ASF pricing scheme discrepancies

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

ASF pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Dec 2016 17:32

TL;DR
Topic limited to: ASFs and most blatantly broken concepts of pricing, the units shown here do not constitute a comprehensive list of units where pricing needs to be adjusted but merely pointing out which factors are most often inconsistently applied when determining price (and consequently availability) of a unit.

Issue #1:
ASF pricing is all over the place, I wouldn't go as far as calling it broken, because for the most part there is some system to it, but the amount of irregularities is astonishing and it would be mighty time to finally have a look at it and clean it all up.
Issue #2:
Pricing scheme of ASFs is done mathematically correct (although broken to the extent explained in Issue #1) but in a bad way from a game balance perspective.
Issue #3:
Would Eugen be willing to simply share the spreadsheet they use to calculate plane prices?
Subjective game balance Issue #4:
SA MRAAMs are overpriced, slapping a pair onto a plane costs as much as F&F missiles with the same accuracy (see provided example below). And consistently any plane with more than one pair of SA MRAAMs can be considered price inefficient and it gets worse if you're not carrying 60% Acc missiles.

WARNING: Wall of text, basic Mathematics and Pictures

Spoiler : Turn Rate: :
Turn rate can apparently be worth up to +5 points on a good enough plane

Image

Though it's not always worth money if the plane is not good enough

Image


Spoiler : ECM: :
On one hand ECM is worth approx +10 pts for each +10% increase

Image

On the other hand it's apparently not always the case on lower values

Image

And sometimes not only do you get free ECM, you also get free turn rate upgrade

Image

But generally even on high end planes it continues with the same rate+
(turn rate +5, ecm -10)

Image


Spoiler : Extra SRAAMs: :
2 extra crap SRAAMs add +10 cost

Image

Interestingly enough it seems that even high end SRAAMs add +10 cost for each pair (or +5 if you include cost to add turn rate improvement)

Image


Spoiler : Extra MRAAMs: :
While 2 extra F&F MRAAMs add +20 cost (or +15 if you include cost to add turn rate improvement)

Image

But for some reason 2 extra SA MRAAMs also add +20

Image

the loop is self-referencing but not contradictory when trying to remove a pair of SRAAMs (-10) and add a pair of LRAAMs (+20) you end up with the expected price increase of 10 points

Image


Spoiler : Mixed Loadouts: :
Apparently +4 F&F MRAAMs are only worth 10 pts if you're not equipped with SRAMMs

Image

But +4 F&F SRAAMs are worth 30 pts because it turns you a true ASF

Image

Actually simply giving you +2 F&F SRAAMs is already worth 20 points because of ASF reasons (+25 points actually if you consider that you're reducing your turn rate)

Image

So the conclusion is that it's cheaper to give you another 4 F&F MRAAMs than to slap a pair of short range vympels onto your wings.


Spoiler : High-End Stuff: :
Interestingly enough adding another pair of LRAAMs for a total of 6 increases the price by only +5 pts (imo justified)
ONLY if the assumption is true that eurofighter justifiably pays +5 points for a better turn rate

Image

Alternatively you are allowed to receive a pair of SRAAMs AND a +5% accuracy on both LRAAMs and SRAAMs while only paying +5 pts (and let's not even mention the extra stealth)

Image

Although what is apparently closer to reality is that Mica-EM carries apparently no cost increase so in the example before you just paid for the extra pair of SRAAMs

Image


Spoiler : Cannon Cost: :
The following comparison suggests that the vulcan cannon carries no price tag over PACT guns
(+10 pts cost for +2 missiles)

Image

Or other NATO guns for that matter

Image

But now apparently adding a Vulcan cannon is worth 25 pts
(+10 pts cost for +10% ECM)

Image

While at the same time adding a cannon AND +20% ECM does not warrant any price increase whatsoever
(we've established vulcan is equal in price to any other gun)

Image


Spoiler : Missile accuracy: :
Someone might suggest that a +5% accuracy increase from 30% to 35% is worth 10 points

Image

But then that makes you wonder why an increase by another 15% to a whooping 50% is not worth anything
(don't forget +10 pts cost for +10 ECM)

Image


Spoiler : Random other example: :
+20% ECM, better SRAAMs and better turn rate is worth a total of +10 points

Image


Suggested Changes to the pricing scheme:
Spoiler : F&F MRAAM loadout :
The benefit of receiving a pair of F&F MRAAMs depends on how many you already have.
If you have 4 already and get another 2 is A LOT less useful than if you have 0 or 2.
0->2 => +100% value of one pair and cost increase of designating plane as F&F MRAAM carrier
2->4 => +100% value of one pair
4->6 => +25% value of one pair


Spoiler : SA MRAAM loadout :
Unlike F&F MRAAMs, your planes will never stay in the air long enough to release more than 2 or 3 pieces at most. That's the main reason everyone hated the old SU-27SK and why it's still crap. 6 MRAAMs was an overkill which nobody wanted to pay for.
0->2 => +100% value of one pair and cost increase of designating plane as SA MRAAM carrier
2->4 => +25% value of one pair


Spoiler : F&F SRAAM loadout on MRAAM carriers :
Same rule applies to SRAAMs aswell
You might end up using 2 in most close battles. You will rarely use 4 and you will less than once out of 100 times use 6
0->2 => +100% value of one pair and cost increase of designating plane as F&F MRAAM carrier
2->4 => +33% value of one pair
4->6 => +10% value of one pair


Spoiler : F&F SRAAM loadout on Non-MRAAM carriers :
Same rule applies to SRAAMs aswell
If you have 4 already and get another 2 is A LOT less useful than if you have 0 or 2.
0->2 => +100% value of one pair and cost increase of designating plane as F&F MRAAM carrier
2->4 => +100% value of one pair
4->6 => +50% value of one pair


These are the standard responses to the expected trolling responses that crop up every single time such a thread is created:

Spoiler : "You can't place 2 units side by side and justify buff/nerf solely based on that" :
Then you don't understand what this thread is about. No one is suggesting nerfs or buffs to any of the displayed units. But placing 2 units side by side allows you to prove beyond any doubt that AT LEAST ONE UNIT has the incorrect price. If 2 units have identical stats except for one parameter, which is proven to carry a price tag in MULTIPLE cases, but carries no price in ONE PARTICULAR comparison then that is proof of incorrect pricing. This is a thread highlighting the units that must be looked at and have their prices corrected.


Spoiler : "You're not giving any value to turn rate/speed/SA-or-F&F/air detection/fuel/god-knows-what-other-irrelevant-stat" :
Either said stat carries no/insignificant value in the game (and you are welcome to prove it does carry a value if you decide to claim such a fact) or you will notice that I avoid to attempt to comparing units of different "classes" i.e. SA vs F&F | 750km/h vs 900 or 1000 km/h | 2-hit-kill ASFs vs non-2-hit-kill ASFs | terrible turn rate vs great turn rate.


Spoiler : "You can't compare prices like this because you ignored that Nation XXX has more expensive planes while it has access to cheaper YYY" :
That's a BS theory that some people pull out from where the sun shineth not and have never proven it even exists. You are welcome to post proof that this holds true and provide hard numbers by how much said unit should be cheaper/more expensive.


Spoiler : "You can't compare prices like this because unit XXX is a prototype" :
That's another BS theory that some people pull out from where the sun shineth not and have never proven it even exists. You are welcome to post proof that this holds true and provide hard numbers by how much said unit should be cheaper/more expensive. And in case it were then this is immediately putting forward the suggestion to stop nonsense pricing based on the arbitrary prototype tag.


Spoiler : "You can't justify a baseline comparison of Plane XYZ to draw a conclusion if that Planes price is incorrect in the first palce. " :
You are correct, and there are plenty such examples and I did my best trying to avoid using those planes as base comparison. I might have missed something but even if I did use them, that proves that planes have their prices all over the place. Also even then it means the pricing scheme is simply different from what I got and probably causes other planes prices to go off the scale


Spoiler : "Loadout price will be different for pure SRAAM or pure LRAAM or mixed carriers " :
You are correct, that's why I never compare the two classes between each other. The only example I took was to point out that apparently it costs half as much to strap extra LRAAMs onto a plane than it costs to make it a mixed carrier, which probably sounds like weird game balance to everyone and not just me.
Last edited by urogard on Mon 5 Dec 2016 18:27, edited 1 time in total.

Seryn
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon 5 Dec 2016 06:00
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby Seryn » Mon 5 Dec 2016 17:41

planes are fine as they stand price-wise imo, i feel I pay the right amount for what I get (unless we look at Anti-Ship planes

RedFive
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed 6 Jan 2016 15:22
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby RedFive » Mon 5 Dec 2016 17:44

You've ignored flight endurance on some of the ASF comparisons, an extra ~30s can increase their effectiveness significantly.

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Dec 2016 17:55

RedFive wrote:You've ignored flight endurance on some of the ASF comparisons, an extra ~30s can increase their effectiveness significantly.

read pre-written response #2 in OP

RedFive
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed 6 Jan 2016 15:22
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby RedFive » Mon 5 Dec 2016 18:12

urogard wrote:
RedFive wrote:You've ignored flight endurance on some of the ASF comparisons, an extra ~30s can increase their effectiveness significantly.

read pre-written response #2 in OP

Yeah, that stamina is useful. An ASF loitering over your lines is often enough to keep you opponent from sending gound attack planes your way. Longer loiter times = longer time preventing enemy planes from attacking. I assumed this would be obvious.

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Dec 2016 18:24

RedFive wrote:Yeah, that stamina is useful. An ASF loitering over your lines is often enough to keep you opponent from sending gound attack planes your way. Longer loiter times = longer time preventing enemy planes from attacking. I assumed this would be obvious.

I still don't understand, are you suggesting increased loiter time has value which is actually reflected in the ingame pricing scheme which is what I haven't considered when comparing prices?

User avatar
keldon
Major
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:38
Location: Liebe Grüße aus Stuttgart
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby keldon » Mon 5 Dec 2016 18:24

This is a quite well summerized list. Although i don't know if this would help change anything, but you have my like.
Image
亲们!大国梦哦! viewtopic.php?p=964119#p964119 小钱钱,真心甜,鼓钱包,放腰间,大国梦,早日圆

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Dec 2016 18:28

keldon wrote:This is a quite well summerized list. Although i don't know if this would help change anything, but you have my like.

Not a comprehensive list of units, rather only pointing out the factors which determine price are being applied inconsistently.
The whole system is too convoluted to be able to come up with a formula without engaging in some serious regression analysis of all unit stats. (which is a pain to do without exporting all unit stats)
Last edited by urogard on Mon 5 Dec 2016 18:29, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7246
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby Razzmann » Mon 5 Dec 2016 18:29

urogard wrote:inconsistently.

Wargame summarized in one word.

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Aircraft pricing scheme discrepancies

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Dec 2016 18:30

Razzmann wrote:
urogard wrote:inconsistently.

Wargame summarized in one word.

I think you meant to say flavor :lol:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FrangibleCover and 34 guests