Author Topic: Ranks (Read 593 times)

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #15 on:** November 09, 2001, 12:14:00 PM »

Actually rank represents a combination of all things:

For example, someone has an excellent gunnery % (20% lets say), .030 kills/time online, but a 2.33kills/sortie and 1.37 kills/death.

This reflects that he furballs a lot, dies a lot, but his gunnery is very good.

I don't know how it's weighted or factored- but the more kills/timeonline, AND the more kills/death AND kills/sortie means that your rank will in fact be very high.

Not to get into a debate, but if someone can manage .030 kills/time online and hold a 4.00k/d- then he should definitely be ranked higher than someone who has 15kills/death but only .002 kills/time online.
Why? One pilot is able to kill quickly and survive long enough to get 4 of them (hypothetically speaking of course) while the guy with a 15k/d takes forever to get each kill.

Just my opinion, but I believe that's how the scoring system works as well.
-SW

Maverick · « **Reply #16 on:** November 09, 2001, 12:25:00 PM »

Ahem, AH rankings and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at a diner........

Personally I still fail to see where the times factor has a darn thing to do with how good a gamer you are....

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #17 on:** November 09, 2001, 12:27:00 PM »

Because it's easy to get up high on a perch and just wait around for easy pickings.

In a furball it's a lot harder to do something like that- chances are you are fighting a lot of good sticks.
-SW

Wotan · « **Reply #18 on:** November 09, 2001, 12:38:00 PM »

kills per sortie and and per time online imho have to great an impact on "rank".

I certainly understand that they need to be factored in somewhere and to a degree I agree with sw.

Our squad takes a level of satisfaction at our squad rank. Thats because its a result of all us working together.

K West · « **Reply #19 on:** November 09, 2001, 02:02:00 PM »

The secret ingrediant to your RANK is the Member Rating on this web board.

I gave you a five just for gits and shiggles!

Westy

Aiswulf · « **Reply #20 on:** November 09, 2001, 02:25:00 PM »

Hblair said:

Quote

I was low on fuel and knew I would lose those 8 perk points, but that wasn't important. The important thing was to drag that P38 as far south as I could and not kill him. If I kill him he ups back at his base where our goon is. So, in order to reach our goal I had to get killed. I ran outa fuel and let the P38 kill me. He was 15 miles away from his field.
Mission accomplished.

Now thats what I call flying as a team.
Yours is a squad worth flying with IMHO

I hope your squad recognized your sacrifice.
Hope sometime soon to be able to meet ya in the skies.

Awulf

Durr · « **Reply #21 on:** November 09, 2001, 05:48:00 PM »

I think that your ranking is taken from the combination of all your rankings (bomber fighter gv) is it not? So somebody can be a really good fighter pilot and not do anything in gvs and have a low ranking overall. Also I think whoever said that about multi kill missions increasing your rankings it right, I had my personal best mission last week (10 kills, ground and air in a jug) and I had the mission scored as an attack mission since I was originally going as a jabo. My attack score went to the top 100 after that mission and hasnt fallen far since. I agree that the system has some faults and failings and shouldnt be looked at as an absolute indicator as to who the best pilot is. However it does provide some level of general indication. I look at it like the college football rankings. The number one ranked team in college football may not be the best team in the nation necessarily and may actually get beat by a lesser ranked team but as a general indicator the ranked teams are the best. I view it the same here. Despite its flaws and the mistakes made by the system I would say that the ranking system here provides at least an indication of relatively how good a pilot is. I think that it is safe to say that most of the pilots in the top 100 deserve to be there with only a few exceptions. As to the people that say dont pay attention to rankings, just have fun, well I understand where they are coming from but for some people, trying to work your way to top of rankings IS fun. It provides a goal to work for, some way to see how good you are doing relative to the others. Again, I dont think that player ranked numer 556 is necessarily any better than #557 but in general, (100s better than 200s etc)it works as intended. If you dont care about rankings, fine, dont worry about it. However, I do agree with the guy that chose mission success over a possible better score and ranking. I would choose that anytime. If I see a field about to fall, I will up repeatedly trying to stop the enemy even though I know that I will get vulched again and again hurting my scores, but I saved a field the other day by getting airborne just long enough to kill one paratrooper. That matters to me more than rankings although I still enjoy trying to advance my rankings as much as I can.

Baine · « **Reply #22 on:** November 09, 2001, 06:39:00 PM »

Being fairly new to the game, I've noticed that the ranks extend well into the thousands. Are there that many people playing AH?
I don't pay attention to my rank that much. I'm trying to get my k/d ratio higher and working on boosting my hit percentage. That's what counts to me. I know I fly with a bunch of guys in my squad who are better pilots than I am, but since they do the heavy lifting of gunning buffs and piloting goons they don't get ranked high but are vitally important to our success
skbaine

JaCkNiFe · « **Reply #23 on:** November 09, 2001, 07:06:00 PM »

ok about wilson well not to sure if some one posted about this already but....... me and few other guys was wondering why wilson had like 30+ kills in a sorti. what i think is that some on the knights team was spawing and dieing for him... OR he has to accounts.. and killing one accout with wislon.

Wotan · « **Reply #24 on:** November 09, 2001, 08:14:00 PM »

bs jackknife

All of us in here have seen vulches hit 30. It aint the guy vulchin whos wrong its the dum basses who keep uppin and gettin killed.

Aiswulf · « **Reply #25 on:** November 09, 2001, 08:26:00 PM »

Quote

ok about wilson well not to sure if some one posted about this already but....... me and few other guys was wondering why wilson had like 30+ kills in a sorti. what i think is that some on the knights team was spawing and dieing for him... OR he has to accounts.. and killing one accout with wislon.

Besides what would that prove? Nearly everyone in here has stated they hardly pay attention to the ranks anyway. When it comes down do it its how you fair in the skies against other skilled pilots that is the real test of skill.
And I agree with Wontan that its most likely from vulching - we've all done it at one time or another

Awulf

Aiswulf · « **Reply #26 on:** November 09, 2001, 08:28:00 PM »

err Wotan I mean

Awulf
...or is it Awful?...

2Late4U · « **Reply #27 on:** November 09, 2001, 08:33:00 PM »

Much of the current ranking system is strange. First of all it clearly favors those who live fast and die hard in quick, low altitude furballs near base. Getting 1 kill for 1 death in 1 minute seems to rank you higher than getting 5 kills per one death in 20 minutes. Im not sure if hit accuracy is factored in, Im going to check that out next tour.....Im not firing till I can see the nuts on thier tail

eskimo2 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 10, 2001, 05:56:00 PM »

Here's how it works:
Overall Rank:
Combine your rankings in fighters, bombers, attack and Gvs. Whoever has the smallest number is #1, next smallest is #2 etc.
Example; #1 ranked may have F=6, B=3, A=5 and GV=8. His total would then be 22.
#2 may have F=5, B=11, A=2, GV=9. His total would then be 27.
It's as simple as that.

Now suppose that someone was ranked #1 in fighters, bombers and attack, but hardly ever did Gvs and therefore was ranked 1000th in that category. His total # would be 1003, probably ranking him somewhere between #75 and 100 overall. If he never did a GV sortie, he would probably have a total of about 2503, ranking him about 200th.

The key to ranking well is to not suck at any one thing.

Individual Category Ranks:
Works just like Overall, but there are 5 to 10 sub-categories.
The problem is that we cannot see how individuals stack up against the field in each sub-category because it is not listed.

Let's look at fighter ranking for example:
The #1 ranked fighter pilot may have K/D of 4, K/S of 2, KT of .0030, Hit% =20, and points = 30,000
The #2 ranked fighter pilot may have a K/D of 20, K/S of 5, KT of .0020, Hit% =15, and points = 30,000
It may look like pilot # 2 is better, but if we look how they are ranked in each sub-category, we will see that pilot #2s KT of .0020 is really holding him back.
Approximate Sub-Category Ranks (just my guesses):

Pilot #1
K/D of 4 = Ranked 30th
K/S of 2 = Ranked 35th
K/T of .0030 = Ranked 25th
Hit% of 15 = Ranked 20th
Points at 30,000 = Ranked 10th (tie)
Pilot #1 Total = 110

Pilot #2
K/D of 20 = Ranked 3rd
K/S of 5 = Ranked 7th
K/T of .0020 = Ranked 130th
Hit% of 20 = Ranked 10th
Points at 30,000 = Ranked 10th (tie)
Pilot #2 Total = 160

Conclusion; Pilot #2 has 1 weakness, most of his point/ranks are in K/T. He needs to furball more to improve his rank. His K/D and K/S may fall a bit, but his fighter rank will improve with riskier furballing.
Pilot #1 is better rounded with no real weaknesses.
Instinctively we may be more impressed and in awe with pilot #2. The ranking system, however, is impressed by nothing. It just crunches cold numbers and spits out results.

I used K/T for this example because it is probably the most overlooked sub-category since it is such an abstract number. All 5 sub-categories have an equal impact on fighter rank.

The key to ranking well is to not suck at any one thing

eskimo

eskimo2 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 10, 2001, 06:23:00 PM »

As far as what ranks mean...
I think Durr said it well in the latter part of his post.
Rank is a general indication of skill and ability.
If we were to compare the top 20 fighter pilots to those ranked 101 to 120, as a whole, the first group should outperform the second, however you measure it.
Individually, however, a few pilots from the 101-120 group may be "better" (whatever that is) than a few or even most of the 1-20 group.
Great pilots may "screw-up" their fighter ranks by sraffing things in fighter mode, or repeatedly taking off from vulched fields.
On the same note, not-as-great pilots may enhance their score by never taking off from vulched fields or straffing objects while in fighter mode.

A pilot's ranking surely does not mean that he is better than all who are ranked below him, nor does it mean that he is worse than those who are ranked above him. It is, however, as Durr stated, an indication of his approximate skill and ability, give or take... who knows what.

It can be fun for some to work on improving rank. Others could care less. Take it or leave it, it is what it is.

As far as I'm concerned, rank-shmank. I beat Ypsilon in a same-plane 1 V 1 last night! (Like I'll do that again!)

eskimo