Aces HIgh II: 1st Camp After Action Report

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Shane
name 3 DA "superstars" who are "tactically unaware hapless victims" in MA.

I highly doubt I could name anyone who is a DA superstar according to you Shane... So I'm not even going to go there, we all know you are the premier DA superstar!

Zazen

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Furious
None of those numbers take into account fun.

Is the dweeb with a .36 to 1 K/D ratio having fun?  If yes HE WINS!!

Is the dweeb with a 13 to 1 K/D ratio having fun?  If yes HE WINS!!

...if you are having fun you win, no matter what numbers get posted.

Granted Furby. I tried to come up with a formula to measure 'fun'. But, it started to look like Einstein's attempts at coming up with the 'Unified Field Theory" formula, so I gave up.

Zazen

[mars01]

But, the overall mutually supportive team-play is omnipresent on Rooks regardless of waning numbers both historically and in the present. In fact, I contend that as numbers dwindle the mutually supportive teamplay on Rooks actually improves as the individual need for organized tactics is required to maintain survivability.

Like I said Zazen, when the numbers were down so was all the "extra omnipresent team-play"  That was my unbiased expieriance.  You are very biased and therefore your conlusions are clouded and biased as well.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by mars01
Zazen your weenie side is blazing through buddy.  I would like to see the kills per time included in your stats.  K/d does not tell the story.  

I would love nothing more than to do that. If there was any possible way I would. Hopefully HTC reads these posts and finishes the 'Coming Soon' portion of the scores section that would include the other factors. I strongly suspect that the inclusion of the various other elements that constitute the fighter score would serve to even further bolster my contentions in this thread.

Zazen

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by mars01
Like I said Zazen, when the numbers were down so was all the "extra omnipresent team-play"  That was my unbiased expieriance.  You are very biased and therefore your conlusions are clouded and biased as well.

Actually, you are as biased as anyone, moreso even, your assertions are based on fragmented, limited periods, during one brief stint with Rooks. Subjective impressions without empirical evidence over a very finite time-frame are by their very nature biased, it's impossible for them to be otherwise. The simple fact is, the data is the only thing that is unbiased, and the data contradicts you on this point.

Zazen

[Shane]

Originally posted by Zazen13
I highly doubt I could name anyone who is a DA superstar according to you Shane... So I'm not even going to go there, we all know you are the premier DA superstar!

Zazen

nuh, uh.... you made the assertion, back it up using your own subjective observations.

i make no claims or representations as to who *you* might consider a "DA superstar."


based on my own subjective observations and definition of someone who is good in the DA, i can't think of any who are "tactically unaware hapless victims" in the MA.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Zazen13
I would love nothing more than to do that. If there was any possible way I would. Hopefully HTC reads these posts and finishes the 'Coming Soon' portion of the scores section that would include the other factors. I strongly suspect that the inclusion of the various other elements that constitute the fighter score would serve to even further bolster my contentions in this thread.

Zazen

One thing that you might want to keep in mind is that maybe HT won't publish those stats if people keep using them to poke others in the eye.

Publish your stats, but try to leave out the smugness and "superior" crap.

Your "read between the lines" intentions of publishing these stats only seem to bring discord amoungst the community at large, which, IMHO is not a good thing.

All in all, it really boils down to what Furious said ... it's not often that he has great insight, but when he does ... it's good ...  

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Shane
nuh, uh.... you made the assertion, back it up using your own subjective observations.

i make no claims or representations as to who *you* might consider a "DA superstar."


based on my own subjective observations and definition of someone who is good in the DA, i can't think of any who are "tactically unaware hapless victims" in the MA.

I'm not biting!

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Shane
nuh, uh.... you made the assertion, back it up using your own subjective observations.

i make no claims or representations as to who *you* might consider a "DA superstar."


based on my own subjective observations and definition of someone who is good in the DA, i can't think of any who are "tactically unaware hapless victims" in the MA.

I'll take a stab at it ...

WildThing
Nomak
Shane
Leviathn

These are guys that I have fought in the DA and in the MA and I know for a fact that none of them can fight their way out of a wet paper bag in the MA scenario, but will hand you your arnold in the DA.

[Panman]

RTR don't know what yur smokin to come up with the chimp thing, but pass it down:D And AKAK quit lookin in my windows I do own gunns:eek:

                                               Panman:cool:

[Bubbaj6]

Two things Zazen:

1) "When rooks were outnumbered 2 millenia ago.."  by Bishops?  Yet according to your unimpeachable stats the Bish universally suck so it must not have been too bad after all right?

In fact using your own statistics for 2003 each Rook is "worth" 1.4 Bish   This means that if K/D were the all important stat you make it out to be rook "skill" would acheive parity with bish "numbers" at 140 bish to 100 rooks.  Making the numbers say 200 bish to 100 rooks only means that the rooks are at a "slight disadvantage due to their mad sk1llz" because in an even world this would only mean that rooks are only 40 pilots down to the "skill" difference.  A 40 person difference in the MA now I don't think anyone will argue is that significant from a numbers perspective but a 100 person difference definately sets off buzzers.  So if Rook skill is what you make it out to be and could indeed operate at only a slight disadvantage due to the skill differences between Bish and Rook when outnumberd 2 to 1, where exactly did the Rook complaining about being outnumbered come from since their skill is enough to offest the numerical difference?  Why does this even still come up?  Think K/D stats still show everything and that, to use your own words "have a ZERO NET effect"?

2)  The core fallacy to your argument is that it is numbers that most directly effect perception in the MA.  If numbers are even then it does begin to come down to skill.  However if one side consistently has a higher number of players they are able to either have large attacks against a given target or pursue meaningful attacks against multiple attacks.  Either way it is through saturation alone that the defenses of the country are attacked are overwhelmed.  Skill really doesn't enter into the equation at all.  For example, do you think that someone with a K/D ration of 6 to 1 would have much chance to maintain this ratio if he were always in fights solo where he was outnumbered 6 to 1?  In your scenario killing all 6 opponents should only be an "average" accomplishment and should be readily repeatable.  Think this really is the case?

What this leads to is that the side with the most numbers is able to take bases more consistently, regardless of skill and simply through saturation.  In other words, when one side is able to roll over the others with impunity because of numbers and the other two countries are constantly fighting against terrific odds (even if their K/D ratios say it should be no problem) that people will begin to call foul.


It is only if the numbers are even or close to even that skill begins to enter the equation.

[mars01]

Give me a break Zazen, I have nothing to gain or prove from any of this.  

Tell me how long does one need to fly for a country before they can get sense of that country.  We spent 2 months with the rooks and I accumualted 66 total hours.  I think that is more than enough time.

You also agree the scoring system has flaws and does not paint an accurate picture but yet you hold to your conclusions based on flawed data.

For a guy that goes to great lengths to make his Zazen account so special ( i.e. Shade accounts to hide when you are not at your best etc.) you are giving yourself a big black eye and burning any respect you might have deserved with such silly pursuits and hanging on to such a flawed point of view.  

Good luck.  lol

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Bubbaj6
Two things Zazen:

1) "When rooks were outnumbered 2 millenia ago.."  by Bishops?  Yet according to your unimpeachable stats the Bish universally suck so it must not have been too bad after all right?

In fact using your own statistics for 2003 each Rook is "worth" 1.4 Bish   This means that if K/D were the all important stat you make it out to be rook "skill" would acheive parity with bish "numbers" at 140 bish to 100 rooks.  Making the numbers say 200 bish to 100 rooks only means that the rooks are at a "slight disadvantage due to their mad sk1llz" because in an even world this would only mean that rooks are only 40 pilots down to the "skill" difference.  A 40 person difference in the MA now I don't think anyone will argue is that significant from a numbers perspective but a 100 person difference definately sets off buzzers.  So if Rook skill is what you make it out to be and could indeed operate at only a slight disadvantage due to the skill differences between Bish and Rook when outnumberd 2 to 1, where exactly did the Rook complaining about being outnumbered come from since their skill is enough to offest the numerical difference?  Why does this even still come up?  Think K/D stats still show everything and that, to use your own words "have a ZERO NET effect"?

2)  The core fallacy to your argument is that it is numbers that most directly effect perception in the MA.  If numbers are even then it does begin to come down to skill.  However if one side consistently has a higher number of players they are able to either have large attacks against a given target or pursue meaningful attacks against multiple attacks.  Either way it is through saturation alone that the defenses of the country are attacked are overwhelmed.  Skill really doesn't enter into the equation at all.  For example, do you think that someone with a K/D ration of 6 to 1 would have much chance to maintain this ratio if he were always in fights solo where he was outnumbered 6 to 1?  In your scenario killing all 6 opponents should only be an "average" accomplishment and should be readily repeatable.  Think this really is the case?

What this leads to is that the side with the most numbers is able to take bases more consistently, regardless of skill and simply through saturation.  In other words, when one side is able to roll over the others with impunity because of numbers and the other two countries are constantly fighting against terrific odds (even if their K/D ratios say it should be no problem) that people will begin to call foul.


It is only if the numbers are even or close to even that skill begins to enter the equation.

That doesn't wash, if one team has superior skill, they can surmount the net effect of superior numbers at relatively little detriment to their survivability as Rooks did in the past. In the situation of disparity in numbers a team with inferior numbers would have to either be intrinsically better than the numerically superior team and/or adapt and employ superior tactics to maintain comparable kill totals and survivability figures. Rooks did this when outnumbered. Bishops and to a lesser extent Knights are NOT doing this when outnumbered.

If the statistics are remaining consistant irrelevant of numerical disparities, what is the reason in your opinion? Why do Rooks have an equally impressive K/D even when outnumbered? Why do Bishops have a horrifically piss poor K/D whether they have numbers or not? Why do Knights always have a 0.96:1 K/D whether outnumbered or not? Answer those questions to my satisfaction using proof and sound logic and we'll have some debate!

I look forward to your reply...

Zazen

[mars01]

Why do Rooks have an equally impressive K/D even when outnumbered? Why do Bishops have a horrifically piss poor K/D whether they have numbers or not? Why do Knights always have a 0.96:1 K/D whether outnumbered or not?

Zazen the manipulation of your numbers are easy and reflect little.  

I'll give you one scenario..

It could be that the rooks have a bunch of radish safe flyers that have a horse***** K/T because they rarely engage without an advantage.  I.e.  You, Beetle, ... etc.  This would easily explain alot.  

Perhaps the Bish have many players that could give a crap about score and up in the worst scenarios possible and rarely go over 10k.

And perhaps the knights have a mix of both.

If there is any decent indicator of what country has the best pilots you should lool as past KOHs and crunch some numbers on those guys.

Either way you cut it numbers based on K/D don't mean a thing, let alone who or which country is better or not.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by mars01
Why do Rooks have an equally impressive K/D even when outnumbered? Why do Bishops have a horrifically piss poor K/D whether they have numbers or not? Why do Knights always have a 0.96:1 K/D whether outnumbered or not?

Zazen the manipulation of your numbers are easy and reflect little.  

I'll give you one scenario..

It could be that the rooks have a bunch of radish safe flyers that have a horse***** K/T because they rarely engage without an advantage.  I.e.  You, Beetle, ... etc.  This would easily explain alot.  

Perhaps the Bish have many players that could give a crap about score and up in the worst scenarios possible and rarely go over 10k.

And perhaps the knights have a mix of both.

Either way you cut it numbers based on K/D don't mean a thing, let alone who or which country is better or not.

That may be possible, but it's not proveable, it's just your opinion until we get statistics that can bear you out. I would honestly like to know if that is the case myself, I highly doubt it is, but I'd love to know all the same.

One reason I do not think your postulation is correct is looking at the Top 99 Fighter pilots. In order to compete at the upper echelon of the Fighter Pilot spectrum you must maintain a very respectable K/T. The fact that Rooks totally dominate the Top 99 list indicates that many Rooks have an equally impressive  if not superior K/T relative to their Bishop and Knight peers.


Zazen