How about a common-sense scoring system

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Pongo
Widewing
you seem to be saying that you favour rewarding chance over actual accomplishment in our game.
The real accomplishment in ww2 was killing the enemy pilot or destroying his airframe. Because both were expensive to replace.
In our game those things are meaningless. So it is ok I think to award the real measure of success..did you hit the enemy aircraft and how much.
In the cases where two or more pilots hit an aircraft it seems ok to me to award the kill to the person that did the most towards that kill.
Its just a game thing..but this is just a game.
Certainly the system as is falls within the realm of common sense..
Just say it and see if it sounds sensible.
"The person that hurts an enemy the most gets credit for the kill"
sort of sounds common sensible to me anyway.

Now try this one.
"After a plane is crippled, an until then uninvolved friendly aircraft can shoot the crippled plane enough to get the kill themselves."

doesnt make sense to me...

I see your point, you believe the scoring should reward based upon contribution. I agree, however, I believe that the system should reward the final killer more than those who contributed, regardless of whether the killer did more or less total damage. Assists should get some perk percentage, or kills should be shared. IE: .33 kills or .50 kills, and so on. Also, non flying proxies should go away, along with proxies caused by AI ack.

Does this make a little more sense?

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Hooligan
Every time I think you can't prove yourself to be more of a pompous bellybutton you outdo yourself Widewing.  I am truly amazed.

Hooligan

You are absolutely correct. My apologies.

My regards,

Widewing

[Ogun]

Still waiting for the punch line Widewing

[lazs2]

"I suggest several required reading books, including Morrison's Two Ocean War, Walter Boyne's Clash of Titans and Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky. You wouldn't like Walt or Eric, being men of letters and natural leaders, they would only become focal points for your resentment. However, their works are worth the risk to your delicate self-image. All will be in your local library.

Widewing"

Eric Bergerud eh.... not the world renown Eric Bergerud?   He is indeed a man of letters (a professor).  Whenever he comes over I tease him about it.   Eric is a squadmate and good friend.   We get toghether with a couple of other squaddies several times a year at his or my house and have dinner and then settle in for some good conversation till long past midnight.   I do indeed like Eric but I fear that he would find your vapid pomposity unbearable.   He suffers pomposity badly.

plus....

[lazs2]

plus... I would like you to clear something up.   You claim to be a naval wargamer of 35 years..  You were in the navy for 35 years playing war games?   Does that mean you are like on some kinda war game staff or that you are maybe an admiral?  

As for AH and war in the pacific... there is no way to compare them or your use of one CV.   both midway and guadalcanal were huge engagements compared to your little hissy fit with the CV in a ..... game.

Sorry if i injured your fragile little ego but if you insist on spouting off in a pompous manner ya gotta expect people to squeak slap yu a little..

oh yeah...your idea about scoring... it was dumb.   It did allow us to get to know you tho.   You wanted yourself and your  squad to get attention... I think we can safely say you have accomplished that.
lazs

[BlauK]

I agree with Widewing that the one who scores the critical damage should be rewarded instead of those who contribute to the damage without any decisive hit. You can compare it to any sports where a ball or puck is moved a lot and one guy just touches it slightly to score!!!! The last one is the scorer who makes the difference and the earlier ones get assists!

On the other hand there is the problem of kill stealing, thus the kill should NOT be awarded according to the last hit, but according to critical decisive hits.

Howabout this?

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

Suggestions for calculating the "kill points":

-All "kill points" from each plane part go to the pilot who actually spends the last structural point from that plane part scoring the critical hits. Not to those who only contribute to spending the structural points.

-Each plane part has "kill points" according to how important role they have for keeping the plane flyable. Thus scoring lots minor damage which still leaves the plane flyable would not so easily be better than some truly critical damage.

-If a plane explodes or crashes all "kill points" from all remaining plane parts are awarded to that pilot who scored last "kill points" before that (not hits only, but actual critical damage).


Killer would still be the one who got most kill points, but he would have actually scored the decisive hits.

Assists would go to all who got some "kill points" , but not to everyone who chewed some structural points without critical damage.

If a plane crashes without any previously lost plane parts the Proximity kill would be awarded according to present system of chewed structural points. If the plane was 100% fine before crash, then NO kills to anyone.

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

With this system the one who makes the difference would be awarded and the possible kill stealing would still be kept at current level. The kill stealer would actually have to do some serious damage and a heavily damaged plane would not often likely have that many points left in it to help kill stealing.


What would be the flaws of my proposition?

-Less assists maybe?
-What else?

[lazs2]

blauk it pretty much works that way now.  the one who does the most damage gets the kill.   We allready have guys following cons to the ground "doing the final damage" to a wingless tailess "threat".

In the war... guys would claim a kill.. no one actually seen it go dwon but someone on the ground would report an ememy plane down and the guy would get credit.    Awarding kills in the war was by no means an exact science in any case... charity kills were awarded, propoganda kills... bomber gunners "i fired my guns it had to be me" kills were awarded.   What we have is far superior to "real life".

Proximity kills.... that's a tough one.   I guess HTC knows what they are doing cause it works out that I get credit and get caught by it about equal and... I believe their idea is that people would "suicide" rather than allow credit to be given to someone who had defeated them.  In WB I recall people diving into the ack to "suicide" cause they had been bested and didn't want to give credit  to the guy.  
lazs

[BlauK]

Originally posted by lazs2
blauk it pretty much works that way now.  the one who does the most damage gets the kill.

But only PRETTY MUCH. The difference is that someone can spray away 90% of plane's structural points and nothing is actually DAMAGED. Lots of effort, but not competence. Then another comes and  hits the pilot but only gets an assist from a complete destuction of a 100% functioning plane.

This is why I think awarding points for making the plane part damage happen instead of just chewing away the structural points makes a HUGE difference.


Another approach to this (maybe minor) problem would be to change this not damaged/damaged system for the plane parts into more stages of damage, but I think that would be MUCH more difficult.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by lazs2
"I suggest several required reading books, including Morrison's Two Ocean War, Walter Boyne's Clash of Titans and Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky. You wouldn't like Walt or Eric, being men of letters and natural leaders, they would only become focal points for your resentment. However, their works are worth the risk to your delicate self-image. All will be in your local library.

Widewing"

Eric Bergerud eh.... not the world renown Eric Bergerud?   He is indeed a man of letters (a professor).  Whenever he comes over I tease him about it.   Eric is a squadmate and good friend.   We get toghether with a couple of other squaddies several times a year at his or my house and have dinner and then settle in for some good conversation till long past midnight.   I do indeed like Eric but I fear that he would find your vapid pomposity unbearable.   He suffers pomposity badly.

plus....

Sometimes Lazs, you appear to have no sense of humor....

I have never met Eric in person, but have exchanged e-mail several times after his publisher asked me to review Fire in the Sky. He seems to be a very nice fellow. He teaches Economics up in the Bay area, right? His book is probably the definitive volume on the air war in the SWPA. Say hello for me. BTW, what's his arena handle?

My regards,

Widewing

[lazs2]

You didn't answer my question.
lazs

[Widewing]

Originally posted by lazs2
plus... I would like you to clear something up.   You claim to be a naval wargamer of 35 years..  You were in the navy for 35 years playing war games?   Does that mean you are like on some kinda war game staff or that you are maybe an admiral?  

As for AH and war in the pacific... there is no way to compare them or your use of one CV.   both midway and guadalcanal were huge engagements compared to your little hissy fit with the CV in a ..... game.

Sorry if i injured your fragile little ego but if you insist on spouting off in a pompous manner ya gotta expect people to squeak slap yu a little..

oh yeah...your idea about scoring... it was dumb.   It did allow us to get to know you tho.   You wanted yourself and your  squad to get attention... I think we can safely say you have accomplished that.
lazs

I was in the Navy for 8 years, active and reserve. Never quite had time in service or grade for Admiral stars.... I began wargaming back in the mid 60's, primarily naval wargames. Me and a partner designed and sold a couple of games when we were teenagers, and that got me more deeply involved in tabletop and miniature wargaming. You may have seen one of those games, produced many, many years ago, titled Savo Sound, a simulation of the Guadalcanal naval battles. I still play them, and constantly make revisions to rules to facilitate ease of play and accuracy of historical conditions. Of course, tabletop games have lost much of their popularity since the PC revolution.

BTW, there's nothing you can say that I haven't seen before, being a longtime usenet denizen.... You're an amateur compared to some of the professional level usenet trolls.

I must disagree about CV usage. The basic principle is the same. Carriers need air cover to survive, be it here in AH or in the real world. Taking a CV deep into enemy controlled territory, without adequate air cover is suicide, here and in the world as we know it.

You don't know me at all, only the personna I choose to portray. However, those who do know me recognize that I will play that role to the hilt. You only know Widewing. He's a fictional character, created for my amusement. The guy behind Widewing, well, he's a REAL sicko...

My regards,

Widewing

[AKSWulfe]

Look at it this way BlauK, in many cases these guys would already have been filled so full of holes that their planes would of been more like 20% functioning and thus the pilot would of ditched.

Because of the current damage modeling, you don't see this.

Usually the guy who comes along and gets that single hit that causes a con to go down isn't getting a pilot kill, typically he hits them in the wing or something. So it wasn't like THEIR aim was any better, they just got that last hit on it.

Now if something were to be done, lets say the max # of people that can divide a kill is 3 people... then kills could be awarded based on the top 3 people to damage it. But it would be "Victory shared by xxx xxx and xxxx", and as you can see this would require rewriting the entire score system and changing the system messages...

In the end it's quite a pain in the bellybutton for something that is good enough as is.
-SW

[lazs2]

Has it occured to u game boy that you don't know me either?   I don't think you can stop thinking about yourself long enough to even cipher that one out tho.  

In any case... I am speaking only to the pompous amazinhunk who is widewing.   As such, I think my responses have been appropriate.   but I guess maybe  in real life you are a great guy and that you are only pretending to  be a pompous pos.

Hblair... is this ok?  I mean I definetly am not picking on someone half my age here eh?

Thing is... we don't really care if you played board games for 35 years (who would admit such a thing?).... AH is not a board game especially in the main.   Guys are here to have fun for a few hours.   They don't need some dipshit who played  board games acting like a general.

thing is.... most guys feel that they should get credit for their work and not have  to give their kills to some hovering vultcher that "finishes off" their kill with a nik or lag7 cannon after it has been drained of e and shot to pieces.    Your particular talent should not be rewarded IMO.
lazs

[Hooligan]

Eric Bergerud = rickt and he is a History Professor (not economics).

So you piqued my interest.  Who published "Savo Island" and what was the name and publisher of the other game?

Hooligan

[AKIron]

Originally posted by lazs2
AH is not a board game especially in the main.

Though I keep hoping HTC will find time to write one.