How about a common-sense scoring system

[JustJim]

Sorry again about the post lol

[BotaBing]

============
Do scores really matter that much? Is that what this game is all about?
============


"Aces" High

Ace: A pilot with 5 or more combat kills.

[Urchin]

Yes, they matter.  Do I think they matter so much that I have a toejam-fit every time I 'kill' a plane and get an assist?  Nope.  I won't remember that 'kill' in 10 minutes, much less at the end of the month when I'm reviewing my stats (and yes, I admit it, I do check my stats ).  

This may sound condesending, but since nobody else has said it I really feel I must.  Plus I think it is eminently suited to this thread.  

Quoting somebody

" This thread is really about the scoring system not showing everyone what a hot stick I am, so I want the scoring system changed"

 Quote is paraphrased... I think it went something like that.  That is honestly what I think it is about.  A lot of the guys that you are calling naysayers are comfortable with their competence.  They don't need to beat their chests and prove to the rest of us how good they are.  Dejavu is a very good pilot, I'm sure he gets lots of assists.  But instead of worrying about how many more kills he SHOULD be getting if not for this 'porked' scoring system- he just goes out and shoots down some more people.  

I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with our scoring system either.

[AKDejaVu]

Its not about defending the status quo.  Its about thinking just a tad bit before changing it.

This seems to be the forum for "I had a bad sortie and this needs to be changed" type posts.  They are simply pathetic and this thread is a prime example.

So... come here and tell HTC to change things so that you don't have that particular bad sortie anymore... suggest changes that are far more sweeping than you realize and act suprised when you are laughed at.

Is the current score system perfect?  Nope... not at all.  But you'd like to see a different system put in place.  And you know what... it will be just as if not more silly.  Simply because it is a system.  Any system can and will be manipulated.

It would be nice to magically know who really deserved the kill in every situation... the only problem is that no two situations are the same.  Yet here we are pretending as if they are.

Now.. when someone can't quite figure out why he wasn't credited for a kill he feels he rightly deserved, we can explain that he really didn't do sufficient visible damage and that this being a tuesday and he being in an allied plane and the fact that the sun was rising and not setting means that it is more likely that somoene else got the kill.

Or.. it can come down to "someone else did more damage to the plane".

You are trying to place a specific value on damage.  Unfortunately, you define that value in your own terms.  HTC has a system that as silly as it is... is consistant.  It is easy to explain and it leave little to question.

If you want to be more sure to get kills... kill planes that are leaving their base instead of returning to it.  Quit trying to act as if picking off leftovers needs to have a greater reward and you are somehow more deserving for doing it.  Its roadkill.

Sheesh... its simply amazing how pathetic the stories that justify these changes are getting.

AKDejaVu

[Karnak]

DejaVu,

I was actually trying to come up with a better system.  I think I did, but you just immediately consigned it to the "golden BB" syndrome and chucked it with, seemingly, no thought.

I'd be very curious to hear your scenarios that you claimed would break my proposed system.  I can't actually think of any.

[Virage]

Maybe I'm not common, but I think taking the kill away from the pilot that scored the most damage would result in many more complaints than the current system.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Its not about defending the status quo.  Its about thinking just a tad bit before changing it.

This seems to be the forum for "I had a bad sortie and this needs to be changed" type posts.  They are simply pathetic and this thread is a prime example.

So... come here and tell HTC to change things so that you don't have that particular bad sortie anymore... suggest changes that are far more sweeping than you realize and act suprised when you are laughed at.

Is the current score system perfect?  Nope... not at all.  But you'd like to see a different system put in place.  And you know what... it will be just as if not more silly.  Simply because it is a system.  Any system can and will be manipulated.

It would be nice to magically know who really deserved the kill in every situation... the only problem is that no two situations are the same.  Yet here we are pretending as if they are.

Now.. when someone can't quite figure out why he wasn't credited for a kill he feels he rightly deserved, we can explain that he really didn't do sufficient visible damage and that this being a tuesday and he being in an allied plane and the fact that the sun was rising and not setting means that it is more likely that somoene else got the kill.

Or.. it can come down to "someone else did more damage to the plane".

You are trying to place a specific value on damage.  Unfortunately, you define that value in your own terms.  HTC has a system that as silly as it is... is consistant.  It is easy to explain and it leave little to question.

If you want to be more sure to get kills... kill planes that are leaving their base instead of returning to it.  Quit trying to act as if picking off leftovers needs to have a greater reward and you are somehow more deserving for doing it.  Its roadkill.

Sheesh... its simply amazing how pathetic the stories that justify these changes are getting.

AKDejaVu

Well, after filtering through the BS above, I have yet to see one valid argument why my suggestions are unworkable? All I hear is your continued defense of the status quo.... You must be the type who cannot bear change....

Besides, you still miss the point: The current system is illogical and does not reflect how kills were credited historically. It cannot be defended logically, only emotionally. During WWII, did they count the holes to determine who did the most damage? How did they assign credit? Credit was given to the person responsible for destroying the enemy aircraft. Should more than 1 pilot have been shooting at the enemy, the kill was divided, or a determination was made by reviewing gun camera film. Well, we don't have gun cameras, nor anyone to make rulings, so divide the kill.

As to "being sure to get kills"... Hmm, well, this tour I'm 141/24 with 37 assists. Considering that I tend to fly a variety of fighters, I think I'm getting plenty of kills. I do, however, like to patrol deep inside enemy territory for bombers, goons and stray fighters. At least when I'm not flying with the squad, anyway.

BTW, it happened again tonight. I arrive at a low fight in my Yak. Below is a Niki fighting it out with 3 Rooks. He's trailing fuel, but that didn't stop him from killing 2 Rooks before I could get to him. I fired a short burst into his cockpit, exploding the plane. I received an assist... Yet, had I not arrived, he probably would have killed the remaining Rook, who was flying a damaged Spitfire (missing an aileron). Other than the fuel leak, the Niki was visually intact. Now, who deserved that kill? The guy who failed to kill the Niki, or the guy who actually did?

It ain't rocket science....

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Virage
Maybe I'm not common, but I think taking the kill away from the pilot that scored the most damage would result in many more complaints than the current system.

How would he know that he did the most damage? The current system rewards failure. That's right, failure to complete the job.

My regards,

Widewing.

[FDutchmn]

hmmm... just my thoughts on this matter...

Widewing, sorry, I cannot see your argument besides the fact that you are frustrated.  As a game, the current system is straight forward as it is and is only illogical to the new concept that you are introducing.

Aside from that I see some good suggestions made here, but as Midnight commented, it takes a new model or new concept which would need to be work on and work out.  I like BotaBing's and Karnak's comment, although Karnak's suggestion needs more definitions to be in place which damage to award how many points.  And possibly case-by-case scenarios to see if it is workable.  Yours ...

1) All kills should be awarded to the pilots who's actions actually caused the enemy aircraft to become unflyable. If several pilots shoot at and hit, and destroy a target plane, no one gets a kill. They all get an assist. However, perk point pecentages are divided by amount of damage inflicted. No perks or assists are awarded after the aircraft becomes unflyable. Therefore, no kill stealing. Vehicles may require different rules.

I am not for this, as this goes against HTC policy on promoting team play.  A kill should be awarded anyway.  We need to define unflyable too.

2) An aircraft that eventually crashes as a result of damage will not be credited as a kill unless it crashes within visual range of an enemy (any enemy belonging to the same nation as the shooter). If no one sees it crash, how would you know it did? A death is credited to the pilot, but no one gets a kill, or an assist. That is how it worked in the real world. Moreover, this is supposed to be a history based sim, right? Should a damaged aircraft escape and be attacked by another pilot, it is considered viable and kill credit goes to the pilot who finally destroys the aircraft. Assists will be credited those who damaged it. Examples of this situation appear in the lead post. Remember, if it can return to base safely or have the ability to drop bombs or shoot, it's still fair game.

Why penalize a player just because he didn't see the crash?  Just like a manuever kill, he caused distraction/damage enough to make the enemy crash, no?

If you would like to go in this direction, I would suggest an "effective" time for the damage to be active for a kill... I've seen games where kill is awarded if the last hit is within 30sec of self-destruction of the enemy... but this will need more refining as we need to consider wingtip losses and such... and maybe 5min of flight or more...

3) No proximity kills will be awarded for a kill by AI ack.

Ok.

4) No proximity kills will be awarded to aircraft not in flight. (this still preserves the "maneuver" kill).

Ok.

5) If two planes kill each other, both will receive kill credits. This silliness of losing your kill because you baled first, or hit the ground first doesn't make the grade. Dead is dead. Recall that this is a history based sim. When WWII pilots shot down enemy aircraft, but failed to return themselves, those who witnessed the kill always made sure that credit was given upon their return from the mission. If there was a mid-air collision between an American and German aircraft, the American still received credit for the kill. No one watched to see who baled out , or crashed first. A destroyed enemy aircraft is still destroyed regardless of who did what after that fact.

Silly I agree, but I think I see a problem with delayed crashes due to the damage inflicted at that time...

Well, overall, I myself am happy with the current system and can live with it, anyway.

[lazs2]

soo.... you believe that the person who cripples, or, does the most damage does not deserve the kill?  I don't agree withj that.  The cherry pickers shouldn't be rewarded.   The guy wh tags him the most usually does the most work.

I have shot down a smoking plane that managed to kill a friendly or two before he died and I got the assist but I thought that was fair.

As for you feeling that "not finishing the job" is a bad thing... It seems that you feel that the cannon birds and cherry pickers should have an even greater advantage?    It appears that you want to reward waiting till a con is tied up and pretty much defensles before you attack it.   one has to wonder at such motives.

I would actually like to give more percentage of damage award to the first shooter... the agressor.   The one who stuck his neck out to fight.   finishing him off shouldn;t count for much.   I actually think I get awarded too many "finish off" kills as it is and I fly MG planes for the most part.
lazs

[Widewing]

Originally posted by FDutchmn
hmmm... just my thoughts on this matter...

Widewing, sorry, I cannot see your argument besides the fact that you are frustrated.  As a game, the current system is straight forward as it is and is only illogical to the new concept that you are introducing.

Several things frustrate me, aside from my abhorrence of assists as a concept. After all, we're not playing basketball or hockey. We are supposed to be flying WWII aircraft, simulating WWII air combat. Therefore, we should have a scoring system that reflects those scoring systems in place during WWII. Our current system would work fine for flying X-wing fighters in the asteroid belt, but that's not what we are doing, is it?

Hundreds, and probably thousands of aircraft were destroyed in WWII where no kill credit was given, simply because no one witnessed the destruction of the aircraft. Damaged aircraft frequently limped back to base, were repaired and were back in action shortly thereafter. Now, if a fighter stumbled upon a damaged enemy aircraft, currently not engaged, and shot it down, he received full credit for the kill. The logic here is simple: The enemy aircraft and pilot/crew would have survived were it not for the intervention of that attacking fighter.

Furthermore, I disagree with your implication that the current system promotes team play. I believe it does the exact opposite. Where is the incentive to join a fight when all you can expect to get for your trouble, and shooting out a portion of your ammunition, is an assist? As it is now, if I see a damaged Buff that I can reach, I tend to say "the hell with it, why risk getting shot down for a lousy assist." If, however, I was assured that I would get the kill credit, then I'd be more inclined to accept the risk. So would most people. Currently, the system rewards failure. Failure to finish off your target. Many times I have smacked an enemy fighter with a snapshot, knowing that I'll never get a second chance before one of my countrymates finishes him. I accept that I won't get that kill, because I do not believe that I have earned it, as I was unable to finish it, for whatever reason. Hey, if you can't finish the target, too bad. Be glad you made the target softer for your teammates and move on to something you can finish.

Now, if everyone involved in killing an airplane received a percentage of the perk points (assuming they all scored hits within a reasonable time window), that promotes team play because it rewards participation. Gangbangers will not care one way or the other, because they're all trying for the kill anyway. However, if you can pick up a few perk points helping out teammates, that's some level of motivation. As it stands now, assists give you nothing but depleted magazines. In addition, the desire to get maximum perks may motivate people to finish their target, and not rely on someone else to get them their kill. I don't care about perk points, because I have thousands that I never use. However, some people do care about them, especially new players who have few.

Motivation for team play is largely based upon a personal desire for your squad/country to succeed, adding some perk points will only add to the satisfaction of getting "the job done." Our furballers aren't usually interested in team play anyway.

My regards,

Widewing

[Toad]

Please don't forget the percentage of us that DO NOT play for score and DO NOT achieve sole-source gratification by reading a fleeting kill message in the text buffer of an online game.

Some of us play simply for the action. Some of us.. whether the text buffer reflects it or not.. know when we've done well in a fight... and when we have not done well.

Some of us just love to pitch into a multi v multi battle, whirl and swirl and shoot and sweat.. and then look around as the smoke clears and see only our squad and country mates left flying. Some of us consider THAT as personal success.

Again.. not everyone is so overly concerned with kill stats and text buffer messages.

BUT...

Originally posted by Widewing


The current system is illogical

Au contraire.. it's QUITE logical. Put the "most damage" (as defined in the AH program by HTC programmers) and you get credited with the kill. Not the "last damage", not the "hit an important part of the plane damage".. just the most damage.

It's very logical. You just don't happen to agree with the logic. But that's ok, because we all have opinions and you're just like the rest of us.

Originally posted by Widewing
...does not reflect how kills were credited historically

So, would you be happier if HTC changed the naming convention from "assist" to "credit" and apportioned the credit based on the amount of damage done?

That would be in the historical vein and actually far more accurate than the "historical method" you propose.

After all, if three actual WW2 guys came back with gun cam film of strikes on a single particular enemy aircraft they all got 1/3 credit did they not? This despite the fact that some of them may have had far more strikes on the aircraft than others? So some guys actually got more than they deserved with this method and some got less, correct?

Bottom line is that, at least for me, this entire question is a tempest in a teapot. Credits, assists, whatever... I already know when I've done well and when I've done poorly despite what the text buffer or stats pages shows.

I know when I've flown smart, flown stupid and also when I've flown stupid deliberately because a particular job needed doing even though it would result in getting shot down (taking one for the team )

It is, after all, just a game.

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Widewing

Furthermore, I disagree with your implication that the current system promotes team play. I believe it does the exact opposite.

LOL!  Relax dude, this is only a game.   And I never said this either.  Think about it, your suggestions are going to the extreme of penalizing I think should not be.  Hey, divide the perk points however it can be but kills should be awarded anyway.  That's all I am saying.  See what I am getting at?

[AKSWulfe]

Widewing, you fly for Rooks don't you?

How in the world are you having people stealing your kills if they are always outnumbered? (seriously, they are whenever I'm online)

I fly for Bishops and for tour 27 I had kills/hour over twice that of yours while my hit percentage is barely 1% over yours. You also had 4.5x as many kills... nevertheless I've maintained about 6 1/2- 8.3 kills/hour for the past 4 tours on the Bishops side.

I think the point is to kill 'em good so that those guys who wanna steal your kills from right in front of you (who also have horrid aim) can pump as much ammo into them as they want and they still won't get the kill.

I use a wide variety of weapons, I rarely have kills stolen from me... it happens, but on average I'd reckon only about 1 kill/week is stolen from me.

Get closer and make sure you give them a good pelting, no one can steal those kills.
-SW

[Wanker]

I don't pay attention to score at all, only to perkies. That being said, I had an experience last week that raised my eyebrow and got me a nasty reaming on my country channel for being a "lame kill stealer".

I was flying a P-47D-11 and chasing a Spit. One of my country mates who was above and in front of me, closed in and blew the wing off this Spit. As the Spit was spiralling downward missing one entire wing, I had an FDB moment and decided to pull the trigger and send him down with some extra .50 slugs just for laughs. I caught him square, and blew him to pieces. I was awarded the kill!

The guy who really deserved the kill was pissed, rightly so, and proceeded to call me every name in the book and question the ancestry of my grandmother(she's really Swedish). I tried to explain that I wasn't trying to steal his kill, because it was so obvious that he was going to get the kill by blowing the entire wing clean off. I was just having a little fun by shooting the chute before the chute got a chance to open.

Needless to say, this guy was pissed, I felt bad for even taking the shot, and we both know he should've been awarded the kill.

So, in this case, the "kill scoring" doesn't work correctly. Why anyone who damages a plane after an entire wing is blown off should get credited with the kill doesn't seem right to me.

Not a big deal, mind you, but I think I agree with Widewing on this issue. I would put this in the "low priority" bin and address it a little later when more planes are released.