Jump to content


Reductio Ad Absurdum

Illogic Fallacy nerf RB-17

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

Petey_ATX #41 Posted 28 August 2018 - 04:26 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 2158 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    01-14-2018

Sneakytails wrote:  

>>Bombers at high altitudes are much harder to kill. When they fly close to their altitude cap all attacking planes must come up to them which puts them right into the kill zone of the lazer guided AI Tailgunners. You cant get above them or you stall out.

 

Yes, flying that high affords a good measure of immunity.  However you can upgrade for accuracy OR upgrade for reload time, at the expense of the opposite.  It is actually one of the few 2.0.6 updates I like...forces a hard choice to go after one or the other, or like the suck and stay balanced on both (but you get no bonus characteristics so that makes little sense).

 

And to echo Corvus, the AAA is pretty rough now that we lost a lot of the anti-AAA defense upgrades and HP buffs.  Is "Protection Expert" really useful any more???

Really I -want- to be [just] a tad OP with my paid-for planes to make up for my lack of skillz...otherwise why pay!?!  :playing: 

 



Prenzlau #42 Posted 28 August 2018 - 04:30 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 14144 battles
  • 1,058
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 27 August 2018 - 06:30 PM, said:

 

Words are how one communicates.  The fact that you cannot discern their meanings is not my problem.  Stomp your feet all you like, it doesn't change anything.  What is really gratifying about this whole business is that you are forced to take M_R's side, which obviously bugs the heck out of you.  LOL.

 

Your commentary was originally on Prenz's dissertation, not on what M_R said.  In fact you DIRECTLY quoted Prenz.  Not M_R.  Your interpretation of Prenz's writings is incorrect.  Therefore, the fact that M_R is ALSO wrong in his interpretation does not add up to two guys knowing what they are talking about.  Hey, if two guys agree that the Earth is flat, does that make it so?  LOL, just don't try to lecture anyone on logic sonny - you're way over your head.

 

So, if you don't like a conversation, don't stick your nose in.  Seems simple enough.

 

Take a seat.

 

Thank you once again Corvus for adding your insights and intelligent reasoning. I expect better from Mars and he is certainly capable of it, so I am disappointed that he has nothing better to do with his time. I was really hoping to keep this thread on topic and keep the flow of opinions going without side tracks and debates over things of little or no substance. I seem to attract distraction and disruption from certain personalities. 

 

Prenzlau


 

 

 

 


Prenzlau #43 Posted 28 August 2018 - 04:35 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 14144 battles
  • 1,058
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostPetey_ATX, on 27 August 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

Sneakytails wrote:  

>>Bombers at high altitudes are much harder to kill. When they fly close to their altitude cap all attacking planes must come up to them which puts them right into the kill zone of the lazer guided AI Tailgunners. You cant get above them or you stall out.

 

Yes, flying that high affords a good measure of immunity.  However you can upgrade for accuracy OR upgrade for reload time, at the expense of the opposite.  It is actually one of the few 2.0.6 updates I like...forces a hard choice to go after one or the other, or like the suck and stay balanced on both (but you get no bonus characteristics so that makes little sense).

 

And to echo Corvus, the AAA is pretty rough now that we lost a lot of the anti-AAA defense upgrades and HP buffs.  Is "Protection Expert" really useful any more???

Really I -want- to be [just] a tad OP with my paid-for planes to make up for my lack of skillz...otherwise why pay!?!  :playing: 

 

 

    With all due respect, Sneakytails is not a bomber player and has 367 battles to his credit. I have 4,938 battles to my credit and I'm a full time bomber player with extensive experience flying bombers. People are not obligated to listen to my opinions and experiences concerning bombers, but I do my best to be helpful and accurate. Thanks.

 

Prenzlau


 

 

 

 


Prenzlau #44 Posted 28 August 2018 - 05:09 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 14144 battles
  • 1,058
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostMagusGerhardt, on 26 August 2018 - 08:12 PM, said:

Here's the thing, and this has been the thing to varying degrees for as long as I have been playing, and that clock goes all the way back to pre-release testing, and quite a bit of that as well.  Prenz is right; the physics of the game and the rules of flight are a fantasy, due to their being only loosely tied to what the aircraft were like in reality.  Aircraft historically weren't balanced.  Biplanes fought 109s in Spain and obsolete 109s and Zeros faced increasingly better Allied aircraft in the war's later years.

 

Characteristics of how aircraft in this game perform are molded, massaged and occasionally completely reworked in the name of the game's ongoing development. Patch 2.0 was the largest change of that nature.  2.0.5 was a close second to 2.0 for altering the gameplay the most.  The only competition to the new enhancement/calibration and specialist system was in 1.5 when the game physics were completely reworked and the performance or availability of a few control methods were seriously changed.  The other competitor was 1.7 with the introduction of AI bots to fill out teams in the PVP matches.  What these patches all had in common was that they were panned pretty hard on release.  All of them have also had aftershocks in the following patches as changes for balance occur as unintended performance is demonstrated by creative thinkers.

 

It's a cycle and process I've seen play out several times already.   The goal here is to have a balanced game.  What that means is so long as every plane isn't a carbon copy of everything else there must be ongoing monitoring of stats of aircraft.  If one begins to overperform in important areas, such as expected ground and capture points earned in a single battle, or winrate, or aircraft destroyed per battle....they'll probably analyze the three server's battle data and maybe even look at the forums to get a feeling for what is going on.  That information is based on far more than the battles you logged in the RB-17.  The anecdotal "evidence" of  posts on the forums complaining about the RB-17 may have been on all three server's forums, but their contents and complaints weren't what the devs based their changes on.  That would have been the numbers they got from analyzing the RB-17's performance in battle.  I am saddened that the A-26B got caught up in this as well and the other high-flying bombers have been made even more defenseless than they were before (while still requiring defensive gunner kills to specialize cause reasons) just boggles me.

 

That being said, man, I understand how you feel.  I remember losing three man flights and arguing back that "Anyone could flight up with two friends.  Don't blame us for being good at this game."  Many other nerfs were to follow; I stopped keeping track after awhile and now just wander around until I find something I like in my hangar again whenever major changes drop.

 

    This is an articulate and classy reply by someone (Magus) who is well intended and knowledgeable. Someone I regret I may have misjudged. I still don't see the RB-17 or low level bombing as some sort of imbalance because the environment itself was human depleted most of the time, and battles with high human player counts bring statistics down, generally for all planes and players because of the increased level of competition. In other words, flying the RB-17 in a battle with 8-10 humans per side or more would be a far greater challenge to dominate or influence the battle than 2-4 human players per side and mostly bots. In the high human player count battles, all it would take is one or two highly skilled heavy fighter players and the RB-17 could be stifled and roughed up the whole battle. I know this because it has happened. 

    We have not had the high player participation to actually really know what plane or if any plane is over powered and I stand by this. I also stand by the idea that regardless of what type of game warplanes is, there has to be some amount of skill and accountability. Any player should be rewarded for their good skill and good game play and punished for their sub-par or bad game play. It should not be War gaming's job to decide this, it should be decided by the players versus other players. I wanted more players to play because it is something they can control and it would improve the game, not fix the game, but improve it through less bots and more human players. I fully realize the great difficulty in this and the history of actions on War Gaming's part to decrease the player population to the point where they are ashamed to have a player counter on the hanger screen. There is no other way to describe that. 

    I find myself understanding certain viewpoints and feelings that I once gave little credence too and I'm starting to regret some of my previous highly critical positions. If my bomber being nerfed has opened my mind and saddened my heart so that I can empathize and understand other people, especially here in these forums, then so be it. 

 

    I deeply appreciate your sentiments Magus, thank you.

 

Prenzlau


Edited by Prenzlau, 28 August 2018 - 05:10 AM.

 

 

 

 


Prenzlau #45 Posted 28 August 2018 - 05:20 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 14144 battles
  • 1,058
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostPerco_lator, on 25 August 2018 - 07:15 PM, said:

According to WG policy they don't balance a vehicle just because players complain that it is overpowered. They use data that is logged from every single battle to determine if a vehicle is over-performing & then decide if & how changes will be made. The mistake WG makes is they usually go too far one way or the other when nerfing/buffing when trying to balance rather than just making minor adjustments, several if necessary.

 

Yes this is an arcade game where things can & do take place that wouldn't normally happen in R/L but you seem to be missing the part where there still needs to be some semblance of balance between planes/classes for a game of this type to work. Your theory of selective thinking & whiners are not the reasons for your beloved RB-17 changes. WG determined that there was indeed an imbalance & this is their attempt at fixing it. Now were they successful? I personally can't say but I will also not be taking your word for it either based upon your own selective thinking that there was no issue to begin with.

 

    You know I almost miss the one sentence highly insulting blurbs that for all purposes was your signature in these forums. I'm going to thank you for your opinions and insights. You have always had the ability to contribute and debate, add your insights and relevant positions instead of the sniping and semi-witty comments. Shall I expect "more" from you in the future?

 

Prenzlau


 

 

 

 


Prenzlau #46 Posted 28 August 2018 - 05:23 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 14144 battles
  • 1,058
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostCenotaph, on 27 August 2018 - 06:59 PM, said:

 

Neat~  :great:

 

However, the "two people calling the earth flat" don't seem to be myself and MARS... because everyone I know of, besides you, shares my opinion of everyone's favorite pseudo-intellectual.

Including most, if not all, of my clan... and several folks from yours...

 

Just like how every reasonable player I know, agrees the RB-17 was OP...    You know, the topic you keep derailing.

 

    I was saving you for last. But I am very tired and I'm deciding to go bed.  Maybe tomorrow if I feel the compulsion to say something.

 

Prenzlau


 

 

 

 


Cenotaph #47 Posted 28 August 2018 - 05:42 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3307 battles
  • 1,273
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
:rolleyes:
I don't want to hurt you... I just want to kill you!

CorvusCorvax #48 Posted 28 August 2018 - 12:41 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 4875 battles
  • 5,268
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCenotaph, on 28 August 2018 - 12:59 AM, said:

 

 because everyone I know of, besides you, shares my opinion of everyone's favorite pseudo-intellectual.

 

https://rationalwiki...ntum_ad_populum

 

Try again?



trikke #49 Posted 28 August 2018 - 12:54 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4629 battles
  • 4,310
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPrenzlau, on 28 August 2018 - 01:09 AM, said:

 

    This is an articulate and classy reply by someone (Magus) who is well intended and knowledgeable. Someone I regret I may have misjudged. I still don't see the RB-17 or low level bombing as some sort of imbalance because the environment itself was human depleted most of the time, and battles with high human player counts bring statistics down, generally for all planes and players because of the increased level of competition. In other words, flying the RB-17 in a battle with 8-10 humans per side or more would be a far greater challenge to dominate or influence the battle than 2-4 human players per side and mostly bots. In the high human player count battles, all it would take is one or two highly skilled heavy fighter players and the RB-17 could be stifled and roughed up the whole battle. I know this because it has happened. 

    We have not had the high player participation to actually really know what plane or if any plane is over powered and I stand by this. I also stand by the idea that regardless of what type of game warplanes is, there has to be some amount of skill and accountability. Any player should be rewarded for their good skill and good game play and punished for their sub-par or bad game play. It should not be War gaming's job to decide this, it should be decided by the players versus other players. I wanted more players to play because it is something they can control and it would improve the game, not fix the game, but improve it through less bots and more human players. I fully realize the great difficulty in this and the history of actions on War Gaming's part to decrease the player population to the point where they are ashamed to have a player counter on the hanger screen. There is no other way to describe that. 

    I find myself understanding certain viewpoints and feelings that I once gave little credence too and I'm starting to regret some of my previous highly critical positions. If my bomber being nerfed has opened my mind and saddened my heart so that I can empathize and understand other people, especially here in these forums, then so be it. 

 

    I deeply appreciate your sentiments Magus, thank you.

 

Prenzlau

 

me too, Magus...  excellent post, i'm sorry that i didn't get a chance to acknowledge it sooner

 

and ty for a sincere attempt to diffuse the negativity, Prenzlau 


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

CorvusCorvax #50 Posted 28 August 2018 - 02:18 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 4875 battles
  • 5,268
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPrenzlau, on 28 August 2018 - 05:09 AM, said:

   

    I find myself understanding certain viewpoints and feelings that I once gave little credence too and I'm starting to regret some of my previous highly critical positions. If my bomber being nerfed has opened my mind and saddened my heart so that I can empathize and understand other people, especially here in these forums, then so be it. 

 

 

I think this is the part of your original post that some of your critics didn't bother reading before they decided to shout "YOU'RE WRONG!!!" into the internet.

 

The nerf that really gets me most is the way heavy fighters got the short end of the stick in 2.x.  In 1.x, I was REALLY looking forward to getting the Me-262, when I saw how well people were doing with it.  Flying it now is almost painful.  While I like the idea that I have to really think ahead when flying it, in actual practice, it's not as fun as the Pancake or my P-38J, or even my -262 HGII.  

 

I was just getting used to flying the RB-17 at low altitude.  I wasn't good at it, but I was working on it.  Now I have to learn it all over again.  I'm not sad, really, because I was gifted the plane, but it would have been nice to fly it like I've seen others fly it.  On the upside, when RB-17s are on the other side, if I am in my -262 or Do-335, I know what my mission is for that battle.  :)

 

People really should read the WHOLE post before responding, even the long ones.



Cenotaph #51 Posted 28 August 2018 - 04:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3307 battles
  • 1,273
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 28 August 2018 - 04:41 AM, said:

 

Neater~

 

Now you get to dictate the opinions of people I converse with as well, huh?    :teethhappy:

 

 

And again, it has nothing to do with the overdue nerf to the RB-17... or if that nerf might have been too heavy handed... regardless,one was required.

 

You can yell I'm wrong till the end of time... but, -your- opinion on the matter holds very little weight... next to the plethora of 70%+ WR pilots, CAs, and most other reasonable people

 

 

And just saying you have empathy means nothing if someone can not -demonstrate- empathy...

 

Saying "sorry", mixed in with a bunch of thinly veiled insults, is less than meaningless.

 

 

 


Edited by Cenotaph, 28 August 2018 - 04:49 PM.

I don't want to hurt you... I just want to kill you!

CorvusCorvax #52 Posted 28 August 2018 - 04:55 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 4875 battles
  • 5,268
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCenotaph, on 28 August 2018 - 04:37 PM, said:

 

"huh-UH!!!!"

 

 

 

Do you even logic, bro?



Cenotaph #53 Posted 28 August 2018 - 05:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3307 battles
  • 1,273
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
:great:
I don't want to hurt you... I just want to kill you!





Also tagged with Illogic, Fallacy, nerf, RB-17

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users