Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: funked on May 01, 2000, 01:15:00 PM
-
If a few planes are drastically better from the rest of the planes, how can you keep everybody from flying them?
Adaptive Score Multiplier
"Raw Score" is calculated via the current method.
At the start of each tour, the Raw Score per sortie for each plane type is logged. This average Raw Score is continuously updated during the tour.
After each sortie, a pilot is awarded an amount of points equal to his Raw Score divided by the average Raw Score per sortie.
If has an average sortie, he gets 1.0 points. If he has a below-average sortie, he gets less than 1.0 points. An above-average sortie is greater than 1.0 points.
To put this in concrete terms, let's say we have the Fiesler Storch and the Su-27. The Fiesler Storch gets 0.1 kills per sortie on average, and the Su-27 gets 10 kills per sortie on average.
So if I launch in a Storch and get a kill, it's worth 1 / 0.1 = 10 points.
If I launch in a Su-27 and get a kill, it's worth 1 / 10 = 0.1 points.
So an incentive is created to fly lousy planes instead of uber-rides. One's score will be based on how well one does relative to other people flying the same plane, instead of how one does relative to people flying the best plane in the set.
-
This would have an interesting effect.
the better pilots who flew the spit Ix would not only have a better plane, but they would be double awarded for each victory. As the new pilots drove the avagage down the better pilots would get extra points even though they flew a better plane. The few people that fly the more difficult planes more effecitvly would be penalised because of the stiff compitition.
Is this the effect you are after?
How about just rating the planes by quality and giving points based on the AC they shoot down..IE a FW killing a supperior spit IX would get 1.3 points while the spit if victorios would only get .7 points.
In WW2 this would be hard to do but here we are dealing with absolute and recorded flight models and firepower ratings....so it would be easy to do. Then you are only competing against yourself and the enemy not every one who ever flew your ride..
-
Pongo,
First off, I fly just about all the planes, and I could give a rat's bellybutton about scores. So this isn't about rewarding myself. You didn't accuse me of that, but I want to make it clear.
However I get the impression that a lot of people DO care about points and it is that group whose minds I wish to control. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Now to address your dire predictions for my proposed scoring system.
Your predictions seem to be based on two assumptions (correct me if I'm wrong):
1. "The worst pilots fly the best planes / The best pilots fly the worst planes."
(You say a disproportionate percentage of new pilots fly the Spit. Mk. IX)
AND
2. "The scoring results of an aircraft are unrelated to the quality of the aircraft."
(You say the Fw 190A-8, which is one of the more dominant scoring planes, is inferior)
I'm not sure either of these assumptions is true. And as a result I don't think that your predictions will come true.
I'll be specific:
1. Your first assumption is an assumption about pilot psychology. In my experience the best pilots fly everything. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
However since the sim is growing so quickly, there is a high percentage of relative newbies in the arena at a given time. With a high enough quantity of newbies in a single type, you are correct that the newbie-type could get an artificially low average raw score.
2. Your second assumption is valid only if the planes are very close in capability, as in the current arena. With a couple of exceptions, the aircraft in the game are all at 1944 or 1945 specs, and the matchups are pretty dang close. In the long term I expect we will get more early-war aircraft, and there will be some large disparities in capability.
Imagine a Ki-43 vs. an F8F Bearcat. There is absolutely no way that any pilot can consistently do better in a Ki-43 than in an F8F. In such an extreme case, the combat results will be directly related to the quality of the aircraft, even with a wide variation in pilot skill.
So if the planeset is big enough (think Warbirds), your second assumption becomes less and less valid.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]
-
Hmmmm upon further review, why not go at the problem directly?
My goal is to prevent one plane from becoming too popular.
So just tie the score multiplier to popularity. Reward people for flying a less popular plane.
The more people fly a plane, the lower its score multiplier becomes.
Count the number of sorties per day of each aircraft type, and use that as the measure of popularity.
So if Plane X is twice as popular as Plane Y, Plane Y pilots get double the points per kill as Plane X pilots.
Ya know I think Warbirds had this at one point.
The HTC guys probably had this same discussion long ago LOL!
-
Would love to see a score multiplier applied to your sortie score based on the usage of an aircraft (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
I would be comfortable with trying
a score multiplier based on "Popularity" i.e. amount flown.
As I recall from WB, planes like Spit IX had a factor of 1.0, whereas the Bf109 Franz for instance had something like a 7.0 if I remember correctly. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I think it could be good for AH.
------------------
(http://www.ropescourse.org/cgunthr.jpg)
332nd Flying Mongrels
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 05-01-2000).]
-
Another thing I didn't mention.
Another way to limit uberplane usage is a "rolling plane set" like Warbirds has. Each day of a tour of duty simulates a specific month (or quarter) of the war. New planes become available on tour days that correspond to the period of the war when they reached combat status.
One problem with this system is that you have to have a big plane set to make it work.
And certain very popular planes do not appear until late in the set. I know certain squadrons that basically boycott Warbirds for two weeks before their plane appears.
So I like score multipliers. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Is there an uber plane here?
I had thought it was pretty well balanced, with LW planes actually being able to give allied Spit 9's and 51's a real go of it.
I'm referring to it in comparison to WB, where I always found the Spit 9 to be an awesome and popular ride, although there's a vocal faction in WB's who claim it's actually inferior to WB's 190's as an example. In AH, the Spit 9 seems to have the strengths it should, yet not be what I've always thought of as an "uber" ride here.
Regards,
Badger
-
funked is referring to future uber planes, such as the Spit XIV or Me 262.
-
THE UBER MYTH
Ok so a F4U taking off from a capped field is what an UBER? (lol), but and F4U at 15k is an Uber AC.
All AC are created equal they all have different envelopes so one must fly them accordingly.
BTW UBER must stand for "UNABLE to BALANCE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS”
There are no Uber AC, just Uber pilots
[This message has been edited by Torque (edited 05-02-2000).]
-
Badger, I think it is amazingly well-balanced here.
I started this thread because the subject of possible future uber-planes came up on another thread, and I thought this topic merited it's own thread.
-
Yeah right Torque. You get in a Fairey Fulmar, I'll get in a Spitfire Mk. V. We'll see how long you play that tune. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Well torque has one thing right..I have an over developed capability to whine....
I like your second idea better. I dont aggree with your assumptions any more than I aggree with Torques self serving assessment of the capabilities of the aircraft he refuses to fly vs the one he insists on flying.
I am not being silly here. What I said is true. It is alot eisier to be effective in the spit then the 190a8...But you are right pilots vote with there feet and maybe just most of the people share that communal misconseption.
Any way I like your second idea better, and others apperantly do as well, if it was shaken loose by my disagreement with post one.. well thats ok with me..
>
-
Funked you hit the nail on the head.
Now if we engaged in a High speed vertical fight guess i'd be Uberboy, but if it was a tight turn fight you'd be Uberboy......see my point.
No Uber AC just people.
-
I deleted that last sentence.No attack on you Funked just my thoughts on how ppl think one AC better than another
[This message has been edited by Torque (edited 05-01-2000).]
-
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
For the record. IMO the F4U-1C is not UBER, but no one will contest that it does very well, no matter the pilot. I last time I checked it still leads A2A and pretty much still leads A2G. Both by a noticable margin.
----------------------------------------
Funked;
I like your idea and have thought of suggesting it in the past. But like Torque describes, "How do you define the criteria?". I agree, the only way this can be done is for it to be totally dynamic within the game.
A simple algorithym that calculates each planes rating dynamically. If the plane is doing well with in the game, it gets a lower rating and vice versa. So currently the F4U-1C would have the lowest rating and say the Typhoon would have the highest. (Kind of reminds me of an on-line RPG set in the local of Brittannia)
Is this fair to players who like to fly the F4U-1C? Not really... To those that fly the Typhoon? Not really... However; it would have the effect of evening out scores and I assume this is what you would like to see.
More importantly, IMO it will become a hotly contested and never ending debate. It would be very similiar to what exists now, but that debate could really turn ugly! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
-
Well my 2 cents,
As new planes come into beeing some will be labeled uber planes and some won't. In WB the SPit XIV and F4U-4 and Dora are Flown like mad in the later time set because the are all viewed as the UBER and in some ways they are, powerful motors, heavy firepower,etc..
I think it would great to have planes appear in the arean that were produced and in active units in WWII. Ex. F8F, F7F, TA152, etc.. I fell that all planes that appeared in WWII should be considered, even if it did not see action. Of course some everybody would fly them as soon as it came out but then the pilots would slowly migrate back to there old faithful. The good pilots would fly everything and the pilots that are just out to make everybody think that they are actually good pilots fly the Planes labeled as the Ubers.
THE POINT, its the pilot not the plane that makes it. 2 cases
I fly both AH and WB because I am a WWII aviation looney. About a year ago when the rolling plane set begain, There was a situation the proved it was the pilot. The Pilots call sign was BBGUN and he was flying around in a VAL (jap dive bomber) with Doras and SPit 14s flyring around and the dude took out 8 planes before he ditched(not shot down)
Case 2,
In WB the KI43 is "supposedly outclassed" by later year planes. In the late years I fly the KI-43.. I get no bigger joy then waxing a Dora, or a Spitxiv, or a F4U4 in my ancient Ki-43. I get my best kill ration with this plane 2 to 1 in early years.. 4/5 to 1 in later years. My longest streak is 28 kills in a Ki43. I am not the hottest pilot but I can hold my own. Ans as for a KI43 agaianst a Bearcat, bring it on. I get u low and slow.. your toast!
ANd as for this big FEAR of UBER PLANES.. well keep that mentatlity up and you will get your A#%# kicked. Look at it as a challange.. you will WIN.
SO, I say BRING on whatever! Uber..no uber, either way I will fly them all
GORF
-
I like the popularity one Funked, seems really simple too! Basing score on what everyone else has done with the plane is silly, IMO. Likewise, trying to come up with criteria for how easy it is to kill with a given plane is very difficult. Will it help? Dunno...I guess it would show how many people really care about score! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
The a/c with the most alt and or friends is the uber a/c. None of them scare me unless the have alt and freinds. But I do think the F4U-1C still needs to go.
ts
-
Uber, Shmuber.... let's not mince words.. usually this reference is in regards to the 1-C, and I agree with both sides. Yes, Torque, it takes a very skilled pilot to fly the hawg effectively, considering its many shortcomings. My only question, which I have asked several times with only one possibly adequate answer, is this..... are the guns on the C hawg modeled accurately to its real life counter part? Were the 20mm cannons on the hawg that vastly superior to the same number of cannons of a different type that was on a LW or Japanese plane? If so, what is the difference? Lacking a concrete explanation of how the real life versions of this armament configuration could be so vastly superior, the rational conclusion is that the guns are over modeled. Not the plane... just the guns. The only rational attempt at an explanation that didn't involve the huffing and puffing of chests and the veiled insinuations back and forth came from indian, who claimed that the hawg's cannons had a higher rate of fire than comparable weapons in axis A/C. Can anyone publish actual stats to verify this? There seems to be no shortage of stats (stats, shmats) on all sorts of useless topics, but no one as yet has shown any documented reason the hawgs cannons should be more lethal than the same number of cannons on any other plane. Come on everyone, let's quit with the uber plane, lousy pilots vs. God's gift to aviation pissing contest and deal in facts... Oh, and btw Torque... drive a tank more often.. it was quite satisfying knowing my shells had the same oomph as your shells the other night, especially when after the dust cleared I was still alive... twice.. and you weren't. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
(http://www.tcsn.net/aramis/skorpjg2.gif)
Skorpyon
I/JG2 ~Richthofen~
"Feel the Sting......"
[This message has been edited by Skorpyon (edited 05-02-2000).]
-
Yeah forget the multiplier based on score.
The multiplier based on popularity is better.
Even though I think Pongo's prediction's WON'T happen they sure COULD happen and that would screw up the idea.
Anyways, do the multiplier based on popularity and then we don't have to deal with the "Is it the pilot or the plane?" argument.
-
With regards to "it's the pilot, not the plane", it is certainly a valid point.
However, when comparing planes, one should assume that the pilots are as skilled in their respective planes, and one should take them to a neutral alt - that is, the alt where both perform as equally as possible. In the case of aircraft where an alt advantage is almost a prerequisite for attack, it should be granted one (albeit as small as possible.
Aircraft with similar characteristics, such as the 51 and F4U, could start off with co alt.
No matter what you say, I bet I can shoot down Chuck Yeager when he flies a WWI aircraft, while I mooch around in my Frogfoot. He is clearly the superior fighter, but the skill multiplier factor must be extremely high to to compensate.
Therefore, I suggest a simple equation that can probably be improved by many of you.
Total Lethality = aircraft multiplier * skill multiplier
In the Yeager vs Santa case, my TL would be say 100*1, a total of 100. Yeager's would be say 1*50, making him 50 times as good as me, which I quite frankly do not think he is. Also, the 100 number for the Frogfoot is probably way low.
In this case, I'd kill him twice for every time he kills me.
So, the original statement is true, but only within certain limits.
Comments, anyone?
------------------
--
StSanta
II/JG2
-
I really don't think a score multiplier will have much effect on which planes get used the most. Most guys are going to fly whatever they like, for a lot of reasons other than score -- historic interest, most effective killer, looks cool, squad affiliation, need for variety, etc, etc.
As Wells pointed out, a score multiplier WILL show who cares most about score.
Pyro hinted that they have some plan for making early war planes competitive. I'm very interested to hear the details.
popeye
-
Here is a different approach to balancing the plane set:
All planes are ranked 1 of 3 ways:
+ plane (has a good kill ratio)
- plane (does poorly)
neutral plane (average)
All pilots must spend as much time in "- planes" as they do in "+ planes". Want to fly the F4U-1C? You can take off as long as you have at least 1 second more flight time in a lame duck (F4U-1D, 109F-4, Buffalo, etc.)
If you had 1 second more in a + than in a -, and then you were to then fly a 10 minute F4U1-C sortie, you would then need to spend 10 minutes or more in a - plane before you could go uber (+) again (or even fly a neutral plane).
If you always fly planes that are ranked as average, the system will not effect you.
This would force everyone to not spend all of thier time in uberplanes, regardless of whether or not they gave a darn about scores.
It would also cut the number of uberplanes in the sky by at least 1/2.
Most importantly, new guys would stand a better chance against more experienced pilots.
For those who say that there is no such thing as an uberplane; Why do you fly the plane that is refered to as uber? If they are all the same, why don't you try something else? I don't mean this as a bash. I am sure that most guys who fly the F4U-1C could kick my but 1 V 1, F4U-1C vs. F4U-1C. I would just like to fly without billions of 20mm shells and hundreds of 450 mph blue streaks wizzing everywhere!
eskimo