New scoring system

[jolly22]

        OK, first of all I'd like to say that I'm not questioning madcap71's skill, he is just currently the number 1 player on aces high , and im using him as an example.
        
        I think that the scoring system currently used is just not fair. Some people play for hours in a day and rack up thousands of sorties a month, but some other people, like madcap71, don't have much time to play and only rack up about 150 sorties, and he stills get the number one rank in aces high. Does this really seem fair to you?  I don't think it's fair when people put in hundreds of hours and still don't get a better score than people who play for only a few hours a week.

        I do think that the more time you play on the game, the better score you should get. Another option is that if you play more than say....12 hours on the game a month, you then may be ranked. This just gives people that are higher ranks to become more competitive in the top shots of the game.

     Any feedback, comments or concerns are welcomed.

<<S>> Jolly

[gyrene81]

It's only "unfair" if you're not looking at all the stats involved and you're really worried about points. You could log a thousand hours, but if all you do is get shot down you're not accomplishing much unless you want recognition for that too.

There are no rewards, you don't get a cookie, a merit badge, or a gift certificate to toys r us. It's just numbers that don't mean anything to people who don't measure their manhood by AH stats.

[jolly22]

i understand, but take my gv score for example. kill per death and sortie are both above 1 and i have 2 base takes, and im still ranked 400ish.... i dont se ehow thats fair.

[Traveler]

there's a scoring system?

[bj229r]

The only rank that's reflective of skill is fighter, the rest are simply filling in the blanks. Lotta guys who strive for rank cherry-pick fighter-scored- runs, when they see a good possibility of high-kills/low risk, and fly 90% of the rest as attack. I would reckon the case in example as a pretty good stick in any scenario

[RufusLeaking]

The only rank that's reflective of skill is fighter, the rest are simply filling in the blanks. Lotta guys who strive for rank cherry-pick fighter-scored- runs, when they see a good possibility of high-kills/low risk, and fly 90% of the rest as attack.

The second sentence seems to contradict the first.

Back to the OP: 

Any scoring system will be gamed.  Flying 90% in attack mode, pre-dawn milk running, barraging a town with rockets and dozens of other little tricks can be used to up one's score.  Within 24 hours of a scoring change, someone will find a way to game it.

The present system is as good as anything that might replace it.

  JR.

[hitech]

       OK, first of all I'd like to say that I'm not questioning madcap71's skill, he is just currently the number 1 player on aces high , and im using him as an example.
        
        I think that the scoring system currently used is just not fair. Some people play for hours in a day and rack up thousands of sorties a month, but some other people, like madcap71, don't have much time to play and only rack up about 150 sorties, and he stills get the number one rank in aces high. Does this really seem fair to you?  I don't think it's fair when people put in hundreds of hours and still don't get a better score than people who play for only a few hours a week.

        I do think that the more time you play on the game, the better score you should get. Another option is that if you play more than say....12 hours on the game a month, you then may be ranked. This just gives people that are higher ranks to become more competitive in the top shots of the game.

     Any feedback, comments or concerns are welcomed.

<<S>> Jolly

You could at least understand how the scoring system works before you claim it is not fair and asking for a new one.

Damage points and kill points reward flying more.

All things binging = the pilot who flies more will be ranked higher.

HiTech

[Ack-Ack]

See Rule #4

[Lusche]

 I don't think it's fair when people put in hundreds of hours and still don't get a better score than people who play for only a few hours a week.
If so, the player with se "hundreds of hours" is playing it the wrong way (in regards to score only!) - or is simply not good enough

I do think that the more time you play on the game, the better score you should get.
You do - see Hitechs answer

[Skuzzy]

Ack-ack, before accusing a player of padding the score, you might do well to check that players stats first.  If it holds true, we clear all kills for that player and the scores as well.

[jolly22]

You could at least understand how the scoring system works before you claim it is not fair and asking for a new one.

Damage points and kill points reward flying more.

All things binging = the pilot who flies more will be ranked higher.

HiTech

I don't see how that reflects madcaps, 17 fighter sorties though. Does it mean he has spectacular aim and hardly misses?

[Lusche]

I don't see how that reflects madcaps,

It does, because he is only #32 in fighters. His fighter rank is dragged down because he is only #485 in fighter kill points score. If he could hold his K/D, K/S, K/H level while flying hundreds of sorties, he would be in the top three or so.

The current top ranked fighter guy (Grizz) has 204 sorties, 800+kills and is #7 in fighter kill points score.

[grumpy37]

It's only "unfair" if you're not looking at all the stats involved and you're really worried about points. You could log a thousand hours, but if all you do is get shot down you're not accomplishing much unless you want recognition for that too.

There are no rewards, you don't get a cookie, a merit badge, or a gift certificate to toys r us. It's just numbers that don't mean anything to people who don't measure their manhood by AH stats.

 

[oakranger]

       OK, first of all I'd like to say that I'm not questioning madcap71's skill, he is just currently the number 1 player on aces high , and im using him as an example.
        
        I think that the scoring system currently used is just not fair. Some people play for hours in a day and rack up thousands of sorties a month, but some other people, like madcap71, don't have much time to play and only rack up about 150 sorties, and he stills get the number one rank in aces high. Does this really seem fair to you?  I don't think it's fair when people put in hundreds of hours and still don't get a better score than people who play for only a few hours a week.

        I do think that the more time you play on the game, the better score you should get. Another option is that if you play more than say....12 hours on the game a month, you then may be ranked. This just gives people that are higher ranks to become more competitive in the top shots of the game.

     Any feedback, comments or concerns are welcomed.

<<S>> Jolly

scoring is subjective and has nothing to do with skills.  Heck, if i game the game i too can be rank high up there.

[Lusche]

scoring is subjective and has nothing to do with skills.  

I agree with first half but not with second.

Not that I'm saying you are the "best" if you are near the top (I'm living proof it ain't so)... but you can't get to the top if you hadn't way above average skills. If everybody could get #1 .... almost everybody would.

To get near the top you need
- the knowledge about gameplay and & game mechanisms
- the skill to do what's necessary... the utter majority doesn't have a K/D less then 1 in fighters because they don't want to kill more than they die - they just can't do it
- to play the whole game of AH, not just fighters or just GV's
-