How to get a high rank

[Murdr]

Urchin.  That is not the heart of the issue.  I just did a random sample of tour 47 players ranked between 1000-1600.  30 of 30 had a kill or death in those three planes.  Now, does that mean I should run here and post a statement that implies it is a factor in their rank?  After all, my research according to beets method would support such a statement.  Its all there in black and white.  

Then again the arena stats place those 3 among the top 4 most used planes.  So I should be able to pick any demographic, and find repeated instances of its use.  What would be remarkable, would be a demographic that shows either an unusual concentration by percentage, or unusual lack of those 3.  That isnt what beet brought to the table though.  

Ignoring scope of a global trend (most used planes/rain), he sites the results of global trend(big3/umbrella), and a small percentage of players (top 100/building) and tries to imply some significance to it.  

So I say again in this thread titled 'how to get a high rank' the la7/spit9/p51 have as much to do with walking into the top 100, as an umbrella has to do with walking into a building on a rainy day.

[DrDea]

Originally posted by Shane
you've gone in circles before. you're disqualified from locking them.

  Damn.Busted.

[XtrmeJ]

Why not make a challenge of it. Do one tour without flying the big 3 and see if you can still manage a high rank.

[Shane]

Originally posted by XtrmeJ
Why not make a challenge of it. Do one tour without flying the big 3 and see if you can still manage a high rank.

i'd rather see beet1e fly only the big-3 and see how *he* does.

[beet1e]

shane. Thanks for the dictionary link. You might need it yourself to check the word "observation". Here you go.

• ob·ser·va·tion    

The act or faculty of observing.
The fact of being observed.

The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.
A comment or remark. See Synonyms at comment.
An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing. [/list] You said "your statement has been shown to be statistically incorrect." No it hasn't. Refer to my observation: I have repeated it half a dozen times and you still don't get it. I'm not saying it again.

Murdr accused me of being "flat out wrong" - No I'm not. I said what I said on the strength of data I located on the HTC stats and scores pages - it's there for all to see, and there can be no argument about it. OK, I was only 99.98% right - Tarmac proved to be a worthy exception to the rule in tour 45, for example.

Murdr, with all those umbrellas you keep talking about, surely you could spare one for the guy in your avatar pic.

Rude implied I'm mentally challenged, and I'm beginning to agree! I just can't make you guys see that what I said was to simply comment on a pattern I had noted, in varying degrees, on the scores and stats pages.

Slapshot said "so what?" So what indeed. So nothing.

And shane, I didn't even say that the easymode™ subset was instrumental in gaining a place in the top 100. But take a look at Steve's scores and stats. He has a very impressive k/d in the P51. Now check his k/d for other planes. There are other guys like that. OK, some guys flew easymode™ on only a handful of occasions, and in some cases they might well have finished a tour in the top 100 without flying the Big Three. But in all but a tiny minority of cases, they did fly the Big Three, and what I said still stands.

LOL. Who would have thought that grown men could get so bent out of shape about some game stats.

I think what really hurts is my use of the EasyMode™ tag. Sowwy!

[Shane]

Originally posted by beet1e
And shane, I didn't even say that the easymode™ subset was instrumental in gaining a place in the top 100. There are other guys like that. OK, some guys flew easymode™ on only a handful of occasions, and in some cases they might well have finished a tour in the top 100 without flying the Big Three. But in all but a tiny minority of cases, they did fly the Big Three, and what I said still stands.

sigh....

did you not say this?

"The point is that no-one gets into the top 100 fighter ranks, without resorting to the EasyMode™ plane subset, ie P51/LA7/Spit ix."

however, your original argument was,

"And that is to locate a player whose fighter rank was better than mine and who did not fly the Easymode/Big Three subset of P51/LA7/Spit ix, because I never do. And what did I find? I couldn't find a single pilot who ranked higher than me who didn't fly one, two, or all three of those planes."

you made an argument based on a faulty observation with faulty research. let's average your ftr ranking for the past 7 tours (41-47), dropping the highest and lowest ranking.  your averaged ftr rank is.... 194. at no point therein had you ever broken 100 (sorry). i think you need a much broader sampling to support/refute your orignal argument, no?

Q.E.D., you *were* proven wrong in your arguments. both literally and statisically. there are at least 4-5 people in this thread who have shown that. let's use load for example... 2755 kills, 39 being in the big-4. that's less than 1.5% -  statistically insignificant to your argument, th eimplication that one must rely on using one of those 3 ftrs to obtain a sub-100, or even sub beet1e ranking. ack-ack does it repeatedly. and he flies 38 as a fighter exclusively.

you attempted to measure yourself and came up short. no surprise there.

steve knows and admits to his weak areas. why don't you take a tip from him in that?

no one's bent out of shape over stats. they're bent out of shape trying to get it through your skull that you don't know what you're talking about. keep dancing like a scarecrow in a strong wind, maybe you'll be blown to OZ and acquire a brain.

you're just envious you're not getting the respect you think you deserve. sorry to deflate your bubble, you're merely mediocre and missing significant clues.

[beet1e]

Geez, shane. Don't you ever sleep?

There was NO argument. At the moment I reviewed the stats, I was ranked at 103, and therefore focussed on the top 100. No agenda - just curiosity. Not trying to prove anything, because there's no need. The FACTS are all there on the HTC website. And the FACT is that with very few exceptions in certain tours, the guys in that top 100 have all flown the Big Three at some point in the tour.

however, your original argument was,

...there was NO argument - get it? NO ARGUMENT.

you made an argument based on a faulty observation with faulty research.

No I didn't. What I said is true, and still stands.

Q.E.D., you *were* proven wrong in your arguments. both literally and statisically.

Wrong on two counts. There was no argument, and what I said was factually correct.

Toodle-Pip.

[Shane]

"And that is to locate a player whose fighter rank was better than mine and who did not fly the Easymode/Big Three subset of P51/LA7/Spit ix, because I never do. And what did I find? observation I couldn't find a single pilot who ranked higher than me who argumentdidn't fly one, two, or all three of those planes."


"The point is that argumentno-one gets into the top 100 fighter ranks, without resorting to the EasyMode™ plane subset, ie P51/LA7/Spit ix."

i see english is not your first language.

i'll type this real slow....

your arguments have been proven wrong on all counts.

your observation was faulty.

[lazs2]

I think beetle has a valid and obvious point but his hatred of la7's has kinda muted it...

I think that if yu want to be high ranked in fighters AND do it in a way that is representitive... say, couple hundred or more kills...  40 or more hours...   You will have to use one of the advantageous planes.

pee51... dee9  gee10.... la7..   spit 9...  typhie..  ya gotta be late model fast and have some firepower.

I think decent sticks could do it in la5 and p47 or 51b  maybe the radial 190's..   g6 or hog but I think most of the current "rankers" are married to the very best and biggest advantage.

not sure how many could rank #1 in a hellcat or 109f or even nik...   they need the speed.  they need it to get to and away from the fight quickly and with impunity.

in a game with planes that have such large spans in performance.... rank is meaningless.   In a game where not everyone is attempting to do the same thing... rank is meaningless.

It is no coincidence that those who value rank and seek it.... use the biggest advantage offered in ac over everyone else....  the advantage is very large indeed.   It is like one guy loading large stones into the  back of his truck and another takes a pebble and a slingshot and shoots the peeble 100 yards over the truck and then claims he is more skilled since his rock throwing abilities far exceeded the other guys.

but for now... most of us are pretty certain when we run into a decent stick.    Unless he bounces us while we are engaged heavily and then runs away.... his skill is still an unknown at that point.

lazs

[lazs2]

oops.. Another problem is the players who are neither fish nor fowl...

They fly a variety of planes or.. mediocre to pretty advantageous...  they fly to live and do it cautiously but are not ranked high.

They haven't gamed the game sufficently to get high rank and.... their caution has kept them anonymous with the acm crowd... they don't mix it up.  

the rank crowd doesn't think much of em and... the acm crowd doesn't recognize em.

They are never mentioned as being "good".  

I think the stats are great for everyone... yu can set your own goals and watch progress.   hell with what everyone else thinks.

lazs

[eskimo2]

I view rank kind of like grades.  Smarter kids gravitate toward higher grades, but smart kids can be found with all different GPA’s.  While it’s far from certain that a kid with a 4.0 GPA is smarter than a kid with a 2.0 GPA, you’re going to find a higher percentage of smart kids at the 4.0 level than at the 2.0 level.  

In schools, lots of kids of all levels of intelligence can be found who value grades, or do not value grades.  One of the few conclusions that can be made is that really dumb kids have a heck of a time earning good grades (depending on the school).  Likewise, kids with average intelligence can earn good grades if they work at it.  GPA is no indicator of how seriously a student pursues good grades, and needs to be viewed with a grain of salt.  

Grades are not the be-all indicator of intelligence, but they do have value.  Likewise, the AH ranking system is not the be-all indicator of skill, but it does have value.

eskimo

[Murdr]

• Fraud

'frod
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

[culero]

Originally posted by lazs2
snip

hell with what everyone else thinks.

lazs

In general, a good philosophy IMO

culero

[Hornet]

Interesting language in Beet1e's non-statement:

1. "Anyone who flies the Big3 or its subset". So anyone who flies the La5, 51B, Spit1, Spit5, Seafire is dropped from consideration in beet1e's figures. Good planes...but not world beaters. Especially with Niks and Yaks and perks getting a free pass. Carefully calculated no doubt. Yet even with all these allowances Beet1e's post still fails to achieve absolute truth.  

Usually if you torture stats long enough you can get them to tell you anything.

[SlapShot]

Oh I see ... now its very few exceptions, when the orginal statement said I couldn't find a single pilot ... waffle waffle waffle.

It was a California Cab. I love California Merlots, but also love the Chilean Merlots. I also like a good Shiraz or Syrah. I tend to stay "West Coast" for wines.