Razzmann wrote:He posted hard data in the first post of page 18...
No, he posted 2 pictures which show no pattern of anything and then asked a question. He didn't even state any premise or conclusion, just a plain question. We still don't know his position.
Razzmann wrote:Also your whole argument of what Eugen wants units to be balanced around is utter trash when 80% of balance changes do not even originate from them.
Last time I checked, authorship of the idea is irrelevant because EUG is the one implementing the things they believe falls into their idea of "balancing".
Or do you now want to attribute RPK-74 DPS to me alone because I was the one who opened half a dozen threads and forced 50-60 pages of discussion after the patch that reduced RPK-74/LADA RPK DPS/suppression to below RPK levels, as well as claiming that EUG deciding to fix that DPS had nothing to do with how EUG wants units to be balanced?
Your argument of authorship determining EUG agreement with balancing in their own patches is utter trash.
Razzmann wrote:Also the whole "Bkan is completely different from the other howitzers and should not be used in compariyon" lol. Get real dude.
Your point being?
I get that you don't agree with someone's opinion, but either provide arguments or don't post that you disagree because that implies you don't know yourself what your stance is and/or why you're willing to believe it.
We got the Vasilek which carries a 50% (15 pts) price premium for its "special ability". And it's sure as shit not because of its grandiose displayed RoF of 20 r/m when other 3HE mortars have only 10% less RoF. That's even less RoF difference than 7HE arties with 3640m dispersion have (because according to throwaway, displayed RoF is apparently a balance factor)
Razzmann wrote:And even if we consider that everything Eugen did is on purpose and not them being inconsistent / not bothering to balance more stuff...
Well, that's a pretty bold claim to even imply everything EUG does is on purpose while we have a sticky thread outlining over a hundred inconsistencies on NATO side alone and probably around a hundred more for PACT.
So until you can provide hard data that price discrepancies in similar units are actually intended as opposed to simply being discrepancies which EUG hasn't come around fixing, I'll assume occams razor:
urogard wrote:The current price difference is a discrepancy that requires correction.
Razzmann wrote:How about you show us data that RoF/Salvo length and ammo do not increase the price of 10/9 HE howitzers. You consider the Bkan something "special" like the ATACMS, but you use the 7HE/10s aim time howitzer "data" of RoF / ammo on 10/9 HE and 35s aim time howitzers that fullfill a completely different role, instead of seeing them as a diffeeent class of units?
Mortars are surely a different class of units than howitzers, yet they ignore ammo count in their pricing [M125 / Podnos] | [SM-82 M-60PM vs FV432(M)]. They even ignore armor differences [Telakrh 71 vs YP-408 PW-MT] | [Telakrh 66 vs Makmat] | [ShM vz85 PRAM-S vs PzMrs M113].
7HE fast firing Howitzers not only ignore ammo count [caesar vs nora-b] but rof and speed as well (actually even range) [paladin vs ondava].
Slow firing 5HE, 6HE and 7HE howitzers allow no reasonable conclusion due to contradictory data (some arties suggest a pattern while others refute it, but you're welcome to show otherwise, my post is long enough already)
Slow firing 9HE howitzers behave irregularly as well. First a significant increase in accuracy and range carries huge premium [M107 vs Romach] but then later a much larger increase in accuracy, ammo count and rof and a small reduction in range carries a very small premium [Romach vs Koksan]. Accuracy is clearly important, so increasing it will increase price. But unless range is a massively important stat for the pricing of slow firing arty (close to being the single most important stat price-wise), then the koksan price cannot be affected by ammo count and rof. All of this assumes that the M107/Romach/Koksan has actually the correct prices as opposed to having some inconsistencies.
So we have the data that 3HE, 5HE and 6HE Mortar pricing doesn't care about ammo count (rof is 100% standardized).
We also have the data that fast firing 7HE Howitzer pricing doesn't care about ammo count or rof.
Data on slow firing howitzers is inconclusive.
For the sake of argument, let's assume your premise of 10HE howitzers being a different class of unit holds true.
#1 We know that in EVERY CLASS the combination of accuracy and caliber carries a high correlation with price.
#2 We found 2 classes of arties on different ends of the spectrum (mortars and fast aiming howitzers) where we know that ammo count and RoF carries no weight in the pricing scheme whatsoever.
#3 The middle of the spectrum (slow firing howitzers) allows for no definitive conclusion based on available data.
Now we can draw 2 possible conclusions:
- Every class of arties uses the same parameters to determine price without exception. And since neither mortars, nor fast-aiming arties use ammo count or RoF as pricing factor, slow-aiming arties consequently do not use this either.
=> Arties which do not follow this pattern are inconsistencies (which we have already established to be a regular occurence in the RD armory).
- Every class of arties uses accuracy and caliber to determine price. But unlike mortars and fast-aiming arties, slow-aiming howitzers are an exception to this and also use ammo count and rof (or whatever else) for their pricing.
=> This exception is not easily visible because the arties that do not follow this pricing pattern are inconsistencies (which we have already established to be a regular occurence in the RD armory).
I'll go with occams razor on this one because it doesn't require a weird exception to be put in place for the pricing scheme to make sense (either ammo count and rof is always a factor in pricing or it never is, as opposed to just sometimes).
Razzmann wrote:Vobule may have not chosen the best words, but he was completely right....
Vobule hasn't posted in this thread, unless you mean his ad hominem in the other, then yes. That was truly a pinnacle of human logic and argumentation.