adjusted by HTC. It then became obvious the reasons for allowing easy access to the 163 a decade ago no longer exist, and have turned it into a specific deterrent to balanced and rewarding game play.
The responders with the simple retort of screw you whiners I like slaughtering you in my 163. Are not the kind of people who try to make something like this game last for the long haul across generations of players. And are in general those creating the current 163 unintended consequences which short sightedly is driving players away from having fun which equals the bottom line over time.
-
Perk price should stay the same but there should be a 25% chance it blows up on the runway. :t
-
They didn't blow up randomly.
Perk price should be somewhere between 200 and 300 perks.
-
It seems the majority of the time, the Strats on most maps are not even located near the 163 base. There are very few times when large strat/HQ missions even get put together. It sure as hell is not because of the 163 being in the area, it's because there are so few player who enjoy or will even take part in those missions.
There are also only a very small population of people who can fly the plane well, myself not included. I take one up only when there is a large mission in the area, just to do something different. Most of the time I get killed and I know I'm not the only one. I try to, but I also don't expect to bring it back to base.
We could increase its price, but that wont matter because the best will still be able to afford it. The people who cause the most grievances in the perk planes are the ones who will least be affected by any increase in a perk ride price increase. So all that will be done is to take away from the other players who otherwise don't fly the plane often.
-
They didn't blow up randomly.
Perk price should be somewhere between 200 and 300 perks.
"Both fuel and oxidizer were toxic and required extreme care when loading in the aircraft, yet there were occasions when Komets exploded on the tarmac from the propellants' hypergolic nature."
-
"Both fuel and oxidizer were toxic and required extreme care when loading in the aircraft, yet there were occasions when Komets exploded on the tarmac from the propellants' hypergolic nature."
Also when they came in to land they had to use every drop of fuel on board or else on contact when landing the unburnt fuel would explode.
-
Perk it some more & change only the airfield they fly out of so you can pork it down to zero fuel available. It changes the dynamics of the game some what in that a prestrike to the fuel just prior to bombers arrival will help generate extra fights.Then the sudden rush to resupply the base to get the fuel back up.
My 2 cents worth.
-
If you dont want to risk the B29's dont hit the 163 strats with them...use 17's or Lancs.
right so you can be killed twice as fast. i dont mind losing B29s the points aint the issue the problem is how cheap the 163 is. i have seen players up as many as 3 in a row because it did not cost anything i doubt that would happen if it cost atleast as much as the 262 the 163 is much more powerful then it gets credit for some jsut dont use it right
-
I agree with bumping up the perk value. Nothing insane, but would make some think twice about upping them over and over and over and over and over again against the same bombers over strats on a single mission. Some would still keep upping them anyways and that is cool.
Also, would recommend that a 163 should be able to be upped at ANY untakeable field (red squares) regardless of location of HQ.
I prefer to fight my way in and out of strats. It is fun!
-
I agree with bumping up the perk value. Nothing insane, but would make some think twice about upping them over and over and over and over and over again against the same bombers over strats on a single mission. Some would still keep upping them anyways and that is cool.
Also, would recommend that a 163 should be able to be upped at ANY untakeable field (red squares) regardless of location of HQ.
I prefer to fight my way in and out of strats. It is fun!
I would say if we were to enable the 163 across the board it should be just perked at 150.
-
I would say if we were to enable the 163 across the board it should be just perked at 150.
Hell no. Enabled across the board and no less than 500 would be acceptable.
-
Hell no. Enabled across the board and no less than 500 would be acceptable.
hell ya...good idea.
-
hell ya...good idea.
Let me put it simply. I would cancel my account if Me163s became widespread. Period.
-
Let me put it simply. I would cancel my account if Me163s became widespread. Period.
:headscratch: so in truth, not even at 500?
Hell no. Enabled across the board and no less than 500 would be acceptable.
-
500 would keep it from being widespread. 150 would not.
Personally I think 500 and keep it at one base as it is now.
The thing is incredibly disruptive.
-
i was agreeing with the 500... :lol guess i should have highlighted it.
-
It sounded like you were claiming I had been inconsistent in my posts. I don't care how widespread its availability is so long as it isn't actually widespread in use. I prefer knowing that I am not risking Me163 contact unless I get close to the HQ and would like to see its price raised to 200-300 while remaining available at only a single base. I'd prefer 500, but I don't think that is really reasonable. Make it available everywhere and 500 suddenly becomes reasonable and maybe even necessary.
-
POTW found themselves in the position once to up 12 - 163 and econocruise them 1 sector to basically slaughter an airfield. If they were made available at every field for 500 points, this game wouldn't be worth playing anymore. Many vets have over 5000 fighter points sitting unused. And with the shade farming posted every tour, change the game's name from Aces High to "Grief Closed the Doors".
The 163 in real life only had an impact on the future of jet and rocket flight technology. Not as a ww2 weapon like the 262. The reasons for allowing the numbers and gamey effectiveness from the bad old AH1 days no longer exists. It's been years past time for HTC to dial back the 163 gameyness. I suppose no one got the irony of Claw day and how familiar it seemed flying the Claw was to something you had done before in the game. Or that the 163 was a reasonable match to it.
-
I was wondering if HTC could address the fact that multiple ME163s can climb to 40,000 feet and be close enough to be heard by the enemy plane they are intercepting long before a dar bar appears?
-
Actually raise the price to 300 is fair.
I have enough perks for several b29 runs but I won't risk a good damage score for a 163 encounter
-
Actually raise the price to 300 is fair.
I have enough perks for several b29 runs but I won't risk a good damage score for a 163 encounter
You don't get a good damage score for bombing strats really, if you want a lot of damage points when you land just hit towns...
-
You don't get a good damage score for bombing strats really, if you want a lot of damage points when you land just hit towns...
On the rare times I up b29's, i bomb towns otw to target,I make 1 pass on the city, and 2 other factories, and rub pounding towns otw home :rofl
But I prefer my Boston's
-
Crys go out about the lil mean 163's there ruining my gamming experence... No worse than the regular 262 tards that show up at any good fight looking to pounce on anyone thats not paying attention then at the first sign of trouble they hike there lil skirts and speed away at 500+ mph. 262's ruin the game play far more than the limited ranged 163
-
No worse than the regular 262 tards that show up at any good fight looking to pounce on anyone thats not paying attention
Much worse actually.
I can dodge an Me262, not an Me163 unless I am in an early war Japanese plane, Brewster or Hurricane Mk I. In addition the Me262 isn't usually erasing a multi-hour sortie while only costing a few minutes of the Me262's driver's time.
I've had an Me262 stalk my Mossie XVI for more than 30 minutes without being able to get me. Try lasting long enough against a competent Me163 driver to run it out of fuel and survive.
-
it should cost the same as a flight of b29s.
300 perks at least.
I was thinking more along the lines of a single B-29
-
Much worse actually.
I can dodge an Me262, not an Me163 unless I am in an early war Japanese plane, Brewster or Hurricane Mk I. In addition the Me262 isn't usually erasing a multi-hour sortie while only costing a few minutes of the Me262's driver's time.
I've had an Me262 stalk my Mossie XVI for more than 30 minutes without being able to get me. Try lasting long enough against a competent Me163 driver to run it out of fuel and survive.
not even close... I have held bases single handedly in a 262 keeping an entire horde at bay by picking off C47's for well over an hour...do that in a 163.
you bomber jockeys must suck at gunnery if you are defenseless vs a 163.
-
you bomber jockeys must suck at gunnery if you are defenseless vs a 163.
Mossie has a distinct lack of guns.
A Tempest can do what you described the Me262 doing. Not as well, but it can do it.
-
I think that there is a good argument to be made that the 163 is too cheap.
I beg you to consider the fact that patrolling over HQ/strats is incredibly boring. Who wants to circle it for an hour or more and potentially not see any action? The Me163 is the ability to engage a bomber group without having to waste so much time doing nothing.. Frankly if the bombers would fly at a reasonable alt the interceptors wouldn't need to fly Komets to get up there. I'd much rather fly a 190 than a Me163, but when they are in bombers at 33k the plane set gets pretty limited.
Can you consider instead limiting players to a certain number of ME163s per month (with the current perk cost)? Say each player has the ability to fly 3 Me163s per month and after you have failed to land the 3rd one, you're out of luck until the next month.
Also, the resupply is far too easy. I'd make the risk/reward a bit more weighted in the bombers favor. I'd recommend removing all resupply (or minimizing the effectiveness) so that the strats or HQ aren't up before the bombers even get to land.
-
I beg you to consider the fact that patrolling over HQ/strats is incredibly boring. Who wants to circle it for an hour or more and potentially not see any action? The Me163 is the ability to engage a bomber group without having to waste so much time doing nothing.. Frankly if the bombers would fly at a reasonable alt the interceptors wouldn't need to fly Komets to get up there. I'd much rather fly a 190 than a Me163, but when they are in bombers at 33k the plane set gets pretty limited.
You usually have a lot of warning before the enemy raid reaches the target. Relying on the Me163's three minute climb has bred laziness. The bomber players and their escorts have invested a lot of time to reach the target, it is only fair that the interceptors have to invest a bit of effort to stop them.
Can you consider instead limiting players to a certain number of ME163s per month (with the current perk cost)? Say each player has the ability to fly 3 Me163s per month and after you have failed to land the 3rd one, you're out of luck until the next month.
I don't think this would work. Who wants to go on the first x number of raids before the enemy's Me163 supply runs out? If there aren't first raids, then the supply will never run out.
Also, the resupply is far too easy. I'd make the risk/reward a bit more weighted in the bombers favor. I'd recommend removing all resupply (or minimizing the effectiveness) so that the strats or HQ aren't up before the bombers even get to land.
Irrelevant if the bombers don't have enough of a chance to survive to drop their bombs.
-
You usually have a lot of warning before the enemy raid reaches the target. Relying on the Me163's three minute climb has bred laziness. The bomber players and their escorts have invested a lot of time to reach the target, it is only fair that the interceptors have to invest a bit of effort to stop them.
I don't think this would work. Who wants to go on the first x number of raids before the enemy's Me163 supply runs out? If there aren't first raids, then the supply will never run out.
Irrelevant if the bombers don't have enough of a chance to survive to drop their bombs.
What do you want? Removal of the aircraft altogether?
The problem is the bombers and their escorts will have the advantage every single sortie is the 163 is removed. If the 163 is removed there will be no possible way defenders will be present in large enough numbers to stop a strat/HQ attack (particularly with escorts present).
I'd be willing to have 163s removed entirely from AH if the bombing accuracy above 20k was very poor. I guarantee we won't see bombers any lower than they are now even if the 163 was removed. For me it is a question of time, for loitering over a target wasting my precious little time online is a complete waste of said time.
-
You usually have a lot of warning before the enemy raid reaches the target. Relying on the Me163's three minute climb has bred laziness. The bomber players and their escorts have invested a lot of time to reach the target, it is only fair that the interceptors have to invest a bit of effort to stop them.
I don't think this would work. Who wants to go on the first x number of raids before the enemy's Me163 supply runs out? If there aren't first raids, then the supply will never run out.
Irrelevant if the bombers don't have enough of a chance to survive to drop their bombs.
First of all if HTC decided to double/triple the 163 perk cost I would have no problem with that. However..
What escorts? Most of the bombers I see have no escorts. If you are worried about 163's bring more bombers/fighters for protection. Also it has nothing to do with laziness, it has everything to do with the fact that I don't want to waste my time upping and chasing strat raiders for an hour just to have them bail out once I get close. (Which quite a few bomber pilots do on a regular basis) Getting to the strats should be hard and should require you to bring large numbers of aircraft and if you fail to do this you deserve to be shot down. Quit asking HTC to hold your hands and remove an aircraft just because you don't like being shot down.
-
In my opinion escorts are a waste of time against me163s. Your only real hope is someone presses beyond 500mph and goes into compression - assuming the bombers are operating above 25k in which the me163 does accelerate rather fast and tends to compress, however it can come out of it.
I've seen all kinds of escorts, Me262s, P51s, Spit 14s etc none can take on an Me163 unless its an extremely novice pilot.
I've shot down my share in the 163 and faced enough - Its perk is rather generous considering any pilot with at least a years experience can handle and fly a 163 with ease and score a few kills. True they do blow up, but the 163 holds all the cards to get in position, and get a few kills before fuel/ammo is gone.
I've also had buffs shoot me down, while the 163 can take a few rounds, in the right place it will explode.
I believe 100 perks would be enough for it.
-
What do you want? Removal of the aircraft altogether?
No. I want bomber raids to primarily face piston, or even jet, interceptors, with only the occasional Me163 or swarm of Me163s. Right now the Me163 is so potent and so cheap nothing else gets used if the raid gets within Me163 range. The effort expended by the attacking bombers and the defending Me163s is way out of balance and it makes the bombers not even try, as noted by Citabria.
-
Me 262 is 180-260 perks make the 163 somewhere around the 80-160 range with the current eny filter make math easy and simple
-
The problem is people not reading a strat raid until they start flashing.
-
Me163s is way out of balance and it makes the bombers not even try, as noted by Citabria.
Saying that the bombers aren't currently even trying is one big hyperbole and complete and utter nonsense at that.
Now, if you want more people to try and do HQ-strat raids by limiting Me163 more somehow, is another matter.
-
I still land about 70% of my HQ downing raids and sometimes get the added bonus of a 163 kill.
-
Mossie has a distinct lack of guns.
A Tempest can do what you described the Me262 doing. Not as well, but it can do it.
When did the Mossie enter the picture? and you arent stopping any serious base take with a tempest for long...nice try
-
Fester plays the game so much I don't even think he knows what he is saying sometimes. :rolleyes:
300 perks for a 163, that is more than a 262.
Hardly anyone can get 6minutes out of the 163 let alone aim the cannon on the 163 but if utilized to potential then it can actually do a lot of damage for a pilot.
So 100 perks is probably enough in my opinion. :old:
-
Who needs a 163 when you can take off under B29s at the strats in a 262 and run them down at 30,000 + feet and still have enough fuel/alt to go back 5 sectors to get home?
-
We want to encourage game play, the price of the B-29 is to high and /or the reward for a strat run to low, in my opinion!
if the strats payed double or triple points as opposed to a city center, more bombers would fly to them, not just B-29s but lancs and B-17s
Operationally, the ME 163 only claimed 9 victories for the war compared to how many long range bomber missions from may 1944 to V.E. day? The numbers in game favor the 163 compared to ww2, not that many other numbers don't for most fighters, just an FYI
My opinion would be to raise the ME163 price to around 100/125, lower the B-29 price by a third. And double the perk value of the strats to help make it more "WORTH THE TIME AND EFFORT" for the bomber drivers!
-
This thread and another like it was started as a result of 31-37k b29s having to actually fire their guns at a aircraft that wasn't on the edge of being incapacitated at the alts they spent a long time to get to.
I was doing bomber interceptor missions on the same day this thread an another like it was started. The only person higher than me was fester still at the strats in a set of b29s at 32k, I was in a 110g2 at 29k. He was circling the area to get alt before he headed into enemy strats. (we were on the same side)
With that said the 163 should not be perked any more than it is due to its limited range, limited ammo load, and limited availability.
I keep hearing how some one else spent so much time getting their bombers to alt and it cost them 300 perks and some one upped a 163 in 7 Min's to shot them down at 33 k. It was the bombers choice to climb forever into what he thought was a totally safe zone for him to fly in. He didn't have to fly into 163 territory.
So because he wasn't smart enough to stay out of 163 range, the 163 should cost as much as his b29s.
The strats are 1945 Berlin, deal with it and bring help or fly your 33k b29s out of 163 range. But trying to incapacitate a entire map by hitting strats without having to face opposition by uber perking a 163 is bs.
-
I personally don't mind the 163s, I do think the B-29s are over priced tho, if they didn't cost so much they wouldn't climb so high, just my theory on that tho!
As far as 163s perks,, The number of B-29s in the war compared to the number of 163s in the war is not correctly represented in perk points, also ,, it's not Berlin, the war incomppased more than that,, there are no rules that say a 163 can't engage a B-29 since it never flew over Berlin, and the war can't be bombed into submission at the strats, the bish show that every other day or so.
I'll probably be returning to an enemy strat soon enough tho,, it's about as real as it gets fighting for alt, going back and forth chasing the wind, dealing with blankets of flak, the view from 30k is as good your gonna find if you want to know what it was really like, and it would be nice if they had more effect on the ability of one side or another to "win the war", or at least , if it paid a worthwhile perk point for the time airborne to land a successful mission!
Again all of this is " just my opinion" you don't have to agree or disagree with it just take it for what it's worth from another player, just like all the other players who have played for years and years,, like you! :joystick: Salute!!!
-
This thread and another like it was started as a result of 31-37k b29s having to actually fire their guns at a aircraft that wasn't on the edge of being incapacitated at the alts they spent a long time to get to.
I was doing bomber interceptor missions on the same day this thread an another like it was started. The only person higher than me was fester still at the strats in a set of b29s at 32k, I was in a 110g2 at 29k. He was circling the area to get alt before he headed into enemy strats. (we were on the same side)
With that said the 163 should not be perked any more than it is due to its limited range, limited ammo load, and limited availability.
I keep hearing how some one else spent so much time getting their bombers to alt and it cost them 300 perks and some one upped a 163 in 7 Min's to shot them down at 33 k. It was the bombers choice to climb forever into what he thought was a totally safe zone for him to fly in. He didn't have to fly into 163 territory.
So because he wasn't smart enough to stay out of 163 range, the 163 should cost as much as his b29s.
The strats are 1945 Berlin, deal with it and bring help or fly your 33k b29s out of 163 range. But trying to incapacitate a entire map by hitting strats without having to face opposition by uber perking a 163 is bs.
-
Fester plays the game so much I don't even think he knows what he is saying sometimes. :rolleyes:
300 perks for a 163, that is more than a 262.
Hardly anyone can get 6minutes out of the 163 let alone aim the cannon on the 163 but if utilized to potential then it can actually do a lot of damage for a pilot.
So 100 perks is probably enough in my opinion. :old:
Fester plays the game 'so much' that he would (and does) know the capabilities of aircraft like the 163. It is just OP vs buffs, especially in the right conditions it can and will obliterate anything in its path.
You have a set of B-29's that cost 300+ perks and 2+ hours of your time to climb in, and are about to drop your bombs? Oh...that's lovely, let me get my dirt cheap 50 perk or less 163, take less than 2 minutes to get to 30k+ and/or well above you, then kill your entire set of buffs in 3 passes or less.
Looking back at it even 100 may be too cheap, I actually (Personally) think 150, or perhaps the same as the 262, 200.
-
If it's all untouchable and stuff, what will upping the perk price accomplish? If you don't die, you don't lose the perks.
Wiley.
-
Fester plays the game 'so much' that he would (and does) know the capabilities of aircraft like the 163. It is just OP vs buffs, especially in the right conditions it can and will obliterate anything in its path.
You have a set of B-29's that cost 300+ perks and 2+ hours of your time to climb in, and are about to drop your bombs? Oh...that's lovely, let me get my dirt cheap 50 perk or less 163, take less than 2 minutes to get to 30k+ and/or well above you, then kill your entire set of buffs in 3 passes or less.
Looking back at it even 100 may be too cheap, I actually (Personally) think 150, or perhaps the same as the 262, 200.
But this is an exaggeration.
Not so much versus the more "conventional" bombers, but it ain't that easy vs a 30k+ formation of B-29s.
Having been mostly a strat player on both sides of the equation, I have witnessed many B-29 vs Me 163 fights. And hilling a whole high altitude formation of B-29s was a very rare occasion. Komet vs B-24 is a very lopsided matter, Komet vs Superfortress is a different thing.
And that's why the arena K/D of the Me 163 vs the B-29 is only at 1.57 since the 29 was introduced. If they would constantly kill whole formations it would be much higher.
I was one of the better 163 pilots for sure, but if I recall correctly, in my 60 kills of the Superfortress in the Komet there may have been only one instance of killing a whole formation in it. (It's actually easier in a Ta 152) On the other hand, my K/D in the B-29 vs the Me 163 is 18-4.
So while I could understand a raise in the perk cost of the Me 163, putting it at 300 is rather absurd.
-
Maybe what is needed is more than just the one strat complex. The complaints about the 163 only apply when the strats retreat to HQ. If there were always a several sector behind front lines long flight target that wasn't just another identical town and didn't have 163's then the pilots who don't want to run that gauntlet would be happy. At the same time if you had two complexes the other could retreat and be better protected so it wouldn't be so easy to bring production waaaay down. The first 50 percent would be 163 free and assuming strat retreat the next 50 percent would be protected by the little devils.
-
Maybe what is needed is more than just the one strat complex. The complaints about the 163 only apply when the strats retreat to HQ.
Just some nitpicking by me: On 9 of the 13 maps in rotation, the strats are near the HQ all the time. :old:
-
Im sorry but 163's are crummy, obnoxious little air maggots that I saw only a few really master. The rest would ruin a long bomber flight by ramming you. I once had all 3 17s rammed by 3 different players. They are exciting little things however and do bring some exotic excitement to the plate.
-
hit fuel strat then hit fuel at 163 base down to 75%, that should stop a lot of them upping :salute
-
Just some nitpicking by me: On 9 of the 13 maps in rotation, the strats are near the HQ all the time. :old:
Well you can see how we'll I pay attention I guess. Would there be room on those 9 maps for another strat several sectors back? And there I thought I had a good idea. Killjoy.
-
Well you can see how we'll I pay attention I guess. Would there be room on those 9 maps for another strat several sectors back?
No there would be no room, these are the small maps. Only the three large maps currently in use have the retreat 'feature' built in (and room for it).
-
<--- a wanna be bomber pilot at best.
Not sure... strats only effect 'rebuilding time(?)' so not reeeally important. Players can still up from a nearby undamaged base.
If the HQ gets thoroughly bombed, then that team has had it for the duration.
No RADAR works anywhere - no red dots!
No DAR anywhere - no red bars!
If HQ gets bombed, some defenders might fly anyways, just for the challenge of saving the day for 'immersion' or a 'role playing' experience.
Either way, a dead HQ is a grid-lock breaker, suddenly some drama and change on a map. The whole war/map could end and get reset.
Some players might switch sides rather than be at a disadvantage, increasing chance of 'end of war.'
This said, other defenders might not like the disadvantage and the inability to find enemy targets - some might just log out!
163's serve a purpose defending the HQ.
Seems a 163 is to an HQ what a 5inch is to a CV.
-
The last couple of times I bombed enemy HQ, there were no planes upped to intercept but rather a bunch of M3s waiting nearby to resupply after I bombed it.
That is pretty pathetic.
They resupplied it in 7 minutes.
-
hit fuel strat then hit fuel at 163 base down to 75%, that should stop a lot of them upping :salute
The change from 25% to 75% fuel has to be the dumbest change ever.
What's next?........hitting troops, ord, and hangers having zero effect?
This sounds like coddling the weak so they don't whine much like sports in primary school have excised competition.
-
This is not a rant due to dieing to a 163...but is the 163 perked high enough?should it be perked more? should it be perked less? opions please thank you <<S>>
It is only available at one field on the map, per country. Avoid this base, and you'll likely avoid 163s. It does take a notable effort (but is possible) to hop-scotch with the gear trolly still attached from the home field to other friendly fields, refuel, and thus station yourself closer to the fight - but this is such an effort and time consumer that it doesn't pose a serious issue. (most people will not waste ~hour to position a 163 closer to the fronts on a large map... although in many years I can remember doing it a handful myself for giggles and the challenge (and only 5-10 minutes of glorious dogfighting :bhead :aok )
I personally don't mind the 163s, I do think the B-29s are over priced tho, if they didn't cost so much they wouldn't climb so high, just my theory on that tho!
As far as 163s perks,, The number of B-29s in the war compared to the number of 163s in the war is not correctly represented in perk points, also ,, it's not Berlin, the war incomppased more than that,, there are no rules that say a 163 can't engage a B-29 since it never flew over Berlin, and the war can't be bombed into submission at the strats, the bish show that every other day or so.
I'll probably be returning to an enemy strat soon enough tho,, it's about as real as it gets fighting for alt, going back and forth chasing the wind, dealing with blankets of flak, the view from 30k is as good your gonna find if you want to know what it was really like, and it would be nice if they had more effect on the ability of one side or another to "win the war", or at least , if it paid a worthwhile perk point for the time airborne to land a successful mission!
Again all of this is " just my opinion" you don't have to agree or disagree with it just take it for what it's worth from another player, just like all the other players who have played for years and years,, like you! :joystick: Salute!!!
Good points, and I agree that in some instances the B-29 is overpriced... but, if the plan is still in motion to someday rollout with a perked ordnance/loadout system in AH, I think it will address the cost of B-29s loaded to the gills and B-29s (still worth a perk cost) loaded with a more moderate loadout.
-
Is this the thread/basis for the increase in perk price?
I've probably taken the 163 up less than a dozen times. I'm rather unskilled with it, and at its price now will forever remain unskilled.
I really don't get the increase; it can only be used out of one base, it has a very short fuel duration, it is easy fodder for anyone with decent skills as a bomber gunner, if you catch one near the front lines it will be harassed all the way back to base and many will attempt to vulch it. Furthermore, the cannon trajectory is terrible. I certainly won't give anyone the opportunity to take ~90 perks away from me that I worked (yes, worked, in ~7 months I've been present for maybe a dozen Knight wins) hard for, often very hard. Not ranting about the lack of Knight wins, it is what it is, just pointing out some of us don't get 25 free ftr perks on a very regular basis.
Why spend resources modeling a plane that sits in the hangar for the majority of players? Time would be much better spent on planes like the J2M.
-
Was the perk price increased?
-
Was the perk price increased?
Yes, from 50 to 100, which I can fully understand.
However, what I don't get was the reduction of the Tempest's perk price from 50 to 40... but that's a different topic :old:
-
The change from 25% to 75% fuel has to be the dumbest change ever.
Because it was totally great to log onto the game when you had a spare hour only to find 25% fuel across every front and no fighting because of the lack of fuel.
That sure was the best.
-
Because it was totally great to log onto the game when you had a spare hour only to find 25% fuel across every front and no fighting because of the lack of fuel.
That sure was the best.
but no one says anything about ords being down for hours on end
-
but no one says anything about ords being down for hours on end
You can up and fight againts the other players without ords. You can't do the same without fuel.
-
The problem isn't the 163's perk price. The problem is the concentrated strats near the 163 bases.
Bring back the zone strat system so bomber pilots have targets all over the map allowing them to avoid the 163's. Then the 163's primary role will be defending HQ as it was when the perk price was originally set.
No perk price will stop 163's from attacking bombers as it is now without taking the 163 totally away from the average player.
-
Bring back the zone strat system so bomber pilots have targets all over the map allowing them to avoid the 163's. Then the 163's primary role will be defending HQ as it was when the perk price was originally set.
Additional zone targets of local importance, like extensive railyards (working as supply multiliers for the bases in their zone would be great. Simply removing the central strats and going back to the old factory system not so much...
-
Additional zone targets of local importance, like extensive railyards (working as supply multiliers for the bases in their zone would be great. Simply removing the central strats and going back to the old factory system not so much...
+1 to this
-
The 163 is now 25 perk points over the price I am willing to pay in perks for.
Well done to AcesHigh for hanger queening it for at least 1 player :aok
-
If the perk price should be raised for the 163, I think it should be like letīs say 10% or so of the fighter perks the pilot has at the moment he wants to up it.
I have somewhat about 800 perks at the moment, so 80 perks would be a great loss for me, if I get killed/auger/whatever.
And so would it be for someone who has like 10,000 perks, if he loses 1000.
Everyone would think twice if upping a 163 is necessary or not. :devil
-
No perk price will stop 163's from attacking bombers as it is now without taking the 163 totally away from the average player.
+1
-
No perk price will stop 163's from attacking bombers as it is now without taking the 163 totally away from the average player.
I'm not saying this be a smarthat, but I believe you're missing a comma in that sentence, or if you are not then I believe I completely disagree with you.
If what you are saying is a perk price above where it was takes it away from the masses, then I agree.
On the other hand if you are saying the 163 should only be in the hands of the better players, well, then I disagree.
-
So how many of you didn't early on either crash a 163 on take off or on landing?
-
So how many of you didn't early on either crash a 163 on take off or on landing?
Just one? The frist time. More than one? The second time :o :devil
-
So how many of you didn't early on either crash a 163 on take off or on landing?
Auto take off.
Landing? Well for me, I almost always belly land because its faster in other planes so there weren't any problems landing a 163.
-
I'm not saying this be a smarthat, but I believe you're missing a comma in that sentence, or if you are not then I believe I completely disagree with you.
If what you are saying is a perk price above where it was takes it away from the masses, then I agree.
On the other hand if you are saying the 163 should only be in the hands of the better players, well, then I disagree.
Your first assumption was correct. I was saying it takes it away from the masses but at the same time there's so many people with perks to burn it's still not going to stop them from upping 163's. The higher the perk price goes the fewer players that will be able to fly the 163 but at the same time those that do up will be flown by the deadliest pilots accomplishing nothing in terms of making strat runs worthwhile for a bomber pilot.
-
Your first assumption was correct. I was saying it takes it away from the masses but at the same time there's so many people with perks to burn it's still not going to stop them from upping 163's. The higher the perk price goes the fewer players that will be able to fly the 163 but at the same time those that do up will be flown by the deadliest pilots accomplishing nothing in terms of making strat runs worthwhile for a bomber pilot.
Correct, Most 163 pilots are lucky to kill anything and luckier still to make it home. Good sticks have the perks and the skill to make the 163 work, but newer pilots will never get the chance to learn them without risking most likely all the perks they have managed to farm in the last 2-3 months.
And offline mode is no good for learning the 163. Most 163 attacks happen at over 20k, were the 163s speed has to be handled carefully or you can get too fast far to easy and lock up your controls. (how I lost my first 163 :uhoh)
-
cc rgr BaldEagl
I lost my first one to collision. I don't hunt buffs often and really don't often get real high above to try slashing attacks. Thus, when I tried to slash at a buff in the first 163 I lost, bam collision. :furious
At least then I think I only lost 30 perks.
-
The problem was/is that Me163s are such an easy answer to the guys who just spent two hours getting into position that even if you fail the first you can still intercept again, and maybe even a third time. They trivialize defense which makes defenders lazy. You can see this to be the case by how any approach near the HQ results in Me163s showing up. There was no consideration of whether or not to risk the perks, the Me163s were automatically taken.
-
They trivialize defense which makes defenders lazy.
Absolutely.
I was one of them :)
----
And for years the only thing the Me 163s did defend was thir own base and the HQ. Both easily been avoided, particularly as ther HQ (due to ease of resupply) wasn't really a high-value target.
Today we have the factories, which are a very important target with much impact on the game - and on 9 out of 12 maps constantly in Me 163 range.