A new way to Rank that means something

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Bruv119
Last month I did 94 for 1    Which was a death by my own doing and not enemy fire.....

Don't count augers not related to combat. Don't count GV deaths, or deaths by flak, ack or manned guns. Count only losses in fighters to fighters. You may want to count deaths related to collisions or those resulting from attacking bombers.

For example, I was vulched as I spawned in my F6F by an Ostwind that had sneaked into a hanger (base was already flashing due to enemy fighters). I would not count that. Plus I had an intentional auger to reup quickly to defend another field. I would not count that either. Also, I often fly bombers as fighters. In that regard, on the first day of the current tour, I lost an SBD in a collision with a B-26, but had killed 3 fighters prior to that. Some may not count that one, but I will as it was my fault for being too aggressive. On the other hand, I'm having fun with the A-20G.

My experience is that by exercising good SA and judgement, most of the better pilots can run up a kill streak of more than 100 kills without padding it by vulching or bombing GVs (and I do both without reservation... ).

My regards,

Widewing

[Killjoy2]

When you make surviving more rewarding than killing, gameplay suffers.

I disagree with this remark.  I think that fighting until you die is arcade play and loses it's appeal over time.  AH would have to depend on a higher turnover of players.  

Defeating your opponent and surviving supports a long term player.  However, AH needs both to be profitable and competitive.

[Spatula]

Originally posted by Saintaw
Not the tools!

You're the tool, saw! Im just a utensil

[Rino]

Originally posted by Killjoy2
When you make surviving more rewarding than killing, gameplay suffers.

I disagree with this remark.  I think that fighting until you die is arcade play and loses it's appeal over time.  AH would have to depend on a higher turnover of players.  

Defeating your opponent and surviving supports a long term player.  However, AH needs both to be profitable and competitive.

     Fly like a wuss if you want to, just don't expect the game to change to
reward "smart" flying.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by hitech
If living is the primary goal, why fight?

HiTech

I think this about covers it.

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by Bruv119
Last month I did 94 for 1    Which was a death by my own doing and not enemy fire.....

In a game called Fighter Ace I managed 50 aces one time in the MA there thats 250 in a row over 3 days play not one bail or ditch.  To my knowledge no-one has ever bettered that and they never will.  

.

all this prooves is how much better the competition here is



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




i think getting a kill streak is not a fair way to score.



then again if you gave us points for ho passes and vulches i still wouldnt give a damn about my score.

[SuperDud]

I don't think killjoy's idea is all that bad. Those who play for rank will actually get a system that makes some sense. Those of us who don't care about it... still won't care. True it promotes "timid" flying but for the most part, those already going for score fly timidly. This new point system won't change that.

[B@tfinkV]

so what will it change?

[SuperDud]

I don't think it'll change anything really. But by golly, it'll make more sense.

[NoBaddy]

I would like to see kill streaks. But, on the STATS page and not on the score page. Add a column and put it in for each plane type. It would tell me how long I can go without getting stupid in a plane type. Yeah, I know...it would only be small numbers.

[Knite]

Someone else touched on an idea that I think has some merit.

How about basing ranking and score on number of perks earned, or number of perks earned per play hour?

It would reward survival and proper landing.
It would reward usage of older aircraft, but not make newer aircraft insignificant.
It would reward more kills over less.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by Knite
Someone else touched on an idea that I think has some merit.

How about basing ranking and score (...) (on) number of perks earned per play hour?

It would reward survival and proper landing.
It would reward usage of older aircraft, but not make newer aircraft insignificant.
It would reward more kills over less.

Best idea so far IMHO.  If you are really flying for rank and want to be fighter #1 you really have to fly early war planes. Both a challenge and certainly a little bit more proof of ability than current system  (if you bother about rank at all)
Maybe you should put it into "wishlist"

[Simaril]

You know, for those who care about score the current system is pretty finely tuned. It balances gameplay styles (for example by giving equal weight to KPD and KPH), and it rewards the guy who's very good at eveything over the guy who only does one thing well.


Cant see how this (or anything else I can think of) would make it a better reflection of scoring ability in AH.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by Knite
Someone else touched on an idea that I think has some merit.

How about basing ranking and score on number of perks earned, or number of perks earned per play hour?

It would reward survival and proper landing.
It would reward usage of older aircraft, but not make newer aircraft insignificant.
It would reward more kills over less.

It would reward perkfarming by vulching in high ENY planes, and that is absolutely all it would do. I guarantee it.

[EN4CER]

You forgot to ask if anyone cared about Rank?

Who cares? Get a life you buffs! Put down the game and take a walk outside once in awhile. Go out with some friends, meet a nice girl, get married, sign your life away on a mortgage, have some kids, pay some bills, get a new car and pay for that, and watch your game play go south for the winter. Then you'll care about rank.  

Boys - just rustling some feathers.