Jets in EC 4 match (upper BR limit to 6.7), with a minimum SP of 450.

[Pony51 6,572]

Currently all the jets are placed in rank EC 6.7 (EC Rank 5) and up, and that is a bad thing (TM).

 

First off one enters a top match with entry level jets that are easily outmatched by Saber's, MiG's and Hunter's.

Second some of those entry jets would have a difficult time with top tier props (if prop plays to strengths and jet is at disadvantage).

 

My suggestion is increase the Rank 4 EC to include BR 6.7, but with a SP requirement of at least 450 and at least 20min delay if not able to RTB. 

This will allow a small number of early jets into game but I do not think they will dominate the game.

 

Some units SB BR of 6.7 as candidates for this

He 162 A-1, and being only 2x 20mm is not particularly powerful.

Ar 234B, no armament and while having 1500kg max bomb load would need, what, 2 trips to take down a base?

Me 262 A-1/U4 Pulkzerstörer, single 50mm cannon with 32 rounds.  Against tanks and bombers, sure, but that is a lot of flying to find one

Me 262 A-2a Sturmvogel, a JaBo, having only 2x 30mm and limited ammo can be issue (and very few people have this unit).

Yak-15, dangerous armament, but about on par with top tier props

Kikka, low speed an single 30mm cannon (2 with draggy pod)

 

Possible:

F-80A may, toss up.  If BR was dropped to 6.7 can see.

 

Excluded:

Meteor F. Mk 3, lowest BR in UK (7.0) tree is too good.

Fiat G.91, same as above

French, all are  excellent jets

 

Notice something?

The line up is nearly historic, where allies started encountering German jets with little to counter.  

Again, the high SP of 450 or more will slow spaming of jets (also high SL purchase and long delay timers).

 

Why not increase the BR or jets in Sim?

That could impact matches like Operations and Player created EC, and other Sim battles.

Apply changes to normal EC, let it run of a couple of months, see how it pans out.

 

PS: years ago there was an EC setup where the EC 3 level was very board in range, IIRC from 2.3 to 5.3?  

[AdelWolf 1,098]

I totally agree

 

Only if you put all prop bombers to EC4.

 

Especially US bomber BR should be decreased.

 

 I would suggest the BR between 

 

B-29 6.3 as top

B- 17 5.0 as bottom

 

Indeed it will be historically accurate.

 

B-29's will fight side by side with P-51's and they will intercepted by Me 262's.

 

( I have friends who can't fly fighters, they just can't fly fighters they find it too difficult they always stall and they fly bombers but in EC4 I can't play with my friends. B-17 Requires Spawn Point and they have to fly with B-25 in EC4 and they are dying as soon as they take off even before they get enough SP for B-17. Their game is always ruined.

 

Whereas other nations has bombers with 5.0BR with 5 Tons Bombs with 20mm defensive armament like Pe-8. They don't need SP they don't have Cooldown and this is one of the reasons why US loses against other nations because we simply lose our airfields and we cannot reapond to our enemies the same way they do.)

 

Also could you guys please fix the bug where you look behind  with mouse and the view stucks. 

 

This is not happening with TrackIR, Buttons or Joystick hat switch but only with mouse.

 

It is really annoying and it has been ages. I wanna look behind with my mouse with smooth movements please. 

 

@Pony51 Will there be any change in the BR of the prop bombers? Are you considering it putting it in EC4

Edited July 31, 2018 by AdelWolf

[przybysz86 10,312]

@Pony51 I think that EC ranks 1, 4 and 5 currently have too big performance spread (gap between worst and best planes) and we should get at least 6 ranks of EC with slight decompression of current system.
 

But of course if you think that it's too much to ask for then I support your idea - it's certainly better than what we have now.

[_IFF 608]

8 hours ago, Pony51 said:

My suggestion is increase the Rank 4 EC to include BR 6.7, but with a SP requirement of at least 450 and at least 20min delay if not able to RTB.

Not a good idea because the performance gap between the low-br and high-br fighters is already too large. Adding jets in the mix is only going to widen the performance gap. What needs to happen is the creation of new EC ranks. To have interesting fighter-v-fighter combat the performance gap of planes involved cannot be too much and there shouldn't be a single fighter best at all three major performance categories: climbing, top speed and turning in alphabetical order. Also due to how EC tends to play out in practice only performance below 6000 m matters, or to put it another way performance in the 9000+ m region does not matter at all. When I say performance I mean fighter's physical performance, not player performance while flying a fighter measured using statistics such as k/d, k/t or any such thing.

 

A rough outline of the way the EC ranks could be split with narrowing the performance gap in mind:

EC4: current ec4 low-br to non-"super props"

EC5: "super props" from current EC4. (germans have likely no planes fit for this bracket which is fine)

EC6: low-br to mid-br jets from current EC5

EC7: mid-br to high-br jets from current EC5

 

or:

 

EC4: current ec4 low-br to non-"super props"

EC5: "super props" from current ec4 and low-br to mid-br jets from current EC5

EC6: mid-br to high-br jets from current EC5

 

The term "super prop" here is in quotes on purpose and left kind of ambiguous. Good candidates for that are: p-51h-1, f8f-1b, spitfire f mk 24 and tempest mk ii in perhaps somewhat of an order of "super prop"-ness. I am not familiar enough with the soviet and japanese tech tree rank IV fighters to recognize if they have any planes that can match the above fighters.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by _IFF

[AdelWolf 1,098]

45 minutes ago, _IFF said:

Not a good idea because the performance gap between the low-br and high-br fighters is already too large. Adding jets in the mix is only going to widen the performance gap. What needs to happen is the creation of new EC ranks. To have interesting fighter-v-fighter combat the performance gap of planes involved cannot be too much and there shouldn't be a single fighter best at all three major performance categories: climbing, top speed and turning in alphabetical order. Also due to how EC tends to play out in practice only performance below 6000 m matters, or to put it another way performance in the 9000+ m region does not matter at all. When I say performance I mean fighter's physical performance, not player performance while flying a fighter measured using statistics such as k/d, k/t or any such thing.

 

A rough outline of the way the EC ranks could be split with narrowing the performance gap in mind:

EC4: current ec4 low-br to non-"super props"

EC5: "super props" from current EC4. (germans have likely no planes fit for this bracket which is fine)

EC6: low-br to mid-br jets from current EC5

EC7: mid-br to high-br jets from current EC5

 

or:

 

EC4: current ec4 low-br to non-"super props"

EC5: "super props" from current ec4 and low-br to mid-br jets from current EC5

EC6: mid-br to high-br jets from current EC5

 

The term "super prop" here is in quotes on purpose and left kind of ambiguous. Good candidates for that are: p-51h-1, f8f-1b, spitfire f mk 24 and tempest mk ii in perhaps somewhat of an order of "super prop"-ness. I am not familiar enough with the soviet and japanese tech tree rank IV planes to recognize if they have any planes that can match the above planes.

 

I think this will have a negative effect in the game. It will divide players into smaller parts. EC4 has already few players cropping the EC4 will only fewer the players. Whereas easy access for bombers in EC4 will only attract people.

 

Bombers are already weak and they are sick of getting killed by OP jets, putting them with props will motivate more bombers into the game. There are so many peope who play bombers due to lack of proper equipment like TrackIR, joystick. We need to attract those people into the game and motivate them to have their own space in the game.

 

Should we lower the BR of the bombers they will able to fight with jets with their own will not by force.

 

 

In EC4 especially in Russian and Japanese teams there are always like 4 players (few) if we divide EC4 into two parts now I will have a opposition of 2 people.

 

But giving them Jets will motivate them to grind SP and to play more to get the Jets against their opponents. They will have this idea in their mind "I am going to get a jet to fight against prop planes" and this idea will keep them alive. There will be lots of people attracted by this idea. This will force them to play better to grin SP to get Jet. And those have cons as well as their pros. Early jets will only serve to balance the game. There is no way a jet will get 30 kill 0 death ratio against props, it will be equalizing.

 

 

And who is gonna fight in EC5 and in EC6 whole map is going to be for 2v2.

 

Super prop EC doesn't sound that interesting and there are not enough planes nor players for super prop EC.

 

Early Jets with 120 bullets with their high cons don't deserve their own EC. But deserve to be at the top of an other EC

 

Adding one more EC will only serve to the German team since they are over crowded. They will have advantage to specialize anywhere they want. For some reason every Ace in the game plays in the German side. Whoever fights against Germans they are rage quitting.

Edited July 31, 2018 by AdelWolf

[chmooreck 923]

1 hour ago, AdelWolf said:

For some reason every Ace in the game plays in the German side.

That's simply not true. There are usually good players on both sides.

[_IFF 608]

3 hours ago, AdelWolf said:

I think this will have a negative effect in the game. It will divide players into smaller parts

Such concerns can be addressed by scheduling matches. For example if EC ranks were refactored in the three new EC ranks I proposed and it looks like the new EC5(super props+crap jets) and EC6(non-crap jets) do not attract reasonable population concurrently then those two ranks can alternate in availability. Whether that scheduling alternates between the EC5/EC6 ranks every N matches, every N hours, every N days is matter of adjustment until a good number is found.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by _IFF

[przybysz86 10,312]

23 minutes ago, _IFF said:

Such concerns can be addressed by scheduling matches. For example if EC ranks were refactored in the three new EC ranks I proposed and it looks like the new EC5(super props+crap jets) and EC6(non-crap jets) do not attract reasonable population concurrently then those two ranks can alternate in availability. Whether that scheduling alternates between the EC5/EC6 ranks every N matches, every N hours, every N days is matter of adjustment until a good number is found.

 

that's a terrible idea. For me it's one of the reasons why I don't play tank SB - whenever I feel like playing certain tank I have 90% of chance it will be unavailable.

[_IFF 608]

22 minutes ago, przybysz86 said:

that's a terrible idea. For me it's one of the reasons why I don't play tank SB - whenever I feel like playing certain tank I have 90% of chance it will be unavailable

That is a fantastic knee-jerk reaction. Didn't expect anything less really. Like I said the scheduling would be for new EC5/EC6 only. Say that's roughly 20% of the planes in the game and those planes were roughly evenly split between the two EC ranks that would give you a 10% chance for a plane not being available overall. Quite different figure from your "90%". Also the point of adjusting the frequency of the alternating is to make it so that you can expect to be able to play within a reasonable amount of time. It isn't like there is always an EC5 match going on currently right now, heck there might not even be an EC4 match for all factions.

Edited July 31, 2018 by _IFF

[przybysz86 10,312]

11 minutes ago, _IFF said:

That is a fantastic knee-jerk reaction. Didn't expect anything less really.

do you find any reaction not supporting your idea to be "knee-jerk" or is it just me who you like to attack personally?

It's not the first time in last few weeks and I got curious if you are so rude in general or have I gained your special attention somehow.

My vision of how EC should look like is exactly opposite to yours but that is not a reason to be a yob

Edited July 31, 2018 by przybysz86

[_IFF 608]

3 hours ago, przybysz86 said:

do you find any reaction not supporting your idea to be "knee-jerk" or is it just me who you like to attack personally?

No and it's not a personal attack either. "Knee-jerk reaction" is a fairly common english idiom. I knew someone was going to bring up the current simulator tanks scheduled matches soon as I mentioned scheduled matches, which is exactly why I included the part about finding a workable frequency for alternating between the EC ranks. I didn't explicitly spell it out that this and the number of planes affected is why it's not "as bad" as simulator tanks. No matter how much of that I would have explicitly spelled out, someone was going to ignore all of it and simply hit "submit reply" by the time they read "scheduling matches".

 

[_Dawger_ 789]

I absolutely hate jets mixed into a prop sim. They increase the boredom factor by 1000%. They aren't especially dangerous but they absolutely must be kept in sight at all times or they become extremely dangerous. Any furball is then subjected to jet dweebs blasting through for cheap kills. Been there, done that. Life is too short to have jet dweebs boring me to tears again.

 

That being said, the Me-262 should be available anywhere the P-51H is available (basically early jet speed with prop acceleration and turn).

 

So there needs to be a special Enduring Confrontation for those unskilled in BFM but who have somehow earned or paid for the privilege of going 100 knots faster than everything else so that their gross incompetence is more easily masked.

 

Maybe EC4SB 

 

Here is a logo idea for this new level.

 

[LostF0X 1,973]

To me? A veeery bad idea. A good way to kill EC4 once for all! 
The real solution is to add an intermediate BR bracket between EC4 and EC5

[_IFF 608]

2 hours ago, _Dawger_ said:

I absolutely hate jets mixed into a prop sim

Was it Aces High that got me 163 and 262 in the olden days? They were not a very good fit for the daily arena flying, whether you were flying them or being attacked by them, now were they? Let's hope we don't get a repeat of that here. Hopefully the developers would just mind the performance gap.

 

[AdelWolf 1,098]

I don't understand why people act like as if as soon as you enter the game you are gonna start with jets.

 

High SP, Long CD, low ammunition a good jet pilot will be only able to get 1 or 2 kills at each sortie and you will have to land and take off again and you will have to climb and you will be vulnerable.

 

Single Gun with 50 ammo or 120 ammo with 2 guns not easy to get kills. 

 

If people think like "aahh its a jet then it will have 20/0 K/D ratio" they are mistaking.

 

Early jets has lots of cons. It's not a big thing if they face with props.

 

As a primarily US player I am totally OK with having no jets in the US team and fighting against Russian, German, Japanese jets. 

 

And I wanna see a Me 262 ripping off the wings of a B-29 just as in the history.

Edited July 31, 2018 by AdelWolf

[_Dawger_ 789]

40 minutes ago, _IFF said:

Was it Aces High that got me 163 and 262 in the olden days? They were not a very good fit for the daily arena flying, whether you were flying them or being attacked by them, now were they? Let's hope we don't get a repeat of that here. Hopefully the developers would just mind the performance gap.

 

Aces High and Warbirds both had their version of introducing jets.

 

In the context of historical events, the jets were an interesting addition. I even created a scripted event on the Warbirds ETO terrain which limited the jets to their historical numbers and when they were destroyed, they were gone for the duration of the event. That terrain was about two third real scale so England to Berlin was a couple hours flying. In that context they were fine.

 

In a daily arena, it isn't that the people flying them are racking up incredible scores. Mostly only the newbs or the few folks that have serious self esteem problems spend more than 10 minutes flying them in any given calendar year. 

 

The issue is they make the arena boring because of the wide speed performance gap. Instead of intense fights, you get long chases, long range pot shots and folks climbing to 45,000 feet.

 

I have no wish to revisit all that.

[LostF0X 1,973]

54 minutes ago, AdelWolf said:

I don't understand why people act like as if as soon as you enter the game you are gonna start with jets.

 

High SP, Long CD, low ammunition a good jet pilot will be only able to get 1 or 2 kills at each sortie and you will have to land and take off again and you will have to climb and you will be vulnerable.

 

Single Gun with 50 ammo or 120 ammo with 2 guns not easy to get kills. 

 

If people think like "aahh its a jet then it will have 20/0 K/D ratio" they are mistaking.

 

Early jets has lots of cons. It's not a big thing if they face with props.

 

As a primarily US player I am totally OK with having no jets in the US team and fighting against Russian, German, Japanese jets. 

 

And I wanna see a Me 262 ripping off the wings of a B-29 just as in the history.

 

It's curious on your part since you always fly fast prop and never saw you in a tierV match.  

[_IFF 608]

23 minutes ago, _Dawger_ said:

Aces High and Warbirds both had their version of introducing jets. In the context of historical events, the jets were an interesting addition

Must  have been Warbirds. They were solid-shaded polygons so must have been. Aces High had textured polygons. I've still some of those sleeve badges somewhere HiTech and folks sent out for scenarios.

 

Lot of players here don't seem to understand the distinction between the 24/7 game play and "one-shot" event. You can make a "one-shot" event fairly unbalanced and still both sides will think it was a fun event, since they don't have to repeat the experience tomorrow even if they lost as expected. For 24/7 game play not so much. The performance tolerances are far tighter for that purpose.

 

[_IFF 608]

1 hour ago, AdelWolf said:

I don't understand why people act like as if as soon as you enter the game you are gonna start with jets. As a primarily US player I am totally OK with having no jets in the US team and fighting against Russian, German, Japanese jets

As primarily someone who flies german fighters I don't want a situation where we have late 1944 propeller-powered fighters going against jet-powered fighters mixed. It makes for boring fighting dynamic for both sides. As Dawger above alluded it was tried in the 90s and it just didn't seem to pan out too well. We've various people from that era present here including me.

 

1 hour ago, AdelWolf said:

And I wanna see a Me 262 ripping off the wings of a B-29 just as in the history.

Me 262s operated in the european theater of operations. B-29s operated in the pacific theater of operations. Although their service dates may have overlapped there never was a situation where an me 262 shot down a b-29.

[AdelWolf 1,098]

 

1 hour ago, _IFF said:

As primarily someone who flies german fighters I don't want a situation where we have late 1944 propeller-powered fighters going against jet-powered fighters mixed. It makes for boring fighting dynamic for both sides. As Dawger above alluded it was tried in the 90s and it just didn't seem to pan out too well. We've various people from that era present here including me.

 

Me 262s operated in the european theater of operations. B-29s operated in the pacific theater of operations. Although their service dates may have overlapped there never was a situation where an me 262 shot down a b-29.

 

Yeah B-29 or B-17 my mistake but you got the concept.

 

I believe this reform will attract more players into the game that is my reason why i want it. I want it more various.

 

I said it at all beginning my expectation from this game is WW2 mode where you can battle with Bombers Tanks Battleships Carriers Fighters dive bombers AAs everything at once like a real war.  

 

I hope Naval reliases soon and instead of Tank Sim, Air Sim and Naval Sim we will have one sim with a huge map. Where we can operate organised operations.

 

I really don't think keep rolling with Focke Wolves will attract any new players nor takes us any further.

 

We should unite not divide the game

Edited July 31, 2018 by AdelWolf

[Pony51 6,572]

SO....

 

I also do think splitting high end EC is good, it is rather large range there.

Just keep in mind with 1 more EC rank, it may be harder to have certain EC games.

 

currently:

1: 1.0~2.0 (4 levels)

2: 2.3~3.3 (4 levels)

3: 3.7~4.7 (4 levels)

4: 5.0~6.3 (5 levels)

5: 6.7~9.3 (9 levels (although no 9.3, yet)

 

Also, we need more low end jets!  A topic soon to appear here!

 

Now, while unlikely to happen, a proposed rank range?

1: 1.0~1.7 (3 levels) (Ace  new player level, since Biplane vs Monoplane is same like prop v jets)  (forum changes n00b to Ace  >_<)

2: 2.0~3.0 (4 levels)

3: 3.3~4.3 (4 levels)

4: 4.7~5.7 (4 levels)

5: 6.0~7.0 (4 levels)  (or a 5.7~6.7?)

6: 7.3~9.3 (7 levels, although no 9.3, yet)

Edited August 2, 2018 by Pony51
Corrected the number of TOP RANK levels.

[przybysz86 10,312]

10 hours ago, Pony51 said:

Now, while unlikely to happen, a proposed rank range?

1: 1.0~1.7 (3 levels) (Ace level, since Biplane vs Monoplane is same like prop v jets)

2: 2.0~3.0 (4 levels)

3: 3.3~4.3 (4 levels)

4: 4.7~5.7 (4 levels)

5: 6.0~7.0 (4 levels)  (or a 5.7~6.7?)

6: 7.3~9.3 (4 levels, although no 9.3, yet)

may I give one more option?
4: 4.7-6.0
5: 6.3-7.3/7.7 (not sure at which BR WW2 jets ends of the top of my head - it should not include rocket assisted Me-262s) EDIT: 7.7 already have 50s stuff

6: everything above "5"

This will allow only very top props to go to new '5' and rest (99% of which are WW2 designs) remain in '4'. It's easier to make some BR adjustments to push only very best props to 6.3 than take 2 BR ranks. Beside - you can always manually uptier planes and take even 1.0 into new EC5

Of course that's only cosmetics and I fully support splitting EC4/5 into 3 ranks idea.
Of the two presented options presented I think 6.0->7.0 is better one

Edited August 1, 2018 by przybysz86

[_IFF 608]

3 hours ago, Pony51 said:

3: 3.3~4.3 (4 levels)

4: 4.7~5.7 (4 levels)

5: 6.0~7.0 (4 levels)  (or a 5.7~6.7?)

 

That could be something to try out. In that setup I would see my self flying in rank 4 and be fairly alright with the fw 190/ta 152 selection compared to the opposition. I am obviously _very biased_ person when it comes to flying planes, but at the same time would like to delude my self and everyone else into thinking somewhat "fair". One outlier that I could see would be the bf 109k-4 with its 6.3 battle rating, it would ideally be facing the p-51d-30 rather than the p-51h-5. That's a bit of a nitpick in the grand scheme of things I admit.

 

I do not think that rank 5 being 5.7-6.7 is a good idea, if it means rank 4 would be 4.7-5.3. At least looking with the fw 190/ta 152-tinted glasses and as the current BRs are, the ta 152s would get a very raw deal with that setup. They are practically no better fighter than the fw 190d-9, or I just don't know how to fly them. If you want to rank the 190/152 lineage then "realisticly" it tops out with the d-9 at least in my opinion. There are people with far more hours in d-9 and above than me, so they might be a better source.

 

I want to make it clear to everyone that I am _very biased_ towards to specific aircraft: the fw 190 lineage. Overall I am not opposed to such configuration. Hopefully some of the people who have broader idea of fighters will chime in.

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by _IFF

[AdelWolf 1,098]

10 hours ago, Pony51 said:

 

Now, while unlikely to happen, a proposed rank range?

1: 1.0~1.7 (3 levels) (Ace level, since Biplane vs Monoplane is same like prop v jets)

2: 2.0~3.0 (4 levels)

3: 3.3~4.3 (4 levels)

4: 4.7~5.7 (4 levels)

5: 6.0~7.0 (4 levels)  (or a 5.7~6.7?)

6: 7.3~9.3 (4 levels, although no 9.3, yet)

 

Just No

 

[Pony51 6,572]

1 hour ago, AdelWolf said:

Just No

 

Posts like that with no reason are worthless and mentally (if not physically) deleted.