Eliminate GV perk loss if killed by AC

[Tank-Ace]

I say no if you up a tank then you understand the risk or being bombed -1

As has been said before, you're essentially writing off those perks the instant you spawn up. Which is completely unfair, IMO.

The issue is that all almost all of the perk aircraft are, in addition to being better in combat, faster. This allows them to escape if the situation goes south, and thus you stand a reasonable chance of landing your perk aircraft. Additionally, not all damage for a perk aircraft would be considered catastrophic damage. You could be missing both flaps, rudder, an aileron, all your guns, half your tail, your landing gear, and an elevator, and you would still not have taken catastrophic damage. Compare that to a GV, where there is literally 1 damageable component that wouldn't be considered "catastrophic" at most, while some vehicles are ONLY capable of taking catastrophic damage.

Tracks: catastrophic         Engine: catastrophic           Turret: catastrophic            Pintle: minor or N/A (about like losing ONE of the 7.92mm guns on a Spitfire, 109, etc).

Basically, with a GV, its is literally do or die if you leave the base, since you can't turn around and run in many cases, which forces you to reverse at 5mph for a few minutes until you're behind cover. And even when you do get to turn around and run, enemy fighters can cover a full sector in only a hair over 4:30, assuming an average speed of 330mph with ordnance. And the Panther, the fastest perk tank of any serious cost takes over 8:15 to cover the 6k required for landing. A Tiger II would take around 9:20 to do the same. And this is all assuming you can go in a strait line at full speed for the entire time.


Given the animosity with which these vehicles are hunted, you WILL lose those 100 perks if you take up a Tiger II. So no, it is not fair to say "you knew I was going to headhunt you worse than a 262, since its almost a guaranteed kill".

Hell, you wouldn't even have to cut the cost in half if a perk PLANE is killed by a TANK. The reasons are that the perk plane can both avoid dying to the GV's by flying a mere 3000ft off the ground, and can escape at will. And that upping a perk plane naturally entails much less risk than upping a perk tank, simply by the nature of their existence.


Basically everyone needs to either quit whining about concrete sitters, or agree to a change of the GV perk system.

[Arlo]

I'm trying to work up sympathy but I'm not quite there yet.

If a player is so afraid of losing perks .... don't use them. The bank grows. Collect your dividend next year. 

[Tank-Ace]

I'm trying to work up sympathy but I'm not quite there yet.

If a player is so afraid of losing perks .... don't use them. The bank grows. Collect your dividend next year. 

You miss my point. Consider the following

1) The 262 is twice as valuable as a Tiger II in terms of perks.

2) The 262 is headhunted less than the Tiger II, due to the low odds of catching one to kill it.

3) The 262 faces risk to GV's in only a few situations, while the Tiger II faces a high risk from aircraft in almost all of them.

4) The 262 will exit the 1000yd effective range of the Wirbelwind in less than 4.35 seconds, and the maximum range of the Ostwind in less than 15.21 seconds. So assuming a worst-case scenario where you happen to fly right over an osti and a wirb and both can instantly turn their turrets to follow you, you will be within range for about 30 seconds total, and for about 12 seconds for the wirble. But realistically you will be in danger for about 8.5 seconds total, and in serious danger for less than 6 seconds.

However in the absolute best case scenario, a Tiger II will take about 9 minutes and 20 seconds to exit the danger zone of aircraft. It will also be vulnerable to fire from enemy GV's as well, since it has its butt facing the enemy for the duration of this 9 1/2 minutes. Realistically, this time will strech to about 11-12 minutes.

5) There are 30 perk GV's that stand a very good chance of killing the Tiger II all the way out to about 1700yds, should the shell strike the absolute thickest portion of the armor. There is no functional equivalent for the 262.


Basically, despite being twice as valuable, the 262 faces less than half the risk of a Tiger II.

[Arlo]

The point I'm missing is ...... ? 

[Tank-Ace]

For the 262 last tour, of 369 losses, only 14 were due to vehicles of all types. However, for the Tiger II, out of 294 losses, 71 were the result of aircraft of all types. In othe words 3.79% of all 262's were killed by GV's, while 24.14% of all Tiger II's were lost to aircraft. By stats, aircraft pose roughly 8 times the risk to the Tiger II that GV's do to a 262.


Basically, the Tiger II is losing more than 2.5x the number of perks to aircraft as the 262 is losing to GV's, despite costing half as much. This means that even if we cut perk loss from aircraft in half (to account for the 8x greater risk), Tiger II's will still be losing more perks.

Given those facts, theres no way to justify leaving the GV perk system alone.

[Arlo]

For the 262 last tour, of 369 losses, only 14 were due to vehicles of all types. However, for the Tiger II, out of 294 losses, 71 were the result of aircraft of all types. In othe words 3.79% of all 262's were killed by GV's, while 24.14% of all Tiger II's were lost to aircraft. By stats, aircraft pose roughly 8 times the risk to the Tiger II that GV's do to a 262.


Basically, the Tiger II is losing more than 2.5x the number of perks to aircraft as the 262 is losing to GV's, despite costing half as much. This means that even if we cut perk loss from aircraft in half (to account for the 8x greater risk), Tiger II's will still be losing more perks.

Given those facts, theres no way to justify leaving the GV perk system alone.

Sure there is. Don't wanna risk losing perks? Don't use `em. 



 

[Tinkles]

This sounds like a "I had 20+ spawn camping kills and was on my way to land when this sweetheart in an A20 "easymoded me to death" whine.

I don't think eliminating perk loss from being killed by planes will do much of anything, it will only encourage more spawn campers. One of the greatest things in the game is to Lancstuka 20 -30 spawn campers.  They deserve nothing less than the worst treatment possible . GV fights "if you could call them that" were nothing but a butt load of campers and 2-3 camp busters trying to end the camp. Not much of a fight for the campers if you ask me, They got to land lots of kills and get all those "WTGs" but how much accomplishment is that? It's no different than vulching or skimming the edge of ACK range of a base, with alt and whackamoling those few who launch and try to give an account of themselves. Campers and vulchers deserve the worst treatment possible

Now with that said, finding a way to encourage less spawn camping and more movement would only improve the "ground war". There should be a radius around a spawn that is a "no harm" zone for the spawn owners only, say 2,000 yds. No points would be lost and no kills registered within this circle, you could still be destroyed it just wouldn't be counted. This would force spawn campers to move out away from the spawn and give the spawners a bit of manouvering room so maybe a fight might break out!  This idea would also spread out attacking aircraft and limit the "1 bomb, 6 kill" affect!

Oh and GV icon should be lessened to 200 yds  Let friendly GVs have the responsibilty of marking "with smoke" enemy positions!

Flame On !


 

JUGgler

I mentioned this in another thread of mine. I still support it. +1

Or.......perk the ords!!!!!!!
Hoarding goes down, and less bomb tarding!

Win-win

I suggest an ENY system, personally I think it would be better, because those who are new to the game can still get big bombs and not have to 'pay' for it. While those who are 'better' don't have to get the bigger bombs and actually have more incentive to get the smaller bombs (because I suggested getting a kill with a smaller bomb would = more perks).

For the 262 last tour, of 369 losses, only 14 were due to vehicles of all types. However, for the Tiger II, out of 294 losses, 71 were the result of aircraft of all types. In othe words 3.79% of all 262's were killed by GV's, while 24.14% of all Tiger II's were lost to aircraft. By stats, aircraft pose roughly 8 times the risk to the Tiger II that GV's do to a 262.


Basically, the Tiger II is losing more than 2.5x the number of perks to aircraft as the 262 is losing to GV's, despite costing half as much. This means that even if we cut perk loss from aircraft in half (to account for the 8x greater risk), Tiger II's will still be losing more perks.

Given those facts, theres no way to justify leaving the GV perk system alone.

Agreed, now we just have to find an effective way of doing so.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[RotBaron]

For the 262 last tour, of 369 losses, only 14 were due to vehicles of all types. However, for the Tiger II, out of 294 losses, 71 were the result of aircraft of all types. In othe words 3.79% of all 262's were killed by GV's, while 24.14% of all Tiger II's were lost to aircraft. By stats, aircraft pose roughly 8 times the risk to the Tiger II that GV's do to a 262.


Basically, the Tiger II is losing more than 2.5x the number of perks to aircraft as the 262 is losing to GV's, despite costing half as much. This means that even if we cut perk loss from aircraft in half (to account for the 8x greater risk), Tiger II's will still be losing more perks.

Given those facts, theres no way to justify leaving the GV perk system alone.

Agreed; furthermore, not to mention the amount of times a 'r tries to bomb them and misses, i.e. numerous attempts to get the perky but fail before a gv dooms it...Additionally, anybody who loses a 262 to a gv in almost all but a fraction of cases was being careless. The only time it where it may not qualify as careless is if they are nearly out of fuel and have no choice but to land at a base where a gv is firing on the base. I've shot down 262's with a wirb and thought wth is he doing...I don't up Tiger II's because the risk/reward is way too low.

I'd bet you could put the TII numbers up against a Panther on any day and the risk/reward balance would be enormously in the Panther's favor.  Perk ftr ords if they aren't dropped on town/base, guarantee that would have an effect, but again not many are going to agree to it.  

The reason I don't think we are going to get far with this:

There is an animosity toward gv'ers.


Flame on flyboys.  

[Arlo]

There is an animosity toward gv'ers.


Flame on flyboys.  

Not so much. Nor is there undue coddling.  Who needs to get over what?

[Tank-Ace]

Arlo, the thing you're not getting is that as it stands, the only way to get your perks worth out of a Tiger II is to camp and concrete sit.

It is the literal equivalent of using the 262 to vulch at a deacked field.

Just because you don't feel the system is broken doesn't make you right. Most seem to disagree on fact.

[iikie]

Arlo is just being...........Arlo.

[Arlo]

Arlo is just being...........Arlo.

As was said, a Tiger doesn't cost the equivalent of a 262.

Alas, the nature of a Tiger is no different than the nature of a Sherman. You plod along
in the mud covered in armor and sporting a cannon. A Tiger has an advantage over other
GVs. If HTC decides (with the introduction of tank destroyers) that it'll cost even less, so
be it. However, the request of the OP was to not lose precious perkies because their GV
was killed by aircraft. Huh.  

Coordinate GV use better then. Work as groups. Up the Warbles and Oopsties first and
position them before the costly Tih-gers spawn. Call in air support. You know, the virtual
equivalent of what the real life Panzer corps may have done in your shoes. Or up Panzers
(or Shermans for that matter).

Oh the unfairness of it all? Oh the humanity!  

[Tilt]

id have to see we're it is written that the pilot of a lanc couldn't drop the bomb load

or where it is written that he could? the absence of a negative does not prove a positive.  I note that 617 squadron still used bomb aimers at 60ft.

But (I will admit) it is a game play consideration more than a RL modelling request.

neither is it the main plank of my "wishes" above.

I suppose that if it could be argued that heavy bombers could also be designated attack aircraft then I would revert to the wish to see the attack classification button implemented for them with bomb release from Pos 1 (F1 only) enabled but formation disabled.

I think that if this (attack mode heavy bombers) were implemented on the basis such as " we have found one or two RL precedents therefore it is enabled for all to do it all the time" it would be a retrograde step.

[Nashorn]

hmm, big GV's not being very useful when lots of enemy planes are around and not many of your own? the M/A might be a bit more realistic then people say 

[guncrasher]

Sure there is. Don't wanna risk losing perks? Don't use `em. 

(Image removed from quote.)

 

semp