P-63 KingCobra......again

[Arlo]

Italians, French, russians, australians and Britain all need to fill in spots.

There are no French or Australian* plane sets in AHII.

*Unless under British Commonwealth.

[Megalodon]

Just bear in mind:

(Image removed from quote.)

That and .... no, Meg, you can't have it both ways. 

 Your right I'll just put you on ignore 

Still zero,

[Vinkman]

Not so much. The MA is well stocked with planes that keep the masses content if not happy. In that arena there
will always be a 'hangar queen' ratio of probably 40%+ (ignoring that there are players that fly some of them making
those planes seldom used instead of just hangar queens). That leaves events. Scenarios. As long as there's still
subbing going on, there's a need for event aircraft and vehicle sets to have more models. BoB currently has late war
88s versus the right version. That's isn't, by far, the only example.

If HT didn't think events were important I doubt he would take the effort to provide SEAs or the AvA.

Everyone likes scenarios and planes that support them. Most of these replies are because Saxman acts like everyone who wants an MA plane is a moron. I just try to point out that in a real business, like AH, or anything else that is customer based you can define NEED as what paying customers what to keep paying. The smart money would follow the data.

Over the course of a day, the LWMA averages about 3000 player-hours.  A big scenario generates [200 players x 3 hours] about 600 player-hours. If you total up scenario player hours for a year, it's 2 scenarios x 3 frames x 600 player-hours = 3600 player hours. So all the scenarios in a year equate to the usage of about 1 day of MA play. That makes the Ma 365 times more important than scenarios.

What? You like scenarios much much better than the MA so that should factor into the equation, ok how many days of MA play would you give up to fly in a scenario? Imagine you had to. Would you sit out of the MA for ten days to fly in one scenario? On average, for all the players who sign up for a scenario, what would that number be? Let's assume it's 10 days. That makes the MA 36 times higher priority than scenarios.

So if a plane were to ONLY be used in scenarios because it's performance is so below the current crop of offerings (like the He-111), shouldn't that plane be 36th on the development list?  Then it's development priority would match it's usage priority.  

Let's say my rough calculations are off by 300%, then every 10th plane should be a scenario only "Gap Filler".  The rest should be MA planes/vehicles the people will use.

So since the intro of the last scenario-only-hangar-Queen [He-111] they've added...

Yak-3
Ki-43
German tank destroyer 1
German tank destroyer 2
German tank destroyer 3

...so there are 5 more MA planes-that-people-will-actually-fly-daily before the next [French bomber, Italian Espresso machine, whatever]  

 

[Megalodon]

Everyone likes scenarios and planes that support them. Most of these replies are because Saxman acts like everyone who wants an MA plane is a moron. I just try to point out that in a real business, like AH, or anything else that is customer based you can define NEED as what paying customers what to keep paying. The smart money would follow the data.

Over the course of a day, the LWMA averages about 3000 player-hours.  A big scenario generates [200 players x 3 hours] about 600 player-hours. If you total up scenario player hours for a year, it's 2 scenarios x 3 frames x 600 player-hours = 3600 player hours. So all the scenarios in a year equate to the usage of about 1 day of MA play. That makes the Ma 365 times more important than scenarios.

What? You like scenarios much much better than the MA so that should factor into the equation, ok how many days of MA play would you give up to fly in a scenario. Imagine you had to. Would you sit out of the MA for ten days to fly in one scenario? On average, for all the players who sign up for a scenario, what would that number be? Let's assume it's 10 days. That makes the MA 36 times higher priority than scenarios.

So if a plane were to ONLY be used in scenarios because it's performance is so below the current crop of offerings (like the He-111), shouldn't that plane be 36th on the development list?  Then it's development priority would match it's usage priority.  

Let's say my rough calculations are off by 300%, then every 10th plane should be a scenario only "Gap Filler".  The rest should be MA planes/vehicles the people will use.

So since the intro of the last scenario-only-hangar-Queen [He-111] they've added...

Yak-3
Ki-43
German tank destroyer 1
German tank destroyer 2
German tank destroyer 3

...so there are 5 more MA planes-that-people-will-actually-fly-daily before the next [French bomber, Italian Espresso machine, whatever]  

 

 You are making way to much sense again....been saying this for years ... hehehe just not as well.

 Nice post,

[Guppy35]

Very, very poor argumentation.

The fact that Germany was losing the war doesn't tell anything about how effective these bombers would be in the LWMA, performance figures tell you that. Ju188 for example would be a competitive bomber in the MA.

In terms of Late war, who is going to turn in thier Lanc, 17, 24 etc for a Ju188 once the novelty wears off?  Wouldn't a Mossie run circles around it?

It still comes down to bang for the buck.  I'm not saying I'm against adding them.  I'm saying they are not more important than a 63 in the pecking order.

[Arlo]

Your right I'll just put you on ignore 

Still zero,

Best used tool for those who can't handle a sustained argument over any subject. 

[Megalodon]

Best used tool for those who can't handle a sustained argument over any subject. 

 it's not can't.... it's don't want, dont care too, waste of time too

 

[Arlo]

Everyone likes scenarios and planes that support them. Most of these replies are because Saxman acts like everyone who wants an MA plane is a moron. I just try to point out that in a real business, like AH, or anything else that is customer based you can define NEED as what paying customers what to keep paying. The smart money would follow the data.

Over the course of a day, the LWMA averages about 3000 player-hours.  A big scenario generates [200 players x 3 hours] about 600 player-hours. If you total up scenario player hours for a year, it's 2 scenarios x 3 frames x 600 player-hours = 3600 player hours. So all the scenarios in a year equate to the usage of about 1 day of MA play. That makes the Ma 365 times more important than scenarios.

That's not data supporting the addition of the P-63. That's not really data, at all. That's presumed statistics. Even then, it doesn't present anything along the lines of how much the MA population (which, incidentally includes a fair amount of the event population) would enjoy AHII more with the P-63 added or wouldn't much notice after the initial month of taste-testing that it was even added. The MA has a lot of late war toys and they are being enjoyed to the max without most of the 51, Spit, F4U, B-29, Lala drivers giving a moments thought about how much better the MA would be with the P-63 added (my own presumed statistic without poll-taking in-depth data gathering). These paying customers pretty much keep paying and enjoying themselves. Some for well over a decade.

What? You like scenarios much much better than the MA so that should factor into the equation, ok how many days of MA play would you give up to fly in a scenario? Imagine you had to. Would you sit out of the MA for ten days to fly in one scenario? On average, for all the players who sign up for a scenario, what would that number be? Let's assume it's 10 days. That makes the MA 36 times higher priority than scenarios.

So you're attempting to sell me on the premise that the more players willing to sacrifice their MA time to create, support or fly in a scenario increases the value of the MA and reduces the value of scenarios? Either I missed your attempted point, you misstated it or you didn't really have one in the above statement.

So if a plane were to ONLY be used in scenarios because it's performance is so below the current crop of offerings (like the He-111), shouldn't that plane be 36th on the development list? Then it's development priority would match it's usage priority. 

Presuming the 111 is never used in the MA, even once? I'd like to see the 'data.' What about the 51B vs. the D model? Waste of time and resources? Causing players to quit because the MA got boring what with aircraft in the hangars many won't fly vs plenty in there that they will?

There is no shortage of fun planes to fly in the MA. There is a shortage of planes to accurately fill the slots in scenarios that make them more fun.

Let's say my rough calculations are off by 300%, then every 10th plane should be a scenario only "Gap Filler".  The rest should be MA planes/vehicles the people will use.

Let's say you were lucky and were dead on. It still doesn't support you premise. On the very rare occasion I've seen a player go on about a plane release announcement and get bent out of shape about it being a potential MA hangar queen, not only were there other players with a different opinion, the first player was actually flying a plane (perhaps one of many) that kept him quite content. Doubt he quit over the He-111 being added instead of the P-63.

So since the intro of the last scenario-only-hangar-Queen [He-111] they've added...

Yak-3
Ki-43
German tank destroyer 1
German tank destroyer 2
German tank destroyer 3

...so there are 5 more MA planes-that-people-will-actually-fly-daily before the next [French bomber, Italian Espresso machine, whatever]  

Can't speak for the GVs but ... the Yak-3 and the Ki-43 fit the gap-filler role. What MA only players have expressed dissatisfaction over that?  

(I can't believe Meg hopped happy over you dissing French hardware.)  

[Arlo]

it's not can't.... it's don't want, dont care too, waste of time too

 

Your ignore went all broke-like. 

[Megalodon]

Your ignore went all broke-like.  

I thought the I-talian espresso machine <Sm-79> was better myself  

[Arlo]

I thought the I-talian espresso machine <Sm-79> was better myself  

Well, since you're not ignoring me, after-all, explain to me how suddenly the P-63 takes
precedence over the D.520 and how you now appreciate and support that pov?  

(And how you've been saying that 'for years?")

[Randy1]

I started a thread that suggested using that each tour include an early, mid and late era.  It was soundly rejected based on the desires of people to fly the high performance planes.  That thread, in a strong way, supports Vinkmans wish for the P63.  That's what people want.  That's why the new yaks took hold.

[Arlo]

I started a thread that suggested using that each tour include an early, mid and late era.  It was soundly rejected based on the desires of people to fly the high performance planes.  That thread, in a strong way, supports Vinkmans wish for the P63.  That's what people want.  That's why the new yaks took hold.

The new Yak was on my event gap filler list, btw.  

What was rejected was your early, mid, late forced rotation.

[Megalodon]

Well, since you're not ignoring me, after-all, explain to me how suddenly the P-63 takes
precedence over the D.520 and how you now appreciate and support that pov?  

Simple ...It doesn't I think adding new countries to the game is priority over adding new "gap filler"

Was that understandable?

[Karnak]

Presuming the 111 is never used in the MA, even once?

Sorry.  That's on me.  I only flew the He111 once in the MA.