Fighter Scoring Issue

[RELIC]

You completely missed the point I made and worse yet dont seem to understand how points relate to the other categories.

Please enlighten me then.

[Nutzoid]

Agreed.  Score, not so important, but stats certainly are.  It's a part of getting better.

I disagree about reflecting ones getting better.  If you truly believe this, then don't log into the game for two or three days, (I know how hard this can be ) and see what happens to your score. I'll be willing to bet that your score/rank changes for the worse and changes big time! This may be due to a lack of time logged into the game, where your score/rank is averaged over a shrinking amount of hours played, but if anyone truly thinks the current system accurately indicates ones improvement, then why does it need to be represented in the way it is now? Why not introduce a system whereby a pilot obtains levels of proficiency, such as Basic, Intermediate, Advanced and Master with criteria one must have in order to advance? Once reached, you would carry this "level" from tour to tour working on the next step.

IDK, but this whole score/rank thing could be done better I think.  

[Chalenge]

Please enlighten me then.

You are fighting statistical dispersion as much as their score. The problem you are facing is defeating the difference between your performance and theirs versus the entire arena. The guys in #1 are shooting down more planes and so pushing their scores higher. The problem is that you are not landing enough kills or killing enough per sortie to drive the advantage above their point advantage. Because the average performance is less than both of you and they score enough above the norm to remain within the spread on the other categories it isnt hard to win on points. All the categories have equal weight so no the score category isnt any more valuable but it is more important if both teams are only a short percentage apart in distribution.

Dont fall into the trap of averaging the final ranks as if they mattered because they dont.

[RELIC]

You are fighting statistical dispersion as much as their score. The problem you are facing is defeating the difference between your performance and theirs versus the entire arena. The guys in #1 are shooting down more planes and so pushing their scores higher. The problem is that you are not landing enough kills or killing enough per sortie to drive the advantage above their point advantage. Because the average performance is less than both of you and they score enough above the norm to remain within the spread on the other categories it isnt hard to win on points. All the categories have equal weight so no the score category isnt any more valuable but it is more important if both teams are only a short percentage apart in distribution.

Dont fall into the trap of averaging the final ranks as if they mattered because they dont.

I don't want this to turn into a pissing match between us, but did you look at the stats for the squad ranked #41 in Fighter (let's call em Squad41)?  Squad 41 shot down 2614 planes for a total of 228558.18 fighter points.  The squad ranked #1 in Fighter (call them squad1) shot down 1838 planes for a total of 220582.81 fighter points.  In the "Points" scoring subsection Squad1 came in at #29 out of all the squads in the arena (which is your "statistical dispersion") and squad41 came in a bit better at #26, close... but squad41 did kill more planes AND score more points and was therefore ranked a bit better in that (Points) subsection.  But that is just ONE subsection.  In the other 4 subsections (K/D, K/S, K/per Hour, Hit%), squad41 bested squad1 (by sometimes significant margins - see my original post) in every section except for K/D which was basically a draw. 

So if you could win because you score MUCH better in one section, then why didn't Squad41 get ranked higher than Squad1?  They ranked better than Squad1 in four out of five subsections and the only one that they didn't (K/D) was basically neck and neck.

This is the problem and no matter how you spin it, its damn hard to justify why the squad that did better in all but one of the Fighter rankings "subsections" ended up ranked MUCH lower than the squad ranked at #1.

In every other score (Bomber, Attack, V/B) the final ranking is calculated by taking the ranks from each subsection and dividing them by the total number of subsections.  The squad with the lowest number is ranked #1.  The squad which the 2nd lowest number is ranked #2, and so on...  It's ONLY the Fighter section where this formula does not apply and that is why we have squads that (IMO) should be ranked much better sitting at #41.

[grizz441]

You completely missed the point I made and worse yet dont seem to understand how points relate to the other categories.

I must have missed the point also...

You are fighting statistical dispersion as much as their score. The problem you are facing is defeating the difference between your performance and theirs versus the entire arena. The guys in #1 are shooting down more planes and so pushing their scores higher. The problem is that you are not landing enough kills or killing enough per sortie to drive the advantage above their point advantage. Because the average performance is less than both of you and they score enough above the norm to remain within the spread on the other categories it isnt hard to win on points. All the categories have equal weight so no the score category isnt any more valuable but it is more important if both teams are only a short percentage apart in distribution.

¿Cómo? 
I am still trying to figure out for myself how those numbers make any sense, but this response is making me more confused.   

edit: The only thing I can think of is that somehow Landed Kills plays a role.  For example, as Relic posted:

Squad 41 shot down 2614 planes for a total of 228558.18 fighter points.  The squad ranked #1 in Fighter shot down 1838 planes for a total of 220582.81 fighter points.

Squad 1 had significantly less kills but almost as many points as Squad 41.  That means they were landing their kills a lot more frequently to rack up more Points.  Maybe for "Squad Points", only Points accrued from landed missions count, even though the rank shows Points accrued from all sorties.  Could this be a scoring bug? Idk.  Again, this is the only thing I can think of that would explain these numbers.

[RELIC]

I must have missed the point also...

¿Cómo? 

I am still trying to figure out for myself how those numbers make any sense, but this response is making me more confused.   


edit: The only thing I can think of is that somehow Landed Kills plays a role.  For example, as Relic posted, Squad 1 had significantly less kills but almost as many points as Squad 41.  That means they were landing their kills a lot more frequently to rack up more Points.  Maybe for "Squad Points", only Points accrued from landed missions count, even though the rank shows Points accrued from all sorties.  Again, this is the only thing I can think of that would explain these numbers.

I suppose that could be the "invisible" factor skewing the equation.  If that is the case then my question has been answered, but since there are no "landed kills" stats available on the score/stats pages, there is no way to test this.  Keep in mind squad1 could be targeting bombers more than squad41 which would also generate more points per kill, regardless if they were landed or not.

[LYNX]

This may help you...its from the bottom of the squad score list


squad 1
Sorties 2030
landed 585
died 995

squad 41
2539
474
1353

Couldn't be arsed to go threw individual squad members to count the bomber kills.

[RTHolmes]

edit: The only thing I can think of is that somehow Landed Kills plays a role.  For example, as Relic posted: Squad 1 had significantly less kills but almost as many points as Squad 41.  That means they were landing their kills a lot more frequently to rack up more Points.  Maybe for "Squad Points", only Points accrued from landed missions count, even though the rank shows Points accrued from all sorties.  Could this be a scoring bug? Idk.  Again, this is the only thing I can think of that would explain these numbers.

possible I suppose, although deaths are already factored into K/D and points. higher points/K could be down to squad1 hunting buffs more than squad41 - way more damage points from hammering away at a B17 than removing the tailplane of a spit.

You can throw #41 out, we had a CO change part way through that tour.

dont think this should make a difference - squad41's stats are still there to be ranked.


overall the ranking dosent look right.

[RELIC]

This may help you...its from the bottom of the squad score list


squad 1
Sorties 2030
landed 585
died 995

squad 41
2539
474
1353

Couldn't be arsed to go threw individual squad members to count the bomber kills.

So you are saying there is another "hidden" scoring section in Fighter - shall we call it "Deaths per Sortie"?  Looking at just a couple of the other squads stats I think you might be on to something here.  If this is the case, could a squad skew the stats in their favor by spawning and immediately towering out in Fighter mode a couple hundred times?  That would damage the Kills per Sortie section, but would the improvement in "Deaths per Sortie" bump the final Fighter rank for the squad?  Gawd I hope that isn't the case.

[BaldEagl]

Looking at the fighter rankings for the last camp, Late War Tour 113, is confusing.  Shawk also posted on this but never included any data for review.  Before I continue, let me stress this post is not intended to drag any squad through the mud.  My issue is with what I perceive to be a bug in the Fighter rankings and nothing else.  For this reason I will not name any of the squads involved and I apologize if I step on any toes – it is not my intent.

The stats for the #1 ranked Fighter squad:
Category     Score     Rank
K/D             1.32        133
K/S             0.91        113
K/H             5.51        100
Hit%           5.54        133
Points     220,582         29

#2 Squad disbanded, so looking at #3 in Fighter:
Category     Score     Rank
K/D              3.10        26
K/S              1.95        14
K/H              10.30       7
Hit%             8.91        26
Points      156,298        50

It seems to me that the squad ranked #3 should be ranked higher than the squad at #1.  Is it because “Points” is given MUCH more significance in the scoring?

Looking at the squad ranked next at #4:
Category     Score     Rank
K/D              1.12        171
K/S              0.67        196
K/H              5.04        134
Hit%            4.82        186
Points       137,599       65

Now I’m really lost so I looked up a squad that I know has some extremely good sticks.  They were ranked #41:
Category     Score     Rank
K/D             1.31        135
K/S             1.03        84
K/H             6.44        58
Hit%           6.06        106
Points      228,558       26

It seems to me the squad ranked #41 did better in every section than the squad ranked #4.  In fact, if you add the rankings together and divide by the number of scoring sections (five), they should be ranked higher than the squad at #1.  The other rankings, Bomber Attack etc. seem to be fine.

Looks like a bug to me.

[grizz441]

possible I suppose, although deaths are already factored into K/D and points. higher points/K could be down to squad1 hunting buffs more than squad41 - way more damage points from hammering away at a B17 than removing the tailplane of a spit.

I'm not sure really how many more points you get per kill for shooting down buffs but my hunch tells me the landing bonus is more favorable than killing buffs.  I also think that the number of buffs killed by each squad should be relatively normalized to the typical buff traffic in the MA. 

Imagine though a squad that flies 1000 missions, kills 5 guys per sorties but never lands.  Say they accumulate 150,000 points.  They have 5 K/s, 5 K/d, and a high Hit percentage.

Then you have a squad that flies 400 missions, kills 4 guys per flight, but lands everytime.  Say they accumulate 149,000 points.  They have 4 k/s, 4 k/d, and slightly less hit % than ^^. 

My venture is that the second mentioned in example would have a higher squad fighter rank even though the first in example has better stats in every category.  Just not sure how this landed thing is incorporated into the squad fighter ranks and if it is actually a bug or not.

[Guppy35]

What is this score and rank of which you speak?  And what is this landing business!?!

Geeze the learning curve in this game is steep!

As Shuff mentioned, we in the 80th are still waiting for augering statistics.  We know we're #1 at that!

[grizz441]

What is this score and rank of which you speak?  And what is this landing business!?!

Geeze the learning curve in this game is steep!

As Shuff mentioned, we in the 80th are still waiting for augering statistics.  We know we're #1 at that!

Yeah I could care less either, I'm more interested in the puzzle/mystery aspect of this.   

[grizz441]

As Shuff mentioned, we in the 80th are still waiting for augering statistics.  We know we're #1 at that!

Don't know about the 80th stats but I found yours for last tour..

CorkyJr LW Tour 113 Auger Stats:

Kills per Hangar Auger+1  1.45 Rank 1
Missing P38 Parts per Sortie 9.13 Rank 1
Destroyed P38s by Ground Shrubbery per Hours of Flight 6.5 Rank 1
Hangar Auger Hit Percentage 100 Rank 1
Style Points 1,000,000,000 Rank 1

Kudos to CorkyJr for being the Top Auger Pilot of Tour 113.  Tour 114 auger campaign has now begun...

[Guppy35]

Thanks Grizz for digging that up....er....does that sound right when we're talking about augering 38s?  Yeah digging that up.

I feel so proud now!