Scoring and Ranking

[9thAFE]

I know some people don't really care about score at all and that's fine I am a stat person myself not that it effects my decisions in how I play the game because I do what I got to do to contribute. I would however like to see an update to the ranking and scoring

 It's funny when u look at player rankings for bombing and or the squad rankings in bombing there is a squad that is top 5 in bombing but has 11 total sorties there are a few pilots ranked in top 10 that have flown fewer than 30 sorties. I know people will say who cares but I'm a baseball guy and I love looking at stats and ranks on here it adds to the fun for me if it doesn't for you that's fine I respect that so please don't disrespect me for my thoughts on this.

A simple fix would be add a minimum number to be ranked such as 100 for pilots and 200 for squads. Sorties is what I mean a minimum number of sorties.

And put the captures under a different category other than bombing since there is a few different ways to capture a base with troops why not give it its own category separate from bombing attacking and vehicles.

I think if you we're to really look some of the best fighters bombers and gv players would not be ranked that high at all because the more sorties you do the more it hurts your ranking.

I'm not to proud to say that my bomber ranking is is around 286 right now but if I had just 1 base capture I would be vaulted to the top 100 easily cause I did it last month. To the people that enjoy taking troops I give you a lot of credit it takes a lot of patience to do that but I feel personally that my skills are best used dropping bombs from the sky. I would just like to be able to see myself ranked better give me credit for what I do accomplish.

Lastly I can't speak to other stats in the game but maybe a more accurate reflection of bomber accuracy. Not sure how cause I don't even understand how it's calculated I know it's along the lines of damage per bomb dropped kind of thing but I shouldnt be awarded with a lot better accuracy for hitting a town. I mean come of course I hit stuff there is a bunch of buildings there. Lets face it I can send the worst bomber in my squad to hit the town and he will be successful. However it takes a little more skill to drop a FH or VH or to drop them all but your accuracy value drops especially when using a higher salvo. If you drop the hanger and you do it on say a max of 2 salvo with 1000 lb bombs u shouldn't be punished for accuracy. Considering the historical means of bombing targets and the amount of bombs that would be dropped on a single target if we can hit with just a salvo of 2 1000 lb bombs that pretty good lol.

Just my thoughts about stats and rankings and a couple tweaks that could be made for those few of us that take enjoyment from this side of the game as well as the realism and simulation

[crazyivan]

I agree with fixing the squad criteria. AH has had a squad of 4-5 guys running around manipulating the system making a mockery of it for years <cough> imo.

[Noir]

maybe if the kill points and damage points had a heavier weight in the calculations that would fix some of the abuse...but it would give the players with a long playing time an advantage 

[guncrasher]

it doesnt matter how you stack up the score there's gonna be some guys that will just game it.  however what they cannot make up is when people actually respect you for your skill regardless of score.

seriously who will think is better than 999 at gunning in a bomber?

what about dr7?  should I say more?

people that you go against and you know from the beginning who it is based on how he flies and yet they hardly score below 500.  how can you score that?

let the guys try to get the glory as few people will remember who made the top score 4 months ago but everybody  knows who they dont want to face on a 1v1 as it will be useless what you do.  that is the true meaning of score.


semp

[MrKrabs]

I'm a fine example - I ranked #1 for bombing this tour     

[9thAFE]

  WTG Crabby  . 

Like I said it doesnt really matter in the grand scheme of things its just more for the small group that care about it that dont try to manipulate the points system. Obviously if all I wanted to do was get #1 it can be done easily just fly 20-30 sorties doing milk runs and drop a couple troops lol. I havent been playing that long but I know I have got the attention of a few people in my country for my abilities and reliability of my bombing runs its starting to show. So I am not relying on the scoreing to show who I am I would rather have it so that it is a better representation of the better players in the game such as 999 or dr7.

Guncrasher your absolutely right there will always be people out there that will milk the score no matter what you do to the system, the responsibility would then fall on the Admin to remove their names from the lead if they would want to do it. Just wait till the end of the month and look at the top 25 spots see who appears to be there that doesnt belong. it would be possible to do it more often like weekly if you wanted to bother but in the interest of time and manpower probably be easier to do it monthly.

Like I said I like looking at the stats and ranks it adds to the fun for me and I get that some people dont care, I dont get all bent out of shape because of my ranking or anything I know my own skills and abilities I dont need a number to justify it for me.

 I also feel though that noone does care about the rankings or scoring because why should they the system is flawed and has a lot of people that milk it to make themselves look good though most people really dont pay that close attention to it because the numbers in fact arent reliable or an accurate representation of skill. That is why i would like to see it changed, Especially on the squad side I think by setting higher minimums for FINAL ranking it would make the "milkers" have to work a little harder for it anyway make 30-40 sorties and get number one or have to make 100+ sorties and have to maintain your numbers to get number one think about it.

For the people that dont have a lot of time to play maybe make 3 sets of scores? 1 for players playing smaller number of hours 2 for players playing larger number and 3 for overall standings.

Maybe its possible to set up a sortable scoreing and ranking system. Set it up so you can sort by whos the most accurate who flys the most sorties who has most kills in bombers/fighters/or GV's that kind of stuff "clickable" categories that would allow you to see who is best and where they are best at it. A more of a modern and more commonly seen way of displaying stats in todays online gameing world whether its a computer, Xbox, PS3, Phone app games those kind of scoring and ranking systems that are sortable

[SmokinLoon]

I agree with fixing the squad criteria. AH has had a squad of 4-5 guys running around manipulating the system making a mockery of it for years <cough> imo.

Squads???  There are a few guys running around making a mockery of the ranking/scoring system each and every tour. 

AH has many things that are completely arbitrary.  HTC has set which category holds what specific value, and once those are figured out by the players who base their self worth on what ranking they hold in AH they will most certainly take full advantage of their "inside" knowledge.  I wish HTC would change up the scoring system from time to time to keep things interesting.  For instance, why not put more emphasis on accuracy instead of kills per sortie?  Or maybe total bomb damage vs bombing accuracy? Etc, etc.  The biggest issue I have is that the scoring and ranking system takes in no consideration in what aircraft is used to achieve a specific rank, meaning that in the LW arena a guy could have the exact same set of stats in a P51D and a P40N and there is no nod to the P40N player except in terms of perk points earned which effects nothing in terms of ranking, etc.  So if a player needs the P51D, La7, Spit16, or Tempest to achieve their high ranking then what does it really say them if someone can achieve the same or near same ranking in a P40N, 109G, or other such aircraft with a limited bag of tricks?  Tell me again that the aircraft means *nothing* towards a players ranking or score....       

[guncrasher]

I think it would make more sense if you only had one rank for bombers, one for gv's and 1 more fighters/attack.  you get points based on the rank of the enemy, so if you kill one that is better with either skill or manipulating the score then you get more points, if you killed a guy that is ranked 3000 then you barely get nothing.


semp

[Tinkles]

I think it would make more sense if you only had one rank for bombers, one for gv's and 1 more fighters/attack.  you get points based on the rank of the enemy, so if you kill one that is better with either skill or manipulating the score then you get more points, if you killed a guy that is ranked 3000 then you barely get nothing.


semp

I was actually thinking of this a few days ago.  Got extremely lucky and out manuvered and killed a pilot who was in the top 30. Yet, landed and only received .42 points   .      However, the problem would be for the higher ranked individuals, that whenever they get kills it would be less points, but because they are higher up they most likely have more points anyways.  So I agree with Guncrasher on this.  Perks should be awarded (when player v player), based on rank.

 

[SmokinLoon]

I was actually thinking of this a few days ago.  Got extremely lucky and out manuvered and killed a pilot who was in the top 30. Yet, landed and only received .42 points   .      However, the problem would be for the higher ranked individuals, that whenever they get kills it would be less points, but because they are higher up they most likely have more points anyways.  So I agree with Guncrasher on this.  Perks should be awarded (when player v player), based on rank.

 

So if you as a player are using a 109G-2 and have a rank of say 23, you should be awarded fewer perks in comparison to someone with a rank of 213 for doing the same exact thing in the exact same plane?  I like the concept, but I wonder how HTC would implement that system???

[Tinkles]

So if you as a player are using a 109G-2 and have a rank of say 23, you should be awarded fewer perks in comparison to someone with a rank of 213 for doing the same exact thing in the exact same plane?  I like the concept, but I wonder how HTC would implement that system???

That was my point, that would be the "damaging factor" if that was implemented.   

The annoying thing is, historically whether or not the pilot you killed was an "ace" or not; it still counted as one kill.  Praise for killing that "ace" sometimes followed.    (Praise in this case would be extra perk points, however I see your point that it would be unfair to the higher ranked individuals if they killed someone of lower rank). 

Irritating on both sides.  I want to earn more perks if I kill someone higher than me.  But I don't want someone higher than me killing me, and getting ripped off of perks that they earned.

Definitely a tough topic and overall a tough decision for whomever chooses to answer it.

 

[guncrasher]

That was my point, that would be the "damaging factor" if that was implemented.   

The annoying thing is, historically whether or not the pilot you killed was an "ace" or not; it still counted as one kill.  Praise for killing that "ace" sometimes followed.    (Praise in this case would be extra perk points, however I see your point that it would be unfair to the higher ranked individuals if they killed someone of lower rank). 

Irritating on both sides.  I want to earn more perks if I kill someone higher than me.  But I don't want someone higher than me killing me, and getting ripped off of perks that they earned.

Definitely a tough topic and overall a tough decision for whomever chooses to answer it.

 

kill somebody that is highly skilled you get more points.  kill somebody that is easy pray then you get less.  but since those at the top get more kills anyway they make it up in volume like they do now.


semp

[9thAFE]

Yeah volume would be the difference maker not that you would change what the higher ranked player scores in comparison to how it is now just add a small multiplyer to the lower ranked player.

I like the idea though I dont fly fighters hardly ever but I support the thought though.

So what could we do about the bombers though in terms of scoring and ranking?

[9thAFE]

Does anyone like the idea of having a sortable stat page. Somthing so you can browse around and see how you compare in other categories. I know you get a number now like "#1 for bomber damage points" but what about making it a table so you can see everyone around you. Similar to the squad rankings you can click on the diff categories for them now like fighter, bomber, attack etc and it sort the squads as you click on each one. Im saying take that idea and expand it to include players individually but have a lot more sortable categories i.e. a category for every stat that is tracked for each overall component (Bombers, Fighters, Attack etc.).

And yes Fix the weighting of how your ranking is determined and the value of the stats

[mthrockmor]

+1

In almost all competitive rankings you have to have a minimum number of at-bats, punts, appearances, etc. Makes sense here as well. Should be an easy fix.

Boo