Rotate and/or Adjust the Perked Aircraft.

[Karnak]

BnZ,

The fact that the Spitfire Mk XVI does not dominate the kill totals or the K/D ratios is a good indicator that it doesn't need to be perked.

The fact that the Spitfire Mk XIV is the least used perk plane and it has the lowest success of all perk planes by a huge margin, being unique in that some free planes have a higher K/D ratio, is a good indicator that it should not be perked.

[Oleg]

Typical easy way out.  Thanks for adding your idiotic sense of logic.  It has nothing to do with "me".  Stop and take a look around sometime.  Perhaps you are one of those people who cant and wont fly anything else other than the uber planes?  I rarely fly the P51D, btw.  Strive for some balance and some continuity among the scoring system.  Dont settle for the same-same the way sheep do.

Next.

"idiotic sense of logic" is like asking to change things you dont ever understand, just because you dont like it, huh?

[Anaxogoras]

The fact that the Spitfire Mk XVI does not dominate the kill totals or the K/D ratios is a good indicator that it doesn't need to be perked.

This assumes that pilot skill does not play a role in those stats, and that assumption is false.  In terms of dogfighting performance the XVI is very perkable.

Perk an airplane I can skedaddle away from when it equalizes the E state on me in 2.5 seconds and unperk one a heck of alot harder to skedaddle from when it does the same thing...

The XIV is a whole different aircraft bnz.  If mere top speed were enough to perk an airplane then I would share your concern.

[BnZ]

The fact that the Spitfire Mk XIV is the least used perk plane and it has the lowest success of all perk planes by a huge margin, being unique in that some free planes have a higher K/D ratio, is a good indicator that it should not be perked.

You don't think these states are misleading even a little bit???

I'm pretty sure the Fw-190 D9 will have a better k/d than the SpitXIV. Therefore, Fw-190D9>SpitXIV...wait...huh.

Or maybe because it is called a Spit and has a low perk price, it is the plane most likely to be upped by an inexperienced person and flown in a way contrary to its nature. (If it had a black cross on the wing and was dubbed the "Bf-309", I bet the k/d would be higher...seriously.)

[BnZ]

The XIV is a whole different aircraft bnz.  If mere top speed were enough to perk an airplane then I would share your concern.

What am I missing Gav? Getting down to brass tacks,  take your 190 F-8. Turns a lot worse, climbs worse, accels worse, than a Spixteen, and is just barely faster on the deck. Replace it with the SpitXIV, and now you have a plane which turns much better, climbs much bettter, etc, and is notably FASTER. What are you going to do against a pilot who knows what they are doing, throw your clipboard at'em?

[Anaxogoras]

The XIV does not turn better than the XVI.  You weren't saying that, right?

There are already plenty of aircraft that can rundown and outturn the 190F-8, so it doesn't concern me too much.  I just think it's a much more challenging aircraft to fly than the XVI, and even a less capable furballer.  The SpitXIV is really at its best when it's flown like a 51, and then it lacks the good roll rate that makes the 51 successful at diving attacks.

[Lusche]

You don't think these states are misleading even a little bit???

I'm pretty sure the Fw-190 D9 will have a better k/d than the SpitXIV. Therefore, Fw-190D9>SpitXIV...wait...huh.

Karnak isn't those stats to determine simply which plane is "better" than another one - this is hard to quantify anyway and depends on many variables. And PERK wasn't introduced for a different reason - HTC states it was made to "restrict the availability of otherwise unbalancing planes."
And to see if any fighter has indeed a unbalancing effect on the MA's, a look at the stats can indeed be very valuable. Overall, there are not that many Spit XVI's as people say and it isn't hasn't a more "deadly" effect than many many other fighters.

Indeed a good stick in a Spit XVI is a deadly opponent, but with that logic you will have to perk a lot more planes too. What about the 109K4? Fastest plane from 8-25k, still one of the fastest on deck, deadly cannon, best climber to alt in game. What about 109D9? Supreme picker, can easily run from a Spit XVI...

[Anaxogoras]

Karnak isn't those stats to determine simply which plane is "better" than another one - this is hard to quantify anyway and depends on many variables. And PERK wasn't introduced for a different reason - HTC states it was made to "restrict the availability of otherwise unbalancing planes."
And to see if any fighter has indeed a unbalancing effect on the MA's, a look at the stats can indeed be very valuable. Overall, there are not that many Spit XVI's as people say and it isn't hasn't a more "deadly" effect than many many other fighters.

Indeed a good stick in a Spit XVI is a deadly opponent, but with that logic you will have to perk a lot more planes too. What about the 109K4? Fastest plane from 8-25k, still one of the fastest on deck, deadly cannon, best climber to alt in game. What about 109D9? Supreme picker, can easily run from a Spit XVI...

Unbalancing - the superlative undefined term.

[BaldEagl]

The SpitXIV is really at its best when it's flown like a 51, and then it lacks the good roll rate that makes the 51 successful at diving attacks.

Exactly.  And it really doesn't matter at what altitude as long as you keep the speed up.

I personally think the XIV is a monster.  I'd fly it all the time if it wasn't perked.  It's in the ballpark with the fastest planes at almost every alt and turns better than all of them except maybe the LA-7.  I love to run down Dora's, Ponies and LA's in the XIV.  It might take about a 1-2K alt advantage at icon range though depending on the opponent and the alt.

And yes, a n00b jumps in a XIV and tries to fly it like a XVI which contributes to it's dismal stats.  I know I did the first few times I flew it.  I didn't get why it was perked.  Now i get it.

As to perking the XVI... no.  It's a great little plane but it's pretty fragile.  Thank g@d for it's handling because you have to take extrordinary care to keep it out of someone's gunsights.  It's not as fast as the fastest planes and doesn't turn as well as the dedicated turners.  What it does have going for it is that it holds an exploitable advantage over any other plane in the set but when the odds go against it it's no better than anything else.  A 2 on 1 against a dedicated turner and a fast B'n'Zer is near suicide in a XVI if the pair have any clue at all as to what they are doing.

Just my $0.02.

[Lusche]

Unbalancing - the superlative undefined term.

The other suggestions why to perk this and that are not more precisely defined

Of course it's very arguable at what point unbalancing begins...but surely it's not a plane that hasn't more kills or any better K/D than it's supposed to stay unperked peers - it has not more impact on MA gameplay.

[Anaxogoras]

My point is that unbalancing must not include arena stats as part of its definition, because arena stats are totally determined by the quality of pilots that fly the aircraft.  For example, if the 262/tempest were only flown by 2 week noobs, it would not be unbalancing in the sense of arena stats, but no one would accept that as an argument for not keeping the 262/tempest perked.

[Lusche]

My point is that unbalancing must not include arena stats as part of its definition, because arena stats are totally determined by the quality of pilots that fly the aircraft.  For example, if the 262/tempest were only flown by 2 week noobs, it would not be unbalancing in the sense of arena stats,

Trust me, it would. The Tempest usage would roar up and it's k/D, while dropping considerably, would still be vastly above the 16

That's exactly what happened back when there was no perk system at all. The F4UC was flown by "n00bs" to a large degree, but still dominated MA by sheer numbers and K/D.


But all in all, it doesn't matter. The 16 wasn't perked during the last 3 years and I don't see what could HTC suddenly start to think it should, particulary as there are less Spit 16's around than 3 years ago when I started
People yelled "perk the La-7" with more furor for a longer time and it didn't happen either


Lusche out.

[Anaxogoras]

Trust me, it would. The Tempest usage would roar up and it's k/D, while dropping considerably, would still be vastly above the 16

No, that's incorrect, and stay within the domain that I stipulated.  I said "if the 262/tempest were only flown by 2 week noobs," the K/D would be pathetic then, likely under 1:1, and therefore not unbalancing by your definition.

That's exactly what happened back when there was no perk system at all. The F4UC was flown by "n00bs" to a large degree, but still dominated MA by sheer numbers and K/D.

When I say "2 week noobs" I mean 2 week noobs, not people in their first couple months or something comparable.  I can make the point even stronger by restricting the domain to first day players.  If it were only first day players that flew e.g. tempests and c-hogs, you would see their K/D ratio drop wayyyy below 1:1.  That's why arena stats are not a sound way to define unbalancing.  Any good definition of the term must not be so easily contradicted by thought experiments like this one.

[Lusche]

No, that's incorrect, and stay within the domain that I stipulated.  I said "if the 262/tempest were only flown by 2 week noobs," the K/D would be pathetic then, likely under 1:1, and therefore not unbalancing by your definition.

When I say "2 week noobs" I mean 2 week noobs, not people in their first couple months or something comparable.

You are aware that no plane will ever be flown ONLY by "n00bs" so your argument has nothing to do with the realities of actual gameplay in MA at all???  So there is no point in your argument. Planes and their usagearen't existing in an artifical environment - MA gameplay is a reality.

The numbers do tell. Spit 16 has OVERALL no more impact than N1k, P51D. It's really that simple. As stated before the "but a competent pilot" arguement holds true for many more planes that would have to get perked for the very same reason, especially planes that are, unlike the Spit XVI! able to engange and disengage at will, like La7, 109K, 190D.

Any good definition of the term must not be so easily contradicted by thought experiments like this one.

Sorry... your thought experiments are not very... let's say "convincing"

And that was my final contribution to this thread. This time for real

[Anaxogoras]

You are aware that no plane will ever be flown ONLY by "n00bs" so your argument has nothing to do with the realities of actual gameplay in MA at all???  So there is no point in your argument.

Good strawman.  You need to try harder to interpret my words more charitably, otherwise you don't address my argument.

It's a thought experiment.  Thought experiments are very useful ways to test definitions, and so the point is to show that this definition of unbalancing is poor.  Moreover, the relevance to gameplay is obvious: K/D ratios for aircraft are always going to be skewed by the quality of their pilots.  The exaggerated hypothesis I offered was an heuristic device to bring that under sunlight; the difference between reality and hypothesis was a matter of degree.

Let's put it this way.  Your definition of unbalancing and its practical value only holds true under such a narrow range of circumstances, i.e. equal pilot ability in all cases, that I'm finding it hard to understand why it was ever put forward in the first place.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only satisfactory way to determine which aircraft are perked is objective performance stats, and there might be multiple sets of stats that could be used for that purpose.  Set the standards, and let the chips fall where they may.

Sorry... your thought experiments are not very... let's say "convincing"

Can you tell me why?  I fail to see how your definition is not contradicted by my thought experiment.  If we are not willing to align our beliefs with the outcome of this kind of logical analysis, then we aren't being rational.