Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 7 votes

D.Va stats... anyone else see a problem


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

#441 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 28 March 2015 - 12:30

WOW this thread has devolved from something wrong with the DVa stats through the DVa is a space ship to 777 doesn't care about details.

 

I think this thread has run it's course, TIME TO LOCK.  


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#442 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 28 March 2015 - 13:02

The Albatros D.Va is a spaceship indeed. I have PROOF!

 

v9o2lftqgu5u.jpg

 

An F-15 is absolutely undermodelled against it. The D.Va's climb is excessive now! No-one will ever fly F-15's after that. This is the end of the Airforce.

 

'nuff said.

 

 

Happy weekend!

 

Z


  • 2

#443 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 28 March 2015 - 13:10

The Albatros D.Va is a spaceship indeed. I have PROOF!

 

v9o2lftqgu5u.jpg

 

An F-15 is absolutely undermodelled against it. The D.Va's climb is excessive now! No-one will ever fly F-15's after that. This is the end of the airforce.

 

'nuff siad.

 

 

Happy weekend!

 

Z

Outstanding, I guess Star Citizen will be adding the DVa to it's line up soon :P


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#444 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 28 March 2015 - 13:48

Outstanding, I guess Star Citizen will be adding the DVa to it's line up soon :P

They can't. It will mess up their FM's as their warp drive is no the 'aü'. So it's not compatible.


  • 0

#445 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 28 March 2015 - 13:52

Trupo,

 

A year ago, I'd have completely agreed with you. In fact, if you had told me that I'd be right here complaining in this FM thread, I'd have laughed at the idea. Heck, I didn't even have Rise of Flight installed anymore. I was honestly set up for the long haul, waiting for 777/1CGS to finish their thing with IL-2 and then eventually see improvements trickle down to RoF, little by little. This could've taken 5 years, for all I care. Heck, it might even have taken 10 years, I would still have remained in the blissful illusion that eventually something would happen, even if it was RoF2 by that time.

 

[...]

 

For once, I'm simply not behaving like a fanboy (I think someone once called me an "incorrigible apple polisher"), but like a concerned paying customer who fears for the future of his favourite flightsim.

 

I'm really sorry if I offended anyone.

 

Well, I followed the 777 into the IL2 venture (if only to see it won;t backfire badly enough to drown RoF, originally). In the last months before the release, controversial development moves by 777 led to bitter arguments whether the game is salvagable or not... arguments that turned a very good community into merely servicable one. I'm not talking being called apple polisher, but being called hired mouth paid by 777 to write posts claiming the game is not, in fact, dead. The worst has blown over already, but many otherwise fine folks left and lots of bad blood remained.

 

Now for the last month, I've been going to BoS forum for some quiet, friendly rest from toxic discussions on RoF boards, which is just absurd opposite of natural order of things (the picture below illustrates the natural order, I've made it to illutrate why RoF And Bos communities shouldn't be merged when it was discussed last November. If I only knew...). All this while new players come in from steam sales, asking which planes they should buy. We can be our own enemies if we let ourselves.

 

c.jpg

 

Let's keep it that way?

 

 

Now the new website is live, the spring sale has gone live, yet there's been no word of future plans for RoF.

 

There's not even been an update to the store pages with the updated performance figures.

 

Can you really blame me for having little faith in RoF's future and just accepting that "everything will eventually get sorted out"?

 

 

I can only see that if you make bold and closing statements toward the community about things that have been up for debate for years, there's going to be backlash. Even from people who gave pretty much blind support before.

 

There is no word because they are dug to their heels in new IL2 title, and are already late with early access... as usual. I'm not saying I'm happy with it but it is how they roll these days, no reason to be worried yet. They have been pulling out things like Ilya Muromiets, RoF FM fixes and now BoM one at time, without further warning. I don't believe there'll be a fix to the FM fix, not when the are lagging with another tittle. Things will not sort themselves out anytime soon, nor will 777 sort them for us. Which is why believe we should be sorting things ourselves as much as we can, and first step is to not dig ourselves deeper.

 

The optimistic part? They have been doing multiple fixes like that one to IL2 FMs during last months of development. They can do it almost routinely now, and they know they can. If they are under light enough pressure to do more fixes, they'll likely just do them without complaining how difficult it is.

 

I agree that there has be community pressure on 777, and I really think we have agreed which changes to Albatros flight model are necessary. We should remind 777 at every step of that. But it has nothing to do with rabid rants and back-and-forth arguing about Camel, people learning tactics, unmentionable flying objects and so on. I don't remember such squabbling when addressing either pre fix-Camel, pre-fix Albatros or Pfalzcopter, but current unbalance of power releases worst from community. I'm not saying what *you* write is wrong or I disagree... just that this thread is wrong place to discuss it. It started as rant about Albatros stats and whatever you say here indirectly supports (and prolongs) that stance. It's premisi is just not about saving the Camel, saving the  multiplayer. Player A says "The game is doomed!!!eleven", Player B says "It's not bad, look at these examples", Bender says "These examples are fine but this and this could be much better", Player A says "You've heard the Bender, the game is doooomed" and so on. I exagerate, but not that much.


  • 1

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#446 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 28 March 2015 - 13:55

 

=HillBilly=, on 28 Mar 2015 - 08:10, said:

snapback.png

Outstanding, I guess Star Citizen will be adding the DVa to it's line up soon  :P

They can't. It will mess up their FM's as their warp drive is no the 'aü'. So it's not compatible.

Well they are going to modify the cockpit to allow spacesuits, so they will have to mod the engine too.  

Attached Files


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#447 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 28 March 2015 - 14:02

The Albatros D.Va is a spaceship indeed. I have PROOF!

 

 

Well, I have evidence that the pre-fix Dr.I FM was is fact historical... how else can we explain that?

p2.jpg

 

Oh wait, he probably just downed a pre-fix Camel :icon_lol: ...


  • 2

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#448 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 28 March 2015 - 14:11

Thanks Trupobaw I just spent 5 minutes cleaning my monitor, that will teach me not read with coffee in my mouth. :lol:   


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#449 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 28 March 2015 - 16:16

Well, I have evidence that the pre-fix Dr.I FM was is fact historical... how else can we explain that?

p2.jpg

 

Oh wait, he probably just downed a pre-fix Camel :icon_lol: ...

 

Elvis! The guy on the left on the foto! He's alive! Even back then! Now things start to make sense!


  • 0

#450 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 28 March 2015 - 19:20

I was just remembering something Jorri wrote about the overall graphic detail of the newer aircraft that were being released. For one example he showed how the cockpits in the newer aircraft paled in comparison to say the DVII for example. There were others too. You just have to look for yourself to see. I know it wasn't a FM thing but still less attention to detail was appearing back then.
  • 0

#451 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 29 March 2015 - 02:09

That is the point I was making, people making wild claims about what the planes should not do, based only on their personal feelings. 

 

I GAVE TWO HISTORCICALLY SIGNIFICANY AND VETTED SOURCES.

 

The DVa was generally considered a poor follow on to the DIII/DV.  Both sides said so.  It was, on a good day, average.  On and average day, slightly below average.  Both sides said it was slow TO MANEUVER... neither said it was exceptionally fast.

 

Lastly, IT NOT REALLY ABOUTH kph.. its about BALANCE.  Most maps are way lopsided to the Germans.  Geeze, a map with DR1, DVa, D7F... and the Allies get Camels and SE5a's?  The D7F, and now the DVa are more than able to handle them.. the DR1 is just a kick in the teeth to the imbalance.

 

So yeah.. I agree that chopping off 10kph from the max speed of the DVa is not a solution. 


  • 0

#452 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 29 March 2015 - 02:35

Good thing the mods are keeping it OT   :icon_e_deadman:    .... heaven forbid that we talk about something in great detail. 


  • 0

#453 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 29 March 2015 - 02:55

Yes I know I suck at this game but I take it like a man and stick around for more hopeing one day C1 fixes this mess. Which I doubt as it,s not thier baby they just run the show.

 

It's 1CGS, and there are plenty of people from the original Neoqb/777 Studios team still working on the game. To say they are just running the show is not fair.


  • 0

#454 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 March 2015 - 03:04

I GAVE TWO HISTORCICALLY SIGNIFICANY AND VETTED SOURCES.

 

The DVa was generally considered a poor follow on to the DIII/DV.  Both sides said so.  It was, on a good day, average.  On and average day, slightly below average.  Both sides said it was slow TO MANEUVER... neither said it was exceptionally fast.

 

Lastly, IT NOT REALLY ABOUTH kph.. its about BALANCE.  Most maps are way lopsided to the Germans.  Geeze, a map with DR1, DVa, D7F... and the Allies get Camels and SE5a's?  The D7F, and now the DVa are more than able to handle them.. the DR1 is just a kick in the teeth to the imbalance.

 

So yeah.. I agree that chopping off 10kph from the max speed of the DVa is not a solution. 

You forgot Spads and to make real for you the only plane the Entente should face is the Fokker EIII. 


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#455 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 March 2015 - 03:41

The DVa has evidence to support it being a 185 kmh airplane.  My guess is that they just reduced the drag coefficient and it left it with the ability to retain energy too well.  I also think that ROF doesn't portray enough adverse yaw in all of its FMs. 


  • 1

#456 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 29 March 2015 - 08:07

I think we shouldn't make this issue a bigger one that it is. Yes, the Alatros DVa is a bit 'too good' now, and it feels like it is very easy to fly. Fact is, people are so overconfidet flying it, that you can have a good time in a Pup shooting them. So many join now in a fight, pull back "and wait for the target to appear in the sights".

Now you might say, that on servers like SYN etc. they kill everything. I'd say teamspeek is a much bigger distortion to chances than anything else. If you see pack of ANY type of planes with a squad logo to the names, you know what you're in for when flying alone.

 

Still I find it fun to fly these missions.

 

Z


  • 0

#457 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 March 2015 - 12:12

The DVa has evidence to support it being a 185 kmh airplane.  My guess is that they just reduced the drag coefficient and it left it with the ability to retain energy too well.  I also think that ROF doesn't portray enough adverse yaw in all of its FMs. 

That would be nice to have a 185kmh Alby, but what we have is 175-7kmh Alby. "" My guess is that they just reduced the drag coefficient "" no I think they increased the engine loaded RPM. Before the "fix" it would run at 1400+, and now at 1500+.

​The adverse yaw depends on several things as wing design,aileron size, shape, deflection and wing tip washout,(the DIII&DVa has plenty of wing tip washout). 


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#458 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 29 March 2015 - 12:34

That aside, I think we shouldn't make this issue a bigger one that it is. Yes, the Alatros DVa is a bit 'too good' now, and it feels like it is very easy to fly. Fact is, people are so overconfidet flying it, that you can have a good time in a Pup shooting them. So many join now in a fight, pull back "and wait for the target to appear in the sights".

 

Now you might say, that on servers like SYN etc. they kill everything. I'd say teamspeek is a much bigger distortion to chances than anything else. If you see pack of ANY type of planes with a squad logo to the names, you know what you're in for when flying alone.

 

 

Make it D.H.4 instead of Pup :). I took the good ol' furniture truck to Pomacle, Wargrounds yesterday to verify myths of überAlbatroses camping the field there, and I found them lacking. In "every pilot for himself" (no squadrons on TS flying for either side) situation it was well possible to get in, bomb some targets, bounce some Albie looking to win the fight by sustaining the turn, down him and get away with it (at least, far enough into mud to keep your streak) in a bomber that turns like a double-decker bus and loses wings to high G-forces so it can't BnZ.

 

Of course, if there were some KSBs on TS flying for Central side, I would be quickly punished every time I tried that stunt. Even if one of Albie pilots extended, gained altitude and attacked me with speed advantage, instead of trying to get me in sights before someone else shoots me down, I would be quickly done for. Instead, we get this: 
 

dh4.jpg

 

The above picture is simply wrong. To quote kimmy, does anyone see the problem? Do we claim now that D.H.4 is an überfighter? Or that much of Albatros stats come from TS, coordination and tactics that was lacking when I was flying? Or that there are better tactics then getting to 400 meters, flying straight to German field and turning with local Albatroses until they down you? Or that Albatros stats are being inflated by people using former tactics?

The only time a plane is "über" is when it's above you.


  • 1

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#459 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 29 March 2015 - 12:55

I love the DH4, our "Warthog", for exactly what you have been doing with it...


  • 0

#460 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 March 2015 - 13:06

Be very careful with the DH4 if you win too many fight with it, it too will become under suspicion. :P  


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#461 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 March 2015 - 16:13

That would be nice to have a 185kmh Alby, but what we have is 175-7kmh Alby. "" My guess is that they just reduced the drag coefficient "" no I think they increased the engine loaded RPM. Before the "fix" it would run at 1400+, and now at 1500+.

​The adverse yaw depends on several things as wing design,aileron size, shape, deflection and wing tip washout,(the DIII&DVa has plenty of wing tip washout). 

 

Possible, but if you reduce the drag, the plane goes faster which reduces the AOA on the propeller which in turn causes the propeller to turn faster.  Does anyone have climb rate data for the new DVa to 1000m?


  • 0

#462 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 March 2015 - 16:30

Chill if that's the way they did it that also means they increased the drag coefficient on the Camel.

We can only guess at this.

I don't think the climb rate has changed with the DVa, it sill climbs about 1300+ RPM.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#463 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:02

Chill if that's the way they did it that also means they increased the drag coefficient on the Camel.

We can only guess at this.

I don't think the climb rate has changed with the DVa, it sill climbs about 1300+ RPM.

Ok, if the climb rate hasn't changed much, then it is very unlikely they changed the power output of the motor.  CD0 would provide higher top end speed with a small impact on climb rate.


  • 0

#464 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:23

Climb to 3km improved from 14min to about 12.5min.


  • 0

#465 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 29 March 2015 - 23:00

The climb has definitely improved on the DVa. I don't know what the rate of climb was before the fix but the DIII used to out climb the DVa whereas now they are pretty close to the same.

 

DVa used to be a pig in the climb department IMO.


  • 0

#466 SYN_Bandy

SYN_Bandy
  • Posts: 2599
  • LocationWishing I was in the La Cloche

Posted 29 March 2015 - 23:16

Not going to pretend to be an aerodynamicist, or an experienced pilot in the RoF DVa, no-no, just haven't had the chance to fly German given the side balance when I come online...

 

But the few times I have recently flown the DVa it seems to have a greatly reduced drag compared to all other aircraft/scouts; it just keeps on wanting to float.  This is especially noticible when trying to land it.  Throttle at tick-over, crabbing-in with hard rudder to provide some braking, and still it-just-keeps-floating. 

 

I do not remember it being like this the few other times I've flown it.  Granted, it has a fat cambered wing, but so do most other German scouts.  It is unnatural...


  • 1

#467 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 29 March 2015 - 23:43

Okay you all win, by gaining 5 to 7 KMH the DVa has turned into a super plane and has NO place in ROF!!!!

Just how absurd can this get.

 

 

You know if there was just half the cheese and crackers as whine we could feed the world.

I,m DONE with this REDONKEYLESS thread!


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#468 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 30 March 2015 - 11:42

Okay you all win, by gaining 5 to 7 KMH the DVa has turned into a super plane and has NO place in ROF!!!!

Just how absurd can this get.

 

 

You know if there was just half the cheese and crackers as whine we could feed the world.

I,m DONE with this REDONKEYLESS thread!

 

What's a REDONKEY?

 

But whatever, apart form the somewhat justified initial rant that the D.Va is performing maybe a bit nicer than it should, I think we are basically mocking the fact that "all you need is a D.Va" and you own your adversary.

 

We are not sure, what exactly 777 did the FM (or game engine or whatever) but we get the impression of a plane that feels not as heavy as it should be. The (generally) undermodelled adverse yaw is a different topic.

 

So, you're facing an Über-plane? Usually it means you're underperforming, Or you picked a fight when you shouldn't. Some planes are better performing than others, yes, and usually the better plane will result in being decisive in the victory. But even with the D.Va there is absolutely no plane that ALWAYS will winn against ANY other plane. So much for "Über-planes".

 

With the Dolphin, you can own the D.Va reasonably well. It just has a vicious spin and the D.Va doesn't (in thet manner). But A killer feature of the "new D.Va", it's magical sustained turn down low ("just bank, pull back the stick, wait, shoot") ends tragically against the Dolphin which has a markedly better substained turn. You can't run away from the Dolphin either. When you lose initiative, speed and the vertical plane while fighting it, you're doomed. Same when fighting the Camel, you just die quicker if you are not flying REALLY WELL. The D.Va is not so easy to fly and to maximize all its strengths. As quoted above, this overconfidence makes D.Va a good prey at times. Flying it, you don't get the immediate feeling of having messed up a fight and you're in for (as when you actually did just that in the SPAD, for example), you still think you're in good. That's when they get to be Pup-fodder.

 

The DH4 is a plane to take on any opponent with great confidence. Camels and especially Dr.I's are prefferred fodder there. You don't start a turnfight anyway with it, unless your opponent shed some feathers first. This makes any great ability to turn irrelevant. Both planes are slow enough  that the have a hard time catching up with you. This way, It's hardly possible for them to attack from below. They always "come up" first. A slight bank puts them into your sights anyway. A couple of hits more and they are oiling. (They usually are anyway, after daring a frontal attack to a 4-gun fighter). That's when they abort the fight. You turn back against them and kill them. This works with the Brisfish as well, but you are missing one gun and I feel it is more vulnerable to gunfire. You can even bomb them when they try to land. I think it's mean if you do that against an E.III, or DH2, but a Dr.I... ;)

 

And it is always surprising who you can catch in a substained turn withe either of those planes.

 

No, the Alby is far from "über". It *feels* just better than what *probably* might be said about the real thing.

 

:icon_e_salute:

Z


  • 1

#469 closed_accont

closed_accont
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 30 March 2015 - 18:37

I don't understand the defensors of DVa in this tread, you can't see something is wrong? 11 pages talking about it maybe can be a good clue...
The truth is all this discuss about higher score of DVa since FM update can be split on this 3 issues:

1- DVa out of its war active period.
2- DVa multi task make easier the team work.
3- DVa FM problem, since update.

let's evaluate one by one:

First: DVa presence on early maps plus second issue, are responsable for huge part of its high scores, it's unfair situations what entente are face since update, but we already hear from 4Speed what NW will review those questions.
 
Second: it's truth to be in a mult task and fast plane is the very best plane to be when a friend needs help or to patrol mud searching for fighting traces, if there are a squad on teamwork, they'll be on every fight.
no question about that, but considering it's a late war plane, you may expect face late entente planes too like Camel, Spad XII, etc.

Third: FM issue, I'm not able to talk about, I'll let it to others with cause knowledge, but until now I have seen good points here and no oposite argue, only stuff like: you all are whining!

So you DVa guys what do you want? stay facing N11, Pups, HD2, Spad7 and Hanriots?
get the very best plane for team work (at least is the one I've seen more doing that lately) and have no good late planes to face? (half of wargrouds DVa maps there's no Camel)

no one is asking here for old Camel!
its not a Camel x DVa tread!
if you want fly DVa... good I'll fly Camels and we all will get fun.

if you belive theres no problem with DVa FM, I have to say you are loosing this debate, so stop whining and bring serious info to sustain your position.

when you say DVa opositors are whining please make sure you are clear pointing to exactly what these 3 issues we are whining  about.

chers


  • 0

#470 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 30 March 2015 - 20:48

Ok, point for point:

1- DVa out of its war active period: Consequence of fact that that it's free plane and mission makers want their missions accessible. Still waiting for reasonable alternatives or workarounds.

2- Good teamwork makes good teamwork, period. You've seen more Albies doing teamwork  lately because there isn't enough Entente squadrons presence, or you haven't been on receiving end of these; idea that Albatros is somehow better suited for teamwork than Entente planes is often and brutally disproven when we run into 1PL or SYN teams :icon_e_salute:  (or J5 turncoats) :icon_e_salute: . Personally I believe the S.E.5a is better suited for kind of teamwork we use in J2... Albatros tempts you to stay with target and be a hero where you should be extending and making room for your friends. 

 

3- DVa FM problem, since update: is much smaller than Camel FM problem was before the update. Back then, German squadrons were solving this problem with tactics, and it's viable option for Entente pilots.

Which leads us to...

4. 
no oposite argue, only stuff like: you all are whining! Yes, there is more whining (not counting reasonable arguments from people like Bender, with which people on both sides agree with) in this thread than I've seen whining about Camel in last 2.5 years of old forum. The old Camel FM made it to easy and to powerful, community response were German tactics. Now the Alabatros FM makes it to easy and to powerful, community response is whining. WTF !? 

5. I've been flying for Entente since the fix, both lone wolfing and as part of the team. The new Albies are far from invincible. As with Entente planes, danger they represent comes from team (or lone wolf) flying them. See my previous post above.


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#471 =CfC=FatherTed

=CfC=FatherTed
  • Posts: 993

Posted 30 March 2015 - 21:03

 

3- DVa FM problem, since update: is much smaller than Camel FM problem was before the update. Back then, German squadrons were solving this problem with tactics, and it's viable option for Entente pilots.



 community response were German tactics.  

 

 

Wellll....Another community response was limiting the incidence of the Camel on MP maps and making those who did fly it persona non grata.


  • 0

#472 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 30 March 2015 - 21:13

Many (if not most) of team-flown Albatroses these days are, in fact, D.IIIs.


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#473 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16526

Posted 31 March 2015 - 00:43

I don't understand the defensors of DVa in this tread, you can't see something is wrong? 11 pages talking about it maybe can be a good clue...
The truth is all this discuss about higher score of DVa since FM update can be split on this 3 issues:

1- DVa out of its war active period.
2- DVa multi task make easier the team work.
3- DVa FM problem, since update.

let's evaluate one by one:

First: DVa presence on early maps plus second issue, are responsable for huge part of its high scores, it's unfair situations what entente are face since update, but we already hear from 4Speed what NW will review those questions.
 
Second: it's truth to be in a mult task and fast plane is the very best plane to be when a friend needs help or to patrol mud searching for fighting traces, if there are a squad on teamwork, they'll be on every fight.
no question about that, but considering it's a late war plane, you may expect face late entente planes too like Camel, Spad XII, etc.

Third: FM issue, I'm not able to talk about, I'll let it to others with cause knowledge, but until now I have seen good points here and no oposite argue, only stuff like: you all are whining!

So you DVa guys what do you want? stay facing N11, Pups, HD2, Spad7 and Hanriots?
get the very best plane for team work (at least is the one I've seen more doing that lately) and have no good late planes to face? (half of wargrouds DVa maps there's no Camel)

no one is asking here for old Camel!
its not a Camel x DVa tread!
if you want fly DVa... good I'll fly Camels and we all will get fun.

if you belive theres no problem with DVa FM, I have to say you are loosing this debate, so stop whining and bring serious info to sustain your position.

when you say DVa opositors are whining please make sure you are clear pointing to exactly what these 3 issues we are whining  about.

chers

 

I hesitate to jump in here, but there's a lot about this post above that doesn't make any sense to me in the context of this thread.

 

First of all, the post sets out to try to explain "higher score of DVa since FM update" - however, from many of the posts I've seen in this thread it is not at all clear to me that the stats actually establish that the DVa has had a higher score since the FM update.  So, I'm not even sure the premise is correct to begin with, but for now let's assume that it is.

 

Then, the post argues that there are (at least) three possible factors which could help explain such a higher score (if it actually does exist), as stated in the post above (and I agree these could all be relevant factors):

 

1.  "DVa presence on early maps" - this may well be true, and if true would probably contribute to higher scores/greater success for DVa's, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the DVa's FM;

 

2.  "DVa multi task make easier the team work." - this may also be true, but again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the DVa's FM;

 

3.  "DVa FM problem, since update" - this obviously has something to do with the DVa's FM, but the post provides no evidence that there's actually any significant problem with the DVa FM after the update and just says "FM issue, I'm not able to talk about";

 

Yet despite the fact that none of the three points asserted by the post support any argument that there is a problem with the DVa FM, the post concludes that "if you belive theres no problem with DVa FM, I have to say you are loosing this debate, so stop whining".  I don't believe that conclusion follows sensibly from the rest of the post above.

 

I do agree that, just based on the title of the OP in this thread, all three of the factors mentioned in this post above could be valid concerns and appropriate for discussion in this thread as to why the DVa stats could be out of whack (if in fact they are), and perhaps it would be helpful for people to be a bit clearer about which of the potential factors/problems they're trying to complain about.  One of the problems here is that there are at least 3 debates going on inside this thread:

 

1.   Are MP mission plane sets out of whack and should they be changed because DVa's are currently not being matched against their logical/appropriate adversaries?

 

2.  Are MP mission plane sets out of whack and should they be changed because the mix of Central and Entente MP players has changed?

 

3.  Is there a significant problem with the DVa's FM such that MP mission plane sets should be adjusted to compensate for such DVa FM problem, even if they are otherwise appropriately balanced based on factors 1 and 2 above?

 

Basically, none of those three factors is really related to any of the others, so it might have been helpful if this topic could have been divided into three separate threads to explore each of those elements.  But they all do relate to MP mission/plane set design, so it's not surprising they've gotten all mushed up together in this one thread somehow.


  • 1

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online: RoF SPAM killer markings 66.jpg


#474 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:40

I hesitate to jump in here,

 

.... SNIPP...

 

Basically, none of those three factors is really related to any of the others, so it might have been helpful if this topic could have been divided into three separate threads to explore each of those elements.  But they all do relate to MP mission/plane set design, so it's not surprising they've gotten all mushed up together in this one thread somehow.

 

Very well put, thank you.

Z


  • 0

#475 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 31 March 2015 - 08:00

While the FM really could be further polished, the part we can do something about is MP missions:

 

There's only one thing "more fun" than fighting a DVa in a N17 or a Pup: Watching most players go German, pick a Dva, and ending up fighting 2-3 of them in your N17 or Pup.

 

Historically, the last and oldest Pups and N17s were still in service when the first, brand new DV-s appeared. Yes. But they were not "natural enemies" so to say, these matchups weren't the most numerous in ww1. Combine this with the effect it has when players are choosing sides, and you end up with a totally thrown off balance.


  • 0

#476 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 31 March 2015 - 09:38

There's only one thing "more fun" than fighting a DVa in a N17 or a Pup: Watching most players go German, pick a Dva, and ending up fighting 2-3 of them in your N17 or Pup.

 

Historically, the last and oldest Pups and N17s were still in service when the first, brand new DV-s appeared. Yes. But they were not "natural enemies" so to say, these matchups weren't the most numerous in ww1. Combine this with the effect it has when players are choosing sides, and you end up with a totally thrown off balance.

 

Hear, hear. Although the RFC *was* using N.17 well into 1918, when S.E.5.as and Dolphin started arriving in numbers...


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#477 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 31 March 2015 - 10:06

Hear, hear. Although the RFC *was* using N.17 well into 1918, when S.E.5.as and Dolphin started arriving in numbers...

 

That was the Nieuport 24.

 

 

1.   Are MP mission plane sets out of whack and should they be changed because DVa's are currently not being matched against their logical/appropriate adversaries?

 

This is true.  The Albatros D.Va was introduced in October 1917, but it is included in May 1917 missions that only include the single-gun Entente scouts.  However, the OAW Albatros D.III is the D.Va's contemporary, not its predecessor.


  • 0

#478 DMS-Mk1

DMS-Mk1
  • Posts: 54

Posted 31 March 2015 - 10:55

In Russian community people say that DV is tweaked according to pilots memoirs, not to hard data. So was Western community intent. Are they right?


  • 0

#479 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 31 March 2015 - 12:00

In Russian community people say that DV is tweaked according to pilots memoirs, not to hard data. So was Western community intent. Are they right?

It was tweaked to match historically published figures regarding its airspeed more closely. It was significantly too slow. The tweak not only made it faster, but as an (unwanted) side effect (that we have been warned about) it made it also a more maneuvrable plane. Now we have a fuss about that.

 

But in general I think it is fair to say that post patch, the Albatri can be flown more "according to pilot momoirs" as a boomer and zoomer. But as said, now it can do a bit more than that. Some people can live with that, some have more of a problem with it.

 

It is also of note, that "hard data" doesen't really exist on these planes from back then. Lots of discussion was led about how this data was obtained back then and lots of data is shared in this forum. And there is data from modern replica planes. People put different emphasis on the individual source.

 

Z


  • 0

#480 JG1_Lee_J10

JG1_Lee_J10
  • Posts: 160

Posted 31 March 2015 - 14:51

Richthofen's beefs with the "lousy Albatross" D.V were it didn't climb as well as the D.III and the wings were still weak so "you can't risk anything with it." No complaints about the speed. Entente pilots referred to it as "the German SPAD."

So what has the new patch done to the D.Va that so upset the balance of the universe that it caused a massive desertion among the Entente forces? From my reading of this board it seems to be: too easy to fly, too maneuverable, retains energy too well, and climbs too well.

Easy to fly isn't a reason for some massive shift. Central planes have always been easier. I don't recall the patch having made Entente planes harder to fly. Learn to fly your plane and this goes away.

The new D.Va seems to be a bit better turner, but still worse than a Camel. If you're turn fighting it with an SE5 or SPAD you screwed up your attack. A little more maneuverable D.Va isn't altering the historical fighting styles of the principal combatants. Entente pilots just need to treat it with a bit more respect.

The D.Va retaining energy does increase the window of vulnerability for an extending Entente scout, but again it isn't altering the historical fighting styles. SEs and SPADs still dominate energy fighting.

As to climb, the D.Va and D.III are now similar. An advantage for the D.Va for sure, but not universe altering.

My conclusion? The notion that the new D.Va is an uber machine that has destroyed the on-line game balance is bogus. The D.Va is better than is should be, but not the dominating power some here imply. Yes, the Entente needs to be smarter and maybe work harder, but if people are abandoning the Entente side, it's for some reason other than the new D.Va. The D.Va is just a scapegoat.

Pending another FM review, we are stuck with what we have. But the new FMs are much better than pre-patch in representing the actual historical aircraft relative performance. What game balance needs is a free-to-play early Central scout to match up with the now free N17.
  • 2


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users