Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
No blauk, my current system does not do what you claim.LOL.. that is a very thorough argument
I can show you that it DOES. Try to prove me wrong. Read on.
The only real rule that needs special consideration is the zero death pilot. That's it.Why is that? Is it because you encourage pilots to die once... not many more times than once and certainly not 0 times? To me it seems that it is because you cannot divide the kills by 0. The correct way would then be to add one to all deaths (converting them to lives) and thus keep all the data equal and balanced. Instead you make up your own rules and formulas and therefore distort the data and produce irrelevant changed results.
That +1 in those warbirds ratios and also in official AH stats is not there only because they are automated. It is there because that is the way how to calculate such ratios. You cannot reinvent mathematics u know.
K/D for people with deaths will all be recorded with 100% accuracy. The people with zero deaths will be limited by the total number of kills since there is no way to guess just how much farther they would have gone without a death. If they wanted to go farther, they would have risked more.Just as well there is no way of knowing how much farther anyone would have gone before their
second death. That is no basis for separating the 0 kill guys. Once again, this risk factor does not work in your formula. After one death the risk is discouraged. One death is the optimum for your formula. Look below how much the data is distorted:
Snefens has flown more and risked more, but he is the one who is wronged on your chart. Then again all the guys who have only died once are getting a huge raise.
You argue that 6:0 is less than 7:1 because:
"6:0 will win out... but if the pilot wants a better record than someone at 7:1 he should have RISKED more and flown another sortie." So how about if you compare 7:1 to 8:2 ????? Why is 7:1 =7.00 and 8:2 =4.00
What is the huge difference between dieing zero times and once compared to dieing once and twice? Should the 7:1 guy not also need to risk more to be better than 8:2 guy??? So That risk reasoning does not work!
The minimum number of kills required to make the k/d list is the screen for the minimum risk required to make the list. The only time that doesn't work well is with lesser used aircraft where someone with less than 20 kills can make the list.Minimum limit is ok, minimum kills that is, but not minimum deaths. The basic reason for the mistake in your thinking is that you are comparing kills to DEATHS. Kills are not achieved in deaths. They are achieved during lives or careers. Death only separates two lives in this game.
Since you disregard one life for all (exept those who have not died at all) those who have less lives also get more benefit. One death guy has 2 lives in the cost of 1 (+100%), while those pilots who have flown more and died more get e.g. 11 lives for cost of 10 (+10%). Your thinking does not encourage pilots to risk more than the very first death. Period.
So.. I know why I am doing the way I am. I'm sorry that you seem to have such a difficult time with it. I really hope you get over it soon.Finally... No , I will not get over it. I dont need your stats really, we make our own for my squadron. If you insist on distorting the results with your own formulas, I will just forget youre stats ever existed
The reason I wrote here was to help you and the resto of the guys who look at your hardly worked stats. That is one reason I had not checked my 109G-6 in your stats earlier
The pity here is that you are doing a lot of work in vain only because of a small mathematical error you refuse to see. Please ask some mathematician, your math teacher, just anyone who know about statistics and cases like this (when comparing to a factor which may be 0). It is a great thing that you are doing such stats, but what is the idea of them if they show incorrect distorted results.
To Zig,
Would it be proper not to tell someone of his mistake and just let him do a huge load of work for nothing? I think that would really be a disfavor.
Think it over.. try to prove my points wrong and you may realize your own mistake. It is not such a big one... (+1) !!
