Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: handy169 on October 16, 2006, 07:57:12 AM
-
i was thinking .. looking at some of these people that have high ranks.. alot of them have low or no sortis hardly.. so it reminded me of something.. Baseball. in the game of baseball when they are determining batting average .. they set a minimum number of at bats in order to qualify to be put in the batting average lead.. so lets say its middle of the season and the guy leading the league in batting average is .350 .. and they call up a guy form the minors and goes 5 for 5 making his average 1.000 . now based on AH2 rules and standards that guy that went 5 for 5 would be ranked number 1 .. over the guy that has gone .350 for the season .. which is why they set a min of at bats to qualify fo be in the batting average lead. and i think this same concept would work with AH2 .. set a minimum number of sorties based on a average of everyone.. not have someone that just picks oppurtune times to get kills IE vulch, spawn camp, cherry pickand be able to have a better rank then someone that actually goes out and fights. and makes those people have to actually play and up sorties to keep there ranking. if they are really that good then they should still be ranked where they are. and since its based on the average of all. noone can say its unfair that they cant get that many sorties to be qualified for the rankings. just my 2 cent based on what i seen in the stats provided
-
If I cared about scores (aside from charting my improvement or lack thereof) I would agree with this post.
-
Does it really matter in the brave new world where people are padding their scores by getting captures in basically empty arenas?
The new MA has completely FUBARed the statistics. You just can't have one score covering 3 arenas when one of those arenas is managing only 40 players on a Friday night.
Scores never meant anything anyhow, and it is more true than ever right now.
The only purpose (as scotty pointed out) is to track your stats (not ranks) for personal reasons.
Jeez, two months ago my current stats would have resulted in a sub 500 overall... Today, over 1000... Because tons of people are padding.
-
well you got people camping TT and spawns ranking up 50-60 kills a land. hell the other day i personally saw us land over 400 kills between 9 people. camping a spawn. hell i had over 300 kills myself over 2 days at that same spawn in about 10 sorties. hell i know i personaly died 90 times in about 5 minutes from rooks vulching a field. they count towards scores but doesnt mean they are as good as brag to be. i have over 1600+ death. 1200+ of them i never even had a chance to take off/move before dieing. went straight form tower to runway back to tower. granted thats my fault for doing it. but not being a score potato. i am defending my field. and if there was not ranking. i guarentee noone would even bat a eye at it. even with 1600+ death i am still 700ish ranking.. so just imagine how much better my ranking would be if i had gotten off the ground or been able to move my gv before dieing and not vulched. the ranking system is so flawed and shows really how good someone really is or isnt.
-
handy,
I think the answer to that is a spawn randomizer, where it dumps you near, but not AT, the spawn point randomly.
-
oh they randomly spawn .. cant hide when you got 20 people sweeping the spawn sites.. and doesnt help on a runway ..
-
Oh, I didn't know... I hardly use GVs except for base defence. Sorry
-
Who cares about rank...
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Who cares about rank...
Lotsa people, apparently, thus the shade accounts, hecklacious vulching and killstealing, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
-
who cares about rank? all those that have it. cause if they didnt care about rank they would up fighter, bombers, GVS to protect a capped based. but again most of those that are ranked are score padders and camp spawners and runway vulchers.. an example.. i think 99% of my deaths to SHAWK if not all of them have been from him vulching me or camping me . i dont think one has been in a 1 on 1. and hes killed me alot. i would rank someone hire that killed me the same amount of times 1 on 1 then him. and thats where real rank in the game is flawed. you cant tell a good fighter from someone that just vulches and camps and kills while engaged in another battle or someone that fights you 1 on 1
-
your eating your own heart out about this. Don't bother with the stats.
-
i am not eating my heart out .. simply pointing out that these people with high ranks arent as good as the numbers tell it .. you take al vulches and camped kills from these guys and they dont have nothing . as far as the minium number of sorties.. it goes without saying. anyone can go out in one sortie in each type rack up 20-30 kills and be ranked number 1. i would rather someone that plays everyday be ranked higher then that person that just plays oppurtune times to get max kills to bolster his rank
-
Originally posted by SAS_KID
your eating your own heart out about this. Don't bother with the stats.
SAS,
I think the stats can be very useful, not in overall ranking, but for example, in hit percentage or kill/death ratio. Good to chart improvement, or lack thereof.
-
Originally posted by handy169
who cares about rank? all those that have it. cause if they didnt care about rank they would up fighter, bombers, GVS to protect a capped based. but again most of those that are ranked are score padders and camp spawners and runway vulchers.. an example.. i think 99% of my deaths to SHAWK if not all of them have been from him vulching me or camping me . i dont think one has been in a 1 on 1. and hes killed me alot. i would rank someone hire that killed me the same amount of times 1 on 1 then him. and thats where real rank in the game is flawed. you cant tell a good fighter from someone that just vulches and camps and kills while engaged in another battle or someone that fights you 1 on 1
Hey don't forget Shawks ever so impressive, hang wayyyyyy high in a Chog, wait for a slow guy trying to climb up to actually try and get a fight from him and then the ever so impressive pick and run back to alt. OVER and OVER and OVER again, untill he gets 5 or so kills and run home....
The only time i've actually encountered Shawk down low in a good old fight he was coming off of a CV attacking a shore gun. I went after him and after a turn or 2 he ended up making a newbish type mistake and pulled up directly into my guns.... After that it was a fairly average fight I died, he died...
Over all I would say Shawk is about an average pilot, he just knows how to work the system to make it look like he is better rank wise.
-
yea, all those high rank tards can do nothing but vulch and camp. They cant beat anybody in a 1vs1, thats why they vulch. lame I tell you, lame....the whole lot of them. I guarentee if 04329492 got off the runway he would clean Shawks clock in a 1vs1. Heck, only thing lamer than high ranking vulchers who suk are those who whine about ranks when they say they dont care about rank.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Who cares about rank...
Rank is completely worthless except when you need to eject some newbie or spy from a CV so that you can turn it around. Other than that, I can't see much use for it.
I have a lot more respect for some guy taking one for the team by flying a goon, manning a flak, or upping against a horde to defend than I do the guy who lands a load o' vulches or cherry picks his way to higher rank.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
i was going through the squad ranks and here is a example of how rank should have a minimum number of sorties to be ranked
Roster Kills Assists Sorties Landed Bailed Ditched Captured Death Disco Rank
Purzel 50 4 38 21 0 0 3 13 1 2715
Maik 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4554
def 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 4466
i dont know if you can notice it here but if you go to the squad rankings . look under Maik .. the squad has a total of like 50 kills. no GV BOMBER or ATTACK kills and yet ranked 28 over all they have less then 50 stories between all of them .. 3 people
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Who cares about rank...
I do! Then I take a shower and I don't care anymore :p
-
people shouldnt worry about rank that doesnt show skill of a pilot
if you want to know the skill of a fellow pilot take him up in the d.a i personally wouldnt care if they took rank off permenantly cause pretty much all it does is give sub-par pilots bragging right and it gives them the "privilage" as they might think it
to talk down to newer pilots making them feel unwated in the game which means lower turnouts and smaller furballs:O
and i guess it goes without saying less hunks of metal to shoot out of the sky
-
Originally posted by killnu
yea, all those high rank tards can do nothing but vulch and camp. They cant beat anybody in a 1vs1, thats why they vulch. lame I tell you, lame....the whole lot of them. I guarentee if 04329492 got off the runway he would clean Shawks clock in a 1vs1. Heck, only thing lamer than high ranking vulchers who suk are those who whine about ranks when they say they dont care about rank.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
OMG Josh, thats some funny stuff:D
-
I would like to personally thank handy169 for his contribution to my score.
Some day when his IQ comes up over single digits, maybe he'll quit upping a capped field. Of course he thinks I should just let him get airborne and shoot the troops as they drop into the map room. Well that is if he could do it without augering into a building.:aok
-
shawk? how many kills of your many have been from 1 on 1 fighting?? based on my experience and observation. all you have done is expoited the scoring the game rules have given you. i would much rather give a higher ranking to someone that actually fights and earns his kills rather then vulching, blind-siding, steal thier kills. which is what you basically do. as far as the topic of this post goes. people that have 100 sorties for the month and ranks in the top 10 shouldnt belong there. etc etc etc. as far as me upping.. i am defending my base.. and me flying 10 minutes from another base doesnt make sense if you got LVTS of the coast or a goon in close proximty to the maproom .. by the time i got there the base would already be taken. even with all those deaths i am still ranked in the 700's which is still in the top 25% of the rankings.. i am not afraid of hurting my ranking to protect a base.. which is something you are. if you wasnt worried about a ranking i am sure you would be upping just as much as me.
-
oh on another note if hitech is reading this.. shawk types of people why people dont want to come back or play this game. just think of how much more revenue you could have if you didnt have people like him that took advantage of the game and mad the game unfun to play.
-
Originally posted by handy169
oh on another note if hitech is reading this.. shawk types of people why people dont want to come back or play this game. just think of how much more revenue you could have if you didnt have people like him that took advantage of the game and mad the game unfun to play.
SO basically you want all the people out of the game that dosnt have fun the same way as you. Thats alot of people.
-
hahahaha he vulched you so you want him gone? :eek: :lol
-
no i am just simply point out the truth .. how many more people would have stay if wasnt for people like Shawk. if more people had stayed and played it would have equaled more money .. more money means the company might actually do something to answer some of these wishes people make. people that exploit the game for the sake of rank isnt what this game needs pure and simple.. as a player who likes a game you want new people to come and want to stay i dont know about you. but if you lose players less money to operate the game. and soon there is no game to play. something needs to be done with the ranking system cause its seriously flawed. once its fixed i bet shawk and those type people that exploit the game. thier rank isnt as great as it shows. hell i got over 2000 deaths and i am still ranked in the 700's there are people with not even 200-300 deaths that have worse rank then me. i bet if i didnt up to protect my bases i would be in the 100's. but my country is more important then a number and thats where is it should be. lets put it this way .. if we capped a field and shawk was the only one free to protect if from capture.. he would let us take it rather then ruin his precious rank. i call that chicken.
-
Skuzzy, please delete this thread. Everytime I read it my IQ drops 10 points.:huh
-
i was looking at the ranking last night .. you have people with like 200 sorties the whole month ranked in the top 10. 2 -3 people with just over 300 sorties for the month. most of everyone else is averaging 1000+ sorties. would those same people be ranked if they had 1000+ sorties. those people dont deserve to be ranked just because their k/d ratios are good after a few sorties. i dont understand why its hard to grasp the concept .. its possible to have someone with 100 or less sorties be ranked number 1 at a end of the month . how is that fair to people that play everyday and care about thier rank. and if you think i care about rank i wouldnt up on capped fields. or in the middle of a CV group with a PT. i could give to rats arses about rank .. but its obviously flawed and those people that do care about rank are explotiing the game and are taking the fun this game posesses. those people that have 1000+ sorties and ranked in the top 10 should be ranked higher then those that havent hardly played IMHO. and as far as your IQ dropping shawk. i think that mullet is deflecting knowledge to your brain.
-
Originally posted by handy169
but its obviously flawed and those people that do care about rank are explotiing the game and are taking the fun this game posesses.
Going by this thread you care an awful lot about rank. So you must be taking the fun out of the game. I know your pissing and moaning is taking the fun out of this BBS.
-
i got 2100+ deaths and i care about rank?? ahhh?? did i miss something? i care about rank as far as it being given fairly. and the system in place isnt not fair.
-
Originally posted by SHawk
Skuzzy, please delete this thread. Everytime I read it my IQ drops 10 points.:huh
Err..wouldn't that put you into negative numbers by now? :D
-
no i am actually ranked in the 700's you got people with 100-200 deaths ranked lower then me.. again .. its shows a problem in the ranking system
-
also .. looking at the rankings.. people are like telling me saying i need to get a life cause i brag about having the most kills. but looking i noticed that SHawk has 1924 kills in 168 hours .. LYNX has 1795 kills in 195 hours .. and i have 2323 kills in only 178 hours.. yet i am the one that needs a life? also .. i have 2192 deaths.. i can sum more then 1600 of those deaths in less then a hour of those 178 hours i played. hers another DanoDano has a whoping 1958 kills in 245 hours. thats nearly 70 more hours and 400 less kills then me. then you got people with like 50-60 hours with 300-400 sorties less then 400 kills ranked in the top 20 ..
-
wow, thats a lot of hours...you retired?
and why you are busy not caring about rank, can you tell me where I fall on your radar?
-
I'd be curious to see what kind of screaming we'd see if the ranking system were taken out.
-
i personally dont care about rank... all this thread is pointing out is there a is a seriously flaw in the ranking system .. and how it reflects everyone. i will never be good at flying to even come close to being a top 10 or top 100 or top 200 for quite a while. i simply dont think its fair that someone with 200-300 sories for the month should be ranks as high as they are. when the avg number of sorties is well over 1000 .. or someone with 200 kills for the intire month etc etc etc. .. you got squads with no bomber, fighter or GV sorties and yet ranked 28th. how is that fair.. simply cause they havent upped or died in those categories .. thats all i am pointing at.. yes this people have better %'s but with 200-300 sorties how does that compare with someone with 1000 sorties.. would they be ranked the same when compared equally? there needs to be some middle ground when comparing someone that barely plays and someone that plays what the average person plays.. maybe someone had a some great sorties. he vulched a cap field landed 30 kills or had a good spawn camp killed 50 gvs .. theres no way to distingish someone that vulches/steals/ho's kills from someone that flys and earns kills 1 on 1 .. etc
-
Although, I must admit. Handy does hold the record for the longest run-on sentence ever. Maybe an English and Grammer course in his future?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SHawk
Although, I must admit. Handy does hold the record for the longest run-on sentence ever. Maybe an English and Grammer course in his future?:rolleyes:
I could point out that you misspelled grammar, but I won't.
I won't mention that you erroneously capitalized english and grammar in your sentence. either.
Nor will I point out that your first statement is a sentence fragment.
:aok
-
LOL .. now thats funny ..
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
Lotsa people, apparently, thus the shade accounts, hecklacious vulching and killstealing, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Yep
-
Originally posted by handy169
i personally dont care about rank... i simply dont think its fair that someone with 200-300 sories for the month should be ranks as high as they are.
ummm... I'm confused.
That's a lot like saying "I don't care about the price of gas. But now I can't drive my car because gas prices are too high"
:lol
(His idea sounds like an improvement though)
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
I could point out that you misspelled grammar, but I won't.
I won't mention that you erroneously capitalized english and grammar in your sentence. either.
Nor will I point out that your first statement is a sentence fragment.
:aok
I knew it!!! Scottydawg is really Mr. Costello from 10th grade!!!:D
Man I hated that guy.:mad:
-
this thing still going?:lol
-
Originally posted by SHawk
I knew it!!! Scottydawg is really Mr. Costello from 10th grade!!!:D
Man I hated that guy.:mad:
I'm busted.
-
Personally I don't think it should change. Back in the old Air Warriors days all you had to do to rank high is fly fly fly. I like the fact that you dont have to fly 10000 missions to rank you where you SHOULD BE RANKED based on your skill. I hear you all whining about vulchers and spawn campers and stuff. Thats just part of the game and my guess is that each of you has done it too at some time. If you want to keep the vulching down keep em away from the field! Same goes for spawn campers. By the way, when you're trying to cap a field what are you suggesting... that you let all the enemy planes up because vulching's not fair? Like I said, it's all part of the game and so, by the way is the scoring system. Part of the game is beating the enemy. The other part is "beating" the game by maximizing your scoring opportunities, hopefully within the context of trying to win the war. I used to have a problem with the buff pilots milk-running the factories but I finally realized that they're providing a service by keeping the enemy re-supply soft. Ultimately the game will balance itself out. If 25 guys are all trying to vulch the same field none of them are going to get many kills. If 2 guys are vulching the'll get the kills but the likelyhood of an enemy getting airborn is also much higher. If too many guys are milk-running pretty soon there's nothing left to hit. if one guys doing it he'll score like crazy but the factories will mostly survive.
Just my take on it.
-
I just had one more thought on this that I had to post. If you limit the rank to those who have the "average number of flights" you would unfairly penalize people like me who have full time jobs plus household and/or family responsibilities. Beyond that, you would unfairly elevate those who were "ranked" as they would not be evaluated among the entire talent pool. Even with a full time job and hosehold reaponsibilities I manage about 2 hours a day in the game (although I'm not always on time for work because of it). There's no way I could squeeze any more time in. Between Air Warriors and this game I've been flying for almost 11 years and I would feel robbed if my efforts simply didn't get counted. I'm sure others are in the same boat (or plane or vehicle).
-
Handy169: Funy thing is you just want to compare total kills, that is already part of the scoring system VIA the points catagory, in that catagory you fly more you can get a higher score.
Also Kills per time is also part of the equation. Not just k/d.
HiTech
-
no .. here is what i am saying. lets look at the top ten
rank kills sorties landed deaths time
1 2007 762 382 310 176:38:04
2 820 411 267 95 78:15:40
3 1868 1178 479 523 203:58:03
4 887 400 198 103 124:09:33
5 1751 1152 374 570 184:00:08
6 2103 1251 488 650 130:33:02
7 337 253 128 84 37:22:47
8 908 439 271 103 99:08:43
9 341 225 109 92 53:25:00
10 654 598 292 259 71:10:40
my totals for comparison
2405 3439 570 2199 180:42:30
its the same as my example of major league baseball batters.
you call someone up from the minors at the end of the season and he bats 1.000 for 10 games. does that mean his batting average is ranked #1 in the majors and wins the batting title. no you have to have a min number of at bats to qualify to to be ranked for the batting average title. thats why i said a average of everyones sorties should be considered. for those that dont log in hardly and for those of us that are logged in alot. theres is a fair average between the too .. lets say i started out the month and in 1 sortie in a tank had 80 kills .. upped a plane and had 20 kills and then upped a bomber and landed 10 kills and then as a attack upped and landed 10 more kills. i would be ranked in the top 20 without having flied another sortie that month.. based on those 4 sorties. you think if you saw that you would think i deserved to be there?
-
handy169: Yep, you'd deserve it. Those would be awsome numbers. Ones I've never seen.
-
oh its not about me. my stats well never allow me be ranked high cause i will always up to defend my field causing me to have lots of deaths. but i will say this you would think that these people that claim to be good should have more kills then me in the same amount of time. but thats just me. but hell i got more kills and deaths in the same amount of time
-
:lol
WTG Scott, haha.
-
Handy: I realy do not see the problem, all of the top 10 have flown at least 1:00 hour per day. If I was to implement what your asking for, it would be on the order of 10 sorties.
And also you seemed to miss the idea that points already gives the person flying more an advantage.
HiTech
-
hitech> if your point is correct?
then if thats the case why is #7 ranked with only 37 hours for the entire month?
and everyone else has x2 to almost 6x that amount
-
Originally posted by handy169
oh its not about me. my stats well never allow me be ranked high cause i will always up to defend my field causing me to have lots of deaths. but i will say this you would think that these people that claim to be good should have more kills then me in the same amount of time. but thats just me. but hell i got more kills and deaths in the same amount of time
Your rank is better than a lot of other players just because you've been in game 190 hours,it give you a lot of points.
But your K/D, K/S show you have a lot to learn.
-
Originally posted by handy169
hitech> if your point is correct?
then if thats the case why is #7 ranked with only 37 hours for the entire month?
and everyone else has x2 to almost 6x that amount
Handy, your request is getting a little ridiculous... 37 hours for the month is over 1 hour per day average.
Most people have lives. Are you saying that only the losers who play 5+ hours per day on average should be eligible for rankings?
-
no what i am saying what is the mean average of everyone that plays? thats should be the min number of hours or make it sorties for a person to be eligable to be in the ranks .. but the point that flying more puts you in the top 10 is busted when somoene that flown 37 hours for the month is in there and everyone else on average has about 80+, a mean average is fair cause it incompasses everyone and based on everyone.
i think it should be based on sorties more then time anyways cause time can be wasted .. where as sorties if you only on for a hour a day you'll get your flights in and if your just flying around doing nothing well then thats your own fault.
-
Now it is truly getting rediculess, Your saying less that 50% of the people who play should be ranked?
HiTech
-
Originally posted by handy169
no what i am saying what is the mean average of everyone that plays? thats should be the min number of hours or make it sorties for a person to be eligable to be in the ranks .. but the point that flying more puts you in the top 10 is busted when somoene that flown 37 hours for the month is in there and everyone else on average has about 80+, a mean average is fair cause it incompasses everyone and based on everyone.
i think it should be based on sorties more then time anyways cause time can be wasted .. where as sorties if you only on for a hour a day you'll get your flights in and if your just flying around doing nothing well then thats your own fault.
Well that's your opinion... Seems what you're saying is no matter how bad you suck, if you play the game for 80 hours per month you should have a higher rank/score?
Simply flying means jack snot... as well as sorties. Half the time I realize I got the wrong loadout or fuel load and have to end sortie onthe runway... does that count? Seems to me the way you are describing your logic would put a new method of 'gaming the game' into play.
-
Originally posted by handy169
no what i am saying what is the mean average of everyone that plays? thats should be the min number of hours or make it sorties for a person to be eligable to be in the ranks .. but the point that flying more puts you in the top 10 is busted when somoene that flown 37 hours for the month is in there and everyone else on average has about 80+, a mean average is fair cause it incompasses everyone and based on everyone.
i think it should be based on sorties more then time anyways cause time can be wasted .. where as sorties if you only on for a hour a day you'll get your flights in and if your just flying around doing nothing well then thats your own fault.
You're below because you're incompetent.
Work on your skills 1st before whinning :furious
-
Originally posted by handy169
no i am actually ranked in the 700's you got people with 100-200 deaths ranked lower then me.. again .. its shows a problem in the ranking system
I'm 550ish, let's duel. You win, I'm still 550ish, You Lose, I'm still 550ish. I love the ranking system, it does wonders. I've rarely been on this month because of burnout. What's your INGAME ID. Next time on, I'll duel ya.
For you whining about folks with 200-300 sorties and a tone of kills. You ever hear of a "REARM PAD"?!!!!