Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: scottydawg on November 15, 2007, 09:48:25 PM
-
Here's an idea for scoring/ranking in the MA's. Don't know if it would work, and it might have some really undesirable unintentional consequences, but here goes...
The score/rank of the enemy you shoot down factors directly into the score you receive for shooting them down, which factors into your rank.
For example, if you shoot down someone who is ranked 1000-2000, you would receive less score/points than for someone ranked 1-200. I'm not talking about perks.
One intended consequence is that it would paint a target directly on the backs of the highest ranked players... we know how they get their rank.
Another intended consequence is that it would make killing shade accounts and other gamey tactics for score virtually pointless.
Okay, flame on. It's just something that popped into my head tonight while playing whack-a-mole in the AvA with the Avengers (I'm gonna like those guys). personally I could care less about my own score/rank and hardly play in the MA's anymore, but thought it was an interesting idea that might level the field and make rank less of a cherry-picking and milkrunning exercise and more of an actual fight that's worthy of attaining.
Now lets poke some holes in it.
-
In WW2 score was kept by the number of confirmed kills along with you liveing. So for fighters make it the number of kills that you actually return to base and land alive each month. If you die with 20 kills, those done't go towards your end of the month score. Score whoring&timid flying will have a new meaning.
But still give the overview of max kills when someone goes to the pilot score page. Just make the only kills that count are the ones you lived to bring home alive. It might make it easier to tell who vulches a shades account or who dosent have a life outside of Aces High.
-
One intended consequence is that it would paint a target directly on the backs of the highest ranked players... we know how they get their rank.[/B]
The only problem I see with your plan is how do you know who you are fighting? If HTC does not put their name in red then you do not know who it is until you shoot them down(or they shoot you down). Unless you want to ask on 200 first.
200: Hey Spit at 12000 feet above A19 who are you?
-
Originally posted by bustr
In WW2 score was kept by the number of confirmed kills along with you liveing. So for fighters make it the number of kills that you actually return to base and land alive each month. If you die with 20 kills, those done't go towards your end of the month score. Score whoring&timid flying will have a new meaning.
But still give the overview of max kills when someone goes to the pilot score page. Just make the only kills that count are the ones you lived to bring home alive. It might make it easier to tell who vulches a shades account or who dosent have a life outside of Aces High.
i actually like this idea........but can you imagine?? go to 10k alt, and there'll be a whole bunch of ponys, fw's, la's and jugs up at 20k....and above them, more of the same...........till you have the bunch at their ceiling, stalling in level flight:rofl :rofl :rofl
sorry........just couldn't resist.......i actually respect quitea few of yas in the ma's...........but this is fun too!:D
:noid
<>
-
That might be a little unfair for when I'm on. Somehow my rank went down to the 60's and 50's this tour, and I always fight until I run outta fuel, ammo, or plane. 90% of the time I run out of plane before anything else, and looking at my sorties I've died a whole lot more than I've landed.
This all means (lets see if I an word this right) Whoever shoots me down gets a large score boost, I sure ain't the best pilot around :D .
-
Actually it would be interesting to try for a tour.
I like the part about having to land your kills for them to count.
But would that make people even more reluctant to fight?
I love how it would totally do away with vulching a 2nd account.
I'm not sure HT would love the lost income though.
Worth a try in my opinion.
-
Why bother to change it?
If you take a poll, you'll find that 99.9997% of the pilot's in AH don't care about rank any way. {grin}
-
only problem is top rank guys not best pilots. look at top fighter pilots they at 1000 or more ranks because they just fight in fighters. so mostly u get rewarded for killing those going for score not for thier ability. Few top ranks are in top 10 but they no where near best fighters in game. and Only way to find best pilots using a duel would be 202's that way its no 1 shot wonder kills. Dueling with any plane with cannons is like haveing sex for first time alone. feels good for bit but sense of accomplishment is short lived.....
-
Originally posted by rod367th
only problem is top rank guys not best pilots. look at top fighter pilots they at 1000 or more ranks because they just fight in fighters. so mostly u get rewarded for killing those going for score not for thier ability.
Exactly my point. See my first intended consequence. If it worked both ways, being shot down by a very low ranked player would reduce points for a top ranked player more than being shot down by another top ranked player. The entire point being that the skill level would be rewarded moreso than the cherry-picking timid scorepotato tactics.
This could be also adapted for bombers to alter the target score for bombs based on the number of enemies within icon range at the time of the bomb hits, as well as successful mission completion (i.e. less points for pork and auger, this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads as well).
Also I don't know if the eny vs eny has any impact on any points besides perk points, but that also might be an interesting factor as well. More rank points for shooting down an LA-7 in a P-40B than another LA-7.
I may be way off base here but I thought it was an interesting idea that could lend more credibility to the scoring/ranking system than it currently has. Let's face it, most people have at least a passing interest in the competitive aspect of the game and the ranking system was ostensibly designed to place a concrete set of number metrics to that end. If it's worthless in measuring real skill as opposed to gamey tactics, it's pretty much a waste of time and effort.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Actually it would be interesting to try for a tour.
I like the part about having to land your kills for them to count.
But would that make people even more reluctant to fight?
I love how it would totally do away with vulching a 2nd account.
I'm not sure HT would love the lost income though.
Worth a try in my opinion.
I don't know that requiring landing kills for them to count would have any sort of positive effect. I believe it would reward timidity and cherry-picking instead of tactical ACM and SA. Most likely the current system for scoring landed and non-landed kills works pretty well in promoting a balance between suicidal attacks and smart flying.
Originally posted by Latrobe
This all means (lets see if I an word this right) Whoever shoots me down gets a large score boost, I sure ain't the best pilot around .
Only if they are a very low ranked player. Other high-ranked players would receive a much lower boost, ostensibly because their skill level is much higher and the fight would be more even.
Originally posted by Marshal
The only problem I see with your plan is how do you know who you are fighting? If HTC does not put their name in red then you do not know who it is until you shoot them down(or they shoot you down). Unless you want to ask on 200 first.
200: Hey Spit at 12000 feet above A19 who are you?
As far as I can think this through, the name is much less important than the skill level of the opponent, which would come out very quickly in a fight... as I see it, the higher ranked players would assumedly be the more skilled ones and would be more difficult to win against. Knowing their name is much less important that knowing your SA, E-state and theirs as well when fighting an enemy.
Note on terminology: When I say "high ranked" I mean the ones who are highly ranked, i.e. the best-ranked players. Low ranked means the ones down at the bottom, like 4000 etc. This can be confusing as the terms are used interchangeably throughout the forums.
-
I don't think there is any way to make a scoring system that is fair and accurate.
Counting only kills that you land will make for more timid pilots, and what about those players that don't get to log a bunch of hours in a tour? 20 hours of flight compaired to some in the 100-150 hours area, just can't even it out, you would have to use percentages again which brings in the manipulation in scoring again.
The getting more points for a higher ranked enemy has promise, but I think tracking all that info word be a pain to code. I like that it would draw everyone toward the area reported to have one of those score potato high rankers :D Funny seeing everyone chase these guys that aren't really top fighter pilots just to get the hight scores LOL!!
The only scores I watch are my hit%, and my K/D both of which I'm never happy with :D
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
For example, if you shoot down someone who is ranked 1000-2000, you would receive less score/points than for someone ranked 1-200.
I like this idea. It enshrines the concept that Oldman kills don't count.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
I don't think there is any way to make a scoring system that is fair and accurate.
The getting more points for a higher ranked enemy has promise, but I think tracking all that info word be a pain to code. I like that it would draw everyone toward the area reported to have one of those score potato high rankers :D Funny seeing everyone chase these guys that aren't really top fighter pilots just to get the hight scores LOL!!
I agree that there is no way to make a perfect scoring system, the concept that I am thinking about makes it more fair and more accurate in representing the actual skills that should be valued in a combat oriented game (notice I did not say combat simulator).
The second point you make (in my mind) is self-correcting.
I don't think it would be hard to 'coad' at all, a simple multiple inversely proportional to the nme rank applied to the score of killing the nme (maybe adding in the eny imbalance of the planes)
I have trouble expressing mathematical concepts in English.
killpoints=int((myrank/nmerank)+(nme_eny/my_eny))
Hell, we could even throw in a factor to account for hording by counting the number_of_friendlies/number_of_nmes within icon range @ time of kill, i.e. less points for your kill if there are ten of you and one of them within icon range (or some other settable distance like 3K). That could conceivably promote fair fights, i.e. 1v1 and even increase your kill points if you are in a bad tactical situation and get a kill.
so
killpoints =int(modfactor1(myrank/nmerank)+modfactor2(my_eny/nme_eny)+modfactor3(nbr_nme/nbr_friendly)
I think we're beginning to skirt a conceptual area where people will start complaining that it is 'forcing people to play a certain way'. I would argue that it instead rewards a style of play that espouses skills such as plane mastery (i.e. eny imbalance modifiers), ACM, and SA instead of other tactics such as alt-monkey/cherrypicking, hording and other forms of unbalancing gameplay.
-
Heh, why not? We've been "guinea pigged" before.:aok
-
I see where you're going with this Scotty and I think it's a great idea.
-
Personally, I think it is a great idea. It would be like the perk modifier on the planes except applies to the pilot. One who shoots a top ace should get higher points than picking the 2nd day pilot in the 2-week program.
The main problem I see is the monthly(campaign) reset. How would the score calculate itself and adjust points when everyone is ranked "0". From that stand point the score could never move to improve anyone's rank to make the top aces higher point values. I am sure better math whizzes than I could figure out a solution; but, I am just pointing out the obvious.
But, let me say that I do love the suggestion and intended consequence of ruining the shade account scores. :aok :aok :aok
As long as someone could figure out a way to fix the campaign resets as related to the scoring suggestion, my vote (not that we are actually voting) is a definitive YES.
>salute<
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
I like this idea. It enshrines the concept that Oldman kills don't count.
- oldman
Oh, but a kill on oldman is priceless :)
Thanks for the laugh.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
I like this idea. It enshrines the concept that Oldman kills don't count.
- oldman
Oh no Oldman, If I ever shoot you down I will know I did something!! :aok
Cheers,
gusman44
-
Interesting ideas.
In a game in a time long gone (AW) the points scored per kill were increased based on the number of consecutive LANDED kills. Just as an example (numbers not necessarily accurate). Sortie 1 you receive 100pts per kill. Provided you land them in sortie 2 you recieve 200pts per kill. Provided you land them in sortie 3 you receive 300pts per kill and so on. Once you get killed you are reset to 100pts per kill.
Makes landing kills more important for those that are shooting for score. Whether folks fly more "realistically" (i.e.- trying to survive) is up for debate since "realistically" could be debated all day long and we all play the game for our own reasons.
Just a thought.
RASCAL
-
I think the unintended consequence of this new way of scoring would be to lessen the willingness of people to fight and then online flying would be really really boring.
-
Originally posted by NCLawman
Personally, I think it is a great idea. It would be like the perk modifier on the planes except applies to the pilot. One who shoots a top ace should get higher points than picking the 2nd day pilot in the 2-week program.
The main problem I see is the monthly(campaign) reset. How would the score calculate itself and adjust points when everyone is ranked "0". From that stand point the score could never move to improve anyone's rank to make the top aces higher point values. I am sure better math whizzes than I could figure out a solution; but, I am just pointing out the obvious.
But, let me say that I do love the suggestion and intended consequence of ruining the shade account scores. :aok :aok :aok
As long as someone could figure out a way to fix the campaign resets as related to the scoring suggestion, my vote (not that we are actually voting) is a definitive YES.
>salute<
I would guess that the score algorithm would need to be able to compensate for 0 ranks (obviously there would be a divide by zero problem) by using a default score modifier for unranked pilot kills by unranked pilots. For example a 0 ranked pilot kill would equal a kill of the lowest current ranked pilot. Which would actually work well, since the first kill of a tour would equal a kill of the highest ranked pilot, second kill = second ranked pilot until the ranks started to fill up. for the first kill of an unranked pilot by another unranked pilot the modifier would be 1/1, so no modifier to the kill points. If a campaign were only for 1 day it would not generate enough ranks to make the modifiers mean much, but after a month where you have ~5000 ranks, it would really start to work after a few days.
-
Originally posted by Chalenge
I think the unintended consequence of this new way of scoring would be to lessen the willingness of people to fight and then online flying would be really really boring.
Only if the 'landed kills' modifier was in effect. I didn't propose that and don't think it's a good idea, unless it was a very small modifier, i.e. only affected the points by less than 10-15%.
-
shawk=1,000,000,000 pts
-
In Air Warrior, the better your rank, the more points that were awarded to those who shot you down. I'm sure this could be worked into AH somehow.
As for getting credit for landed kills only: IMHO this would lead to a new era of astronauts and timid tommies.
-
A good idea i but not sure it would work.
-
Back in the early '90's, AW had a scoring system called "ELO". Basically, you gained and lost points based on your points relative to your opponents. However, it failed to take in things like ganging and vulching. You had people that would bail from before they began to avoid the possibility of lowering their score. Personally, as a system used to rank folks in duels...I think it could work. As an MA scoring system, too many folks won't fight as it is. Do we really need more excuses to avoid fighting?
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Back in the early '90's, AW had a scoring system called "ELO". Basically, you gained and lost points based on your points relative to your opponents. However, it failed to take in things like ganging and vulching. You had people that would bail from before they began to avoid the possibility of lowering their score. Personally, as a system used to rank folks in duels...I think it could work. As an MA scoring system, too many folks won't fight as it is. Do we really need more excuses to avoid fighting?
Since it doesn't appear to be obvious, the 'landing kills' part is not part of my original idea, it was suggested (I think) as a joke.
-
Axer and Dextur are squeaking mad about this idea.
-
Under this plan, the top ranked player could only go down and the lowest ranked player could only go up and so on up and down the ranking ladder. The long term implication is that scores would equalize over time.
Beyond that, you are already rewarded for landing your kills by getting more points via the kill modifier than you would for any other outcome.
Forcing the landing scenario would have people running after a single kill. People would be more worried about landing than fighting. As it is, staying in to fight, even with the points penalty of a death, is probably preferable because as long as you keep getting kills your kills per hour improve vs. flying home to land which imposes a kill per hour penalty.
I say no. I think it would be detrimental to the game, creating even more cowerdice than we see now. This would seriously reward cherry-picking and running. No acm would be required, and therefore, no skill.
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
Since it doesn't appear to be obvious, the 'landing kills' part is not part of my original idea, it was suggested (I think) as a joke.
Please, be so kind as to point out where I said anything about "landing kills". I merely stated that there had been a previous attempt at such a scoring system and that it was found to be lacking. In point of fact, what you suggest encouraged cherry picking, gangbanging and vulching, which you say you would like to discourage.
Nothing personal, I'm just saying...been there..done that and it didn't do what you want it to do. The point being people will go for the easy kill (regardless of the points) to avoid losing points to a higher ranked opponent. It's just human nature. :)
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Please, be so kind as to point out where I said anything about "landing kills". I merely stated that there had been a previous attempt at such a scoring system and that it was found to be lacking. In point of fact, what you suggest encouraged cherry picking, gangbanging and vulching, which you say you would like to discourage.
Nothing personal, I'm just saying...been there..done that and it didn't do what you want it to do. :D
How so? And when was this done, and when did you become such an expert on the subject?
You have provided zero valid points to discredit the idea except for some blanket statements.
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
How so? And when was this done, and when did you become such an expert on the subject?
You have provided zero valid points to discredit the idea except for some blanket statements.
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Back in the early '90's, AW had a scoring system called "ELO". Basically, you gained and lost points based on your points relative to your opponents.
Now, what part of the above statement did you not understand? The AW I speak of was Air Warrior (great granddaddy of this game). The ELO scoring system was based on a chess scoring system, you got and lost points based on the ranking of your opponent. They system was found lacking in that it discouraged taking risks. It encouraged not taking chances.
As for the validity of my points, you can check with folks that played during that period. I know Fencer51 was there. I'm not sure if HT was playing then or not. There are a few of us still around. :)
-
I played AW as well, and I don't think these ideas have anything to do with what you're talking about.
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
The score/rank of the enemy you shoot down factors directly into the score you receive for shooting them down, which factors into your rank.
For example, if you shoot down someone who is ranked 1000-2000, you would receive less score/points than for someone ranked 1-200.
Please explain what is different about what you suggest and what I am telling you has been previously done. The only difference is that in AW if you lost, points were deducted from your score based on your relative ranks. Sorry, not my fault if you can't see the similarities.
BTW, did you not want criticism of your idea?
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Now, what part of the above statement did you not understand? The AW I speak of was Air Warrior (great granddaddy of this game). The ELO scoring system was based on a chess scoring system, you got and lost points based on the ranking of your opponent. They system was found lacking in that it discouraged taking risks. It encouraged not taking chances.
As for the validity of my points, you can check with folks that played during that period. I know Fencer51 was there. I'm not sure if HT was playing then or not. There are a few of us still around. :)
i was there too......from the first version of AW tobe on aohell, to AW3.....but usually only flew RR european map.........which is why my learning curve is so friggin slow here........:rofl
-
Originally posted by CAP1
i was there too......from the first version of AW tobe on aohell, to AW3.....but usually only flew RR european map.........which is why my learning curve is so friggin slow here........:rofl
Cap...
This was back in AW was a dos game only on GEnie.
-
I got a great solution for ranking ... GET RID OF IT !!!!!!!!
-
score means very little in terms of a game, imho. I wouldn't mind watching rank go away. At the same time, I don't really care if they change it. Obviously it would only affect those who care about rank, and honestly, I think it is nearly impossible for some of them to fly even more timidly. Being timid, flying with a horde, seems to be the norm in the MA, has been for a long time.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I got a great solution for ranking ... GET RID OF IT !!!!!!!!
No can do!!! The dweebs need some way to compare peepee length. :D
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I got a great solution for ranking ... GET RID OF IT !!!!!!!!
I enjoy seeing how my stats compare to others and my own to see if I can improve them. For me personally, I'd like to work on my K/T without fixing it by simply augering as soon as I run out of ammo. Also, I don't vulch runways.(2 reasons: it's boring, and I suck at it). The stats give me something to strive for.
Certainly a person's rank has nothing to do with said person's ability. Perhaps this can pop up as a tip every time one logs in.
The things I've seen people do and say because of rank could make a short film.(comedy)
I'll never again fly in a squad that considers rank anything different than the odor emanating from my kids' diapers.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Please explain what is different about what you suggest and what I am telling you has been previously done. The only difference is that in AW if you lost, points were deducted from your score based on your relative ranks. Sorry, not my fault if you can't see the similarities.
BTW, did you not want criticism of your idea?
Absolutely, my apologies for getting salamanderly.
Let's start over, shall we? If you've got the time and/or desire, please let's analyze the proposals one at a time instead of a 'been done, didn't work' blanket statement.
I would say that your caveat of the 'lost points' is a very big difference, and in this aspect would certainly create a timidity or overly careful mindset with players that cared... After all, there is something to lose besides a positive accumulation of points. Take that out of the equation, and I propose that we're talking about something totally different.
The system I was thinking about used comparative rank and the other conditionals below as a modifier, not a be-all, end-all to absolute scores. This modifier could be as inconsequential as 10% or as heavy-handed as 50%... it would have to shake out what worked best. The scoring would be triggered by a confirmed kill.
Then I threw in an eny modifier to account for differing comparative plane strengths and weaknesses. This is already done with perk points, and while eny is a rather coarse judgment of any particular plane in comparison to another, IMO it's better than nothing.
As an added bonus, I proposed a simple calculation at the time of the kill to find number of enemy planes within icon range (or another static range like 1 to 3K) versus number of friendly planes within the same range. The purpose of this would be to detect hording or ganging and adjust the kill modifier accordingly, thereby decreasing the reward for horde-like behavior, and also reward bravery (or, if you like, suicidal desperation). Note that this doesn't necessarily exclude cooperative gameplay at all, in large fights that are fair in numbers (i.e. say 6 nme vs 5 friendly within range at time of kill) it would have little to no effect on the score. Just in the 5v1's would it really come into play.
The whole point of this purely mental exercise is to improve the relevance of scoring as pertains to actual skillsets that may be considered desirable and worthy of note (such as SA, ACM etc.) instead of promoting 'gamey play' and 'scorepotato tactics'. I noticed you said that this would promote timid gameplay, but I couldn't see really what you were specifically referring to or how exactly it would. Everyone knows the scoring system as it stands is kind of a joke, I'm just throwing out ideas on how to make it stand for something more meaningful. No matter what, some people will always dislike scoring, but at least it could have a little relevance other than who plays the most, who's vulching shades, and who's managed to cherrypick their way to the top.
-
I'll never understand why most of you want to over complicate the concept of scoring killing fighters other than by the total number you survived to land each tour. Thats what we all cheer to when the auto message is generated "smallego landed 2000 kills in a freudian slip."
Is it unfair to the guys who don't have time to fly much???----YES. But on the other hand we seem to have 2 brothers who land enough kills per month to account for a full squad all by themselves while getting themselves ranked numero uno on the AH front page regularly.
Can it be gamed???---- YES. But this is a computer based game. Log files can be reviewed to see if a shades account or a pattern of shades accounts are being vulched. Or if there is a questionable pattern of collusion.
At the end of the month, if player zyx lands 1000 kills and the next highest number is player cba who landed 999, player zyx is that months fighter god ace(for what it matters to anyone). If you want to prove anything else, I seem to remember the DA is where the best of the best duelists hang out.
The MA is the silliest place to try and prove you are an olympic god of a cartoon game. Most players know from experience who the real ones are. In WW2 the aces had decals painted on their plane for every successfuly landed kill. There was no HiTech Creations keeping tabs with complicated scoring algorithims. If you had confirmation and got home alive, you got credit for a kill however you killed it.
Why not simplify the fighter air to air scoring? You kill it and land it, you get "ONE" more added to the competition for the month end silliest person in a cartoon fantasy title that seems so coveted in this game.
If a person with a limited amount of time really wants to do anything in their life, they always seem to make the necessary adjustments including the additional time to land the most kills per month in a game if thats what they really decide they want to do..
For a game thats supposed to be fun and reasonably easy for the average gamer to pick up, I've always been impressed by how arcane and immensely complicated the scoreing system is. I have to hand it to HiTech for being srewd enough to build a rubics cube into the game to keep the @nally retenative types paying their $14.95 just to pit thier wits against such a complicated monkey jug trap............... :D
-
Originally posted by bustr
In WW2 score was kept by the number of confirmed kills along with you liveing. So for fighters make it the number of kills that you actually return to base and land alive each month. If you die with 20 kills, those done't go towards your end of the month score. Score whoring&timid flying will have a new meaning.
Man, you aren't kidding. It would be cherry picker score potato heaven. I was kind of hoping to make the game MORE enjoyable for those who aren't that kind of player, not less. :)
But still give the overview of max kills when someone goes to the pilot score page. Just make the only kills that count are the ones you lived to bring home alive. It might make it easier to tell who vulches a shades account or who dosent have a life outside of Aces High.
Not sure how that would work, care to elaborate?