Jump to content


Aircraft type efficiency


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

poisonousblood #1 Posted 20 November 2017 - 02:53 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 705 battles
  • 74
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012
Can anybody explain how this "aircraft type efficiency" work? 

pyantoryng #2 Posted 20 November 2017 - 03:03 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 515 battles
  • 6,908
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I'd say it's tied to how often you are filling the three circles below the roster when flying a given type of plane.

 

In practice you have to fill in a lot of position so it's not the best metric of performance.



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

Colddawg #3 Posted 20 November 2017 - 07:38 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 241 battles
  • 76
  • Member since:
    10-20-2011

Each type has different roles WG says it should be participating with.  You won't ever see a bomber needing plane kills and you won't ever see a fighter needing base building kills.

 

It sort of directs players on how WG intends each class to play as, but may also stifle some of the more OP abilities of some aircraft.

 

In the end, the more of the aircraft type inefficiencies you progress the more EXP you get.


Keep your head on the swivel.


LMG #4 Posted 20 November 2017 - 08:39 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 222 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Like others said, it's basically a metric on how well do you play your intended role. Doesn't really mean that you can't shoot aircraft in your GAA or finish off a few water towers in a fighter; you get paid for it, but the game does not consider it what you should be doing. Personally I don't pay much attention to it aside of bragging rights, as whether or not I can focus on hitting ground targets on my Ju 88 P depends on how many ILs are in the vicinity :trollface: (disclaimer: I mostly play my IL-2 (t) and IL-8 atm :hiding:)


This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

mnbv_fockewulfe #5 Posted 20 November 2017 - 08:48 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 52 battles
  • 1,686
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

By "increasing" the "diversity" between classes they super constrained classes to a specific "role" and decreased he diversity between aircraft of the same class.

Is the trade off really worth it?


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


Mercsn #6 Posted 20 November 2017 - 11:43 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 432 battles
  • 2,589
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

The problem is...that to WIN, a ground attack (do people still call GA "bomber" now that we have actual "bomber" class?), must sometimes shoot airplanes, specifically other ground-attack craft.  GA are the best airplanes to attack other ground attack craft (counter-GA), but get absolutely no "mastery" for assisting their team in defending zones (by killing the GA), unless the enemy GA made it to a zone...of course, you often catch them between zones.

 


 

Anywho, gain mastery by fighting in the zones and doing what your class is supposed to do.  There's a tooltip page at the start of a match that tells you what the devs think you should be doing with your plane...however, they don't actually understand how the new game mode works or what it takes to win a match.  (Proof:  they programmed the ai bots.  The ai bots have no idea how to win.)


 

IMO, if you know what you need to do to help win a match, do that and don't worry about mastery.  If the win and mastery coincide, even better.   If you're worried about mastery, do...whatever you're doing...inside a zone.


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users