Myth: SpitXVI is "slow"

[Karnak]

One bit of game data you point out is the SpitXVI's K/D. Yes I say it is irrelevant, and I have demonstrated over and over why it is irrelevant...k/d of a given airplane involves too many factors that have nothing to do with performance.

I have never referenced its K/D ratio, though they do have some bearing but not the most bearing.

Its usage numbers, no matter how much you huff and puff and declare it irrelevant, is the single most relevant data there is.  You have never given a real explanation as to why it should be discared other than "it disproves my conclusion so it must not be valid."

Usage numbers, more than any other stat, includes all the factors that your blunt numbers cannot account for.  The intangibles such as fame, fragility, cockpit "ergonomics" and so forth.

You also try to use numbers against eachother in isolation of other factors, and that doesn't really work as it misses how things work together or against eachother in complex ways.

[Kev367th]

This isn't directed at you BnZ.

What I find extremely bizarre about all of this -

The main bone of contention for perking is its roll rate because of its clipped wings. (compared to the VIII)
I distinctly remember Kurfurst (especially) plus numerous others stating categorically that clipping wings made LITTLE TO NO DIFFERENCE to a Spits roll rate.

Ironic huh?

[BnZs]

I have never referenced its K/D ratio, though they do have some bearing but not the most bearing.

Its usage numbers, no matter how much you huff and puff and declare it irrelevant, is the single most relevant data there is.  You have never given a real explanation as to why it should be discared other than "it disproves my conclusion so it must not be valid."

No, it does not. My premise is that plane perk status or lack thereof should be based on relative performance,not popularity or lack thereof. Usage is thus irrelevant to my premise.

Usage numbers, more than any other stat, includes all the factors that your blunt numbers cannot account for.  The intangibles such as fame, fragility, cockpit "ergonomics" and so forth.

Karnak, karnak...I have already explained to you that "fame" does not matter to me. That a great many noobs think the P-51D is the "best plane of WWII" and fly it is of no import to me, for instance.

As for the rest,the P-51D's popularity is also great example of usage being at best only imperfectly relatable to actual performance. For a good example of the opposite phenomenon, we need only look at the Ta-152, a relatively unpopular LW MA ride. Yet a good case can be made that is at least the equal of the P-51D. As can be said for the less popular Fw-190D9, P-47N, and Typhoon.

[moot]

Why would you perk something with unbalancing potential that never actually happens?  e.g. a model that only 5% of the players can fly to its full (and unbalancing) potential?  5% imbalance isn't perk worthy.

[Anaxogoras]

Why would you perk something with unbalancing potential that never actually happens?  e.g. a model that only 5% of the players can fly to its full (and unbalancing) potential?  5% imbalance isn't perk worthy.

May as well unperk the 262, then.

[moot]

?

[BnZs]

Why would you perk something with unbalancing potential that never actually happens?  e.g. a model that only 5% of the players can fly to its full (and unbalancing) potential?  5% imbalance isn't perk worthy.

Hmmph? By definition the top 5% fly *anything* better than the 95% below them. Everything, including the currently perked rides, are rarely flown to their "full potential". That does not keep them from being perked.

Moot, you had a good argument when you said "the SpitXVI isn't good enough to deserve a perk". I assume you were talking relative performance when you said "good enough". If so, yours is the only good argument I have seen. At some point after you look at relative performance data, what is "good enough" to warrant a perk becomes a matter of opinion. I disagree with your opinion of course, but at least you didn't try to use smears and irrelevancies to support it.

[moot]

The point I'm making is that it's no use perking something for an unbalancing potential that's never realized.  I think the XVI is marginaly enough so that it won't get perked.  So yes, if I understand you, 'good enough' was relative.. It's taken in the context of the plane set and the players.

[Karnak]

No, it does not. My premise is that plane perk status or lack thereof should be based on relative performance,not popularity or lack thereof. Usage is thus irrelevant to my premise.

Then your premise is useless and invalid in the context of this game.

HTC's stated purpose of the perk system is to allow units to be added that would be imbalancing if uncontrolled.  The Spitfire Mk XVI is not (that is a fact, not a debatable point) imbalancing to AH, therefor under HTC's definition it does not warrant perking.

Your request isn't about the Spitfire Mk XVI, it is about redefining the perk system itself.

[BnZs]

Then your premise is useless and invalid in the context of this game.

HTC's stated purpose of the perk system is to allow units to be added that would be imbalancing if uncontrolled.  The Spitfire Mk XVI is not (that is a fact, not a debatable point) imbalancing to AH, therefor under HTC's definition it does not warrant perking.

Your request isn't about the Spitfire Mk XVI, it is about redefining the perk system itself.

Again, HTC has never defined the word "imbalancing". You are defining it for them.

Again, it is debatable whether all, or indeed any of the currently perked planes would be perked under the commonly thrown-about definitions of "imbalancing", if they were all released as free planes into the MA and their usage tracked. This is why I would be very interested to see what the usage stats for the DA/Furball lake, if any were available, since it is the only heavily used arena with all the prop planes free that we have.

Are you willing to say that perkage is not *directly* related to performance in any way, only to relative "bite" of the usage "pie"? That being the case, it would be difficult to say why the P-51D is *not* perked.

[BaldEagl]

You continue to beat this Spit 16 horse into the ground across multiple threads and I don't think that God himself could enter this debate and prove you wrong and you admitting such ...

Likey because he believes that if he repeats it enough it will come true.

Now for my part,

There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like ho...

[Anaxogoras]

Then your premise is useless and invalid in the context of this game.

HTC's stated purpose of the perk system is to allow units to be added that would be imbalancing if uncontrolled.  The Spitfire Mk XVI is not (that is a fact, not a debatable point) imbalancing to AH, therefor under HTC's definition it does not warrant perking.

Your request isn't about the Spitfire Mk XVI, it is about redefining the perk system itself.

BnZs is correct that HTC has not provided a definition for the crucial term "unbalancing."  It has been left ambiguous, so it's better not to use the word until there's an accepted definition.  Ask the question, what should be perked?  The best aircraft and vehicles is an intuitive and obvious answer.  BnZs is not arguing for a new definition of "unbalancing," rather he is arguing that the best aircraft and vehicles should have an objective definition, namely performance data.  Once you grant him that, by the principle of consistency/fairness, you either have to unperk the F4U-1C and Spit XIV, or perk the XVI.  I've gone for the former option personally because it would satisfy me and seems more acceptable to the rest of you.

[BnZs]

If I'm the one who is wrong, why are you the one who has to resort to crap like this?

Likey because he believes that if he repeats it enough it will come true.

Now for my part,

There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like ho...

[BnZs]

.  BnZs is not arguing for a new definition of "unbalancing," rather he is arguing that the best aircraft and vehicles should have an objective definition, namely performance data. 

Anax, I am actually more concerned with SpitXVI performance data relative the whole plane set than its performance relative the F4U-1C. Namely, the fact that it is as fast or faster than so much while being much superior in thrust/weight AND turn performance to so much, while simultaneously possessing excellent lethality and roll-rate. Plainly the fact that the F4U-1C has quad cannon alone does not justify its perk status, not in an arena that has free Typhoons, HurriIICs, N1Ks, Fw-190 A-8s, Mossies...eh, I'm not going to list everything that rivals the C-Hog for lethality. You get the idea. The only justification for perking the C-Hog, and one I agree with, is to encourage the use of the more common .50 packing Hogs. I think multiple justifications for perkage ARE acceptable, and are evidently in use.

If we imagine an arena set with three planes in it, say the P-51D, SpitXVI, and a HurriIIC (thought I'd throw in an "irrelevant" EW/MW plane), which one would I consider perk-worthy? Answer: NONE. All of these planes have at least on clear advantage over the others in relative performance. If we were to introduce the La7 to this set, I would say perk it, because at typical MA altitudes it would enjoy almost complete superiority to, and strongly effect the viability of, a very large chunk of this set, namely the 25% of this set that is composed by the P-51D.

[Karnak]

The Spit XVI is not imbalancing as is clear due to the fact that it is not A) the most used aircraft and B) not remotely close to the most used aircraft ever.

Until it meets at least the first of those criteria, it cannot even be argued that it is imbalancing.