Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Vinkman on November 19, 2012, 03:22:56 PM
-
Background:
Currently the scoring system has no weighting for the plane (or vehicle) you fly. So killing 100 planes in a Tempest is scored exactly the same as killing 100 planes in a P-39 or a hurricane Mark I. By ignoring the plane type in the scoring system, you create an incentive to fly Tempests, La7s, Pony, F4U-4, F4U-C if you play for rank. I would think flying around in a P-40 and shooting down lots of Ponies, and La7s should yield you a higher rank than flying around in a pony killing lots of P-40s. That seems logical and intuitive to me. Currently they are both ranked the same.
I think Hit% is practically a random number generator when it comes to ranking. Very small changes create huge changes in rank. 7.39% might be ranked 300th while 7.51% moves you up to 200th. Plus, the metric is essentially redundant, as kills per hour and kills per sortie are strongly affected by your hit%. If most of your bullets miss, then you can't kill many planes per ammo load, this forces you to land repeatedly to either re-arm or to get a new plane causing lower kills per hour/sortie. I also feel it is biased to planes with less dispersed guns. I think P-38s and K4s have an inherent advantage over a P-47 or similar plane with the guns spread out along the wings. There is only a single convergence point for a Jug, so any plane inside that distance, or outside that distance, by design, is missed by a percentage of the jugs's bullets. This also is affected by the plane's relative orientation. If a Jug is dead 6 o'clock but rotated 90 degrees to a bandit who is not at the convergence point, it's guaranteed, that 50% -75% of the bullets will miss the bandit. A P-38 for example is not affected by the orientation and can still land 100% of it's fired rounds, as can a bf-109. With only a few decimal points making a difference on hit%, the plane you fly may be a bigger discriminator than how good a shot you are.
Proposal:
Replace Hit% with Perks Earned in the Rank system.
Rationale: Since Perk points are earned on damage and kills that are ratio-ed by the plane (GV) ENY, they are naturally normalized to plane matchups.
NOTE: While I respect those that loath the scoring system, please refrain from commenting about how score is irrelevant. If you don't play for rank, or score, then this thread is not for you. :salute
-
I would like my rank modified to #1 so I can write the word 'poo' with CV course plots :old:
Thank you
-
I agree with the background and the basic wish - plane choice should be reflected in score/ranking.
But I disagree on the hit% part and don't want to remove that. My modification for the proposal is less radical and very simple: Just factor the plane ENY into score points gained. ENY 40 plane gives you 100%, ENY 5 only 12.5% of the max score points gained.
:salute
-
I agree with the background and the basic wish - plane choice should be reflected in score/ranking.
But I disagree on the hit% part and don't want to remove that. My modification for the proposal is less radical and very simple: Just factor the plane ENY into score points gained. ENY 40 plane gives you 100%, ENY 5 only 12.5% of the max score points gained.
:salute
I had thought about that too, but I think that would require a new calculation, where as Perks is already calculated. simply adding it to the list would achieve the same thing, I believe, with less work. I also like the idea of having the absolute score based on real damage shown. If you divide by ENY then it would look like the tempest pilot killed less stuff which is not really true. But I could live with it the way you suggest as well.
Why do you like hit%? I've seen pilot (A) with a lower rank in all catagories by a fair margin than Pilot (B) except for a few point difference in hit% and pilot (B) ends up with a higher rank. Why does hitting a bandit with 8% of your bullets instead of 7% make you a better pilot than someone who killed more planes, had a higher kill ratio, and scored more points? What's you thoughts on this Lusche? :salute
-
I recall one month when I checked my score stats and was shocked to find myself ranked #17 in accuracy. I am a horrible shot in general, but that month I had simply been encountering a lot of bombers and consequently looked like one of the best shots in the game to the scoring system. Also, as you noted, things like the Mosquito don't shotgun their ammo all over the sky.
-
Why do you like hit%? I've seen pilot (A) with a lower rank in all catagories by a fair margin than Pilot (B) except for a few point difference in hit% and pilot (B) ends up with a higher rank. Why does hitting a bandit with 8% of your bullets instead of 7% make you a better pilot than someone who killed more planes, had a higher kill ratio, and scored more points? What's you thoughts on this Lusche? :salute
More points or a better K/D don't make you a 'better' pilot either ;)
And the statistical distribution and effect on rank is very similar all across the board. It's the same with K/D, at relatively low k/d's a minor increase can result in a big increase in sub-rank, while at high K/D's the net gain is less and less: Raising your k/d from 1 to 2 will boost your sub rank a lot, going from k/D 10 to 20 has almost no effect. With hit % it's the very same way.
-
Sorry to chime in on an excellent conversation, but you should stop beating around the bush if you're going to go this deep into figuring out a new formula. A rewrite is a rewrite, through and through, don't speculate on there being any limiations you don't impose intentionaly (it's those unintentional ones that we're tryign to figure out and speculate on).
My point IE: The tempest being over-negatively impacted by divided ENY to total damage points inflicted - why not offset it with a variable in the equation that takes into the equation the number and type of objects destroyed, their variety/type, etc. Bombers take more damage than fighters. A town building takes less damage than an ord bunker, which takes less damamge than a FH, which takes less than a CV, etc.. Shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that a Tempest or F4U-1C is dropping P51Ds with an average of a few rounds or AAAs with only a couple each.
-
More points or a better K/D don't make you a 'better' pilot either ;)
And the statistical distribution and effect on rank is very similar all across the board. It's the same with K/D, at relatively low k/d's a minor increase can result in a big increase in sub-rank, while at high K/D's the net gain is less and less: Raising your k/d from 1 to 2 will boost your sub rank a lot, going from k/D 10 to 20 has almost no effect. With hit % it's the very same way.
yes but that's in statistical terms only. I think the difference is "noise", not anything tangible. If you are landing 8% or 7% of your bullets, it is effectively the same when it comes to killing planes. 20% vs 50% would be a big deal, but 7% vs 8%? The computer can be calculate it, but it's equal weight to the other factors as a discriminator is very very over inflated. It seems to me anyway. :salute
-
yes but that's in statistical terms only. I think the difference is "noise", not anything tangible. If you are landing 8% or 7% of your bullets, it is effectively the same when it comes to killing planes. 20% vs 50% would be a big deal, but 7% vs 8%?
Buit the very same applies (more or less) to all other categories. You could say the very sam in K/D, where 0.5 to 0.8 gives you a big jump in sub rank as well - in last tour that would have changed your sub-rank by about 600! For a big number of players that would come down to just a few kills more or less.
-
The original reason for ENY was to balance sides. Would this affect the out come of the wish? I am all for a difficulty factor playing into rank as I almost always fly higher ENY planes.
-
You could just add perks earned / lost as another sub rank in each category.
It would add a bias whilst not masking or corrupting the other data.
e.g 6 x 2 sortie b29 milk run missions and 3 captures via c47 will usually land a player in the top 5 bomber slots even if he lost a B29........... however add the perks earned sub rank and that lost b29 really starts to hurt...........
I suppose we then start to discuss whether it should be perks earned/lost total or average/mission. etc etc etc
-
Buit the very same applies (more or less) to all other categories. You could say the very sam in K/D, where 0.5 to 0.8 gives you a big jump in sub rank as well - in last tour that would have changed your sub-rank by about 600! For a big number of players that would come down to just a few kills more or less.
What I'm saying is 1% in the hit% is a random act of god, out of control or effort of the pilot. But 1% is, relatively speaking, a 10% in category score. Compare that to the effort to change your k/D by 10%, or shooting down 10% more planes, and they are not equal efforts.
-
What I'm saying is 1% in the hit% is a random act of god, out of control or effort of the pilot. But 1% is, relatively speaking, a 10% in category score. Compare that to the effort to change your k/D by 10%, or shooting down 10% more planes, and they are not equal efforts.
need lusche's hit % stats, but i'm pretty sure once you're over 3% youre in the top half???
it is not random. it is discipline.
-
Compare that to the effort to change your k/D by 10%, or shooting down 10% more planes, and they are not equal efforts.
Getting 10% higher K/D can get you a higher sub-rank boost than getting 10% higher hit %. It also seems to me that you are directly comparing number sizes that are not comparable. Going from hit% 7 to 8 is not just "tiny", it's an increase by 14%. It would be the same as if your K/D was going from 7 to 8.
Addendum:
I just checked the actual tour 153 K/D and hit% of all players. In fact, getting much smaller relative improvements in K/D than in hit% did boost you way more.
-
Just an observation about GV score,, if I never fire a wirble, Osti, or a machine gun, my hit percentages are a good bit higher, yet that would contradict what I feel is good game play,, IE a player refuses to up a wirble to help another player for fear of his score being reduced by hit percentages,, I don't know what the answer is tho, I'm sure not recalling anyone saying Richard Bong wasn't one of the best aces because he spent to much ammo,, kills should count as a bigger factor than accuracy. IMO,, and I agree that ENY could be used to help with this,,
a P-40 pilot will have a lower accuracy rating and a good bit harder time getting a two or three to one kill ratio than a typhoon pilot, and a jug pilot has no chance at all,LOL. 120 rounds per second is a lot of lead every time you pull the trigger
-
Just an observation about GV score,, if I never fire a wirble, Osti, or a machine gun, my hit percentages are a good bit higher, yet that would contradict what I feel is good game play,, IE a player refuses to up a wirble to help another player for fear of his score being reduced by hit percentages,, I don't know what the answer is tho, I'm sure not recalling anyone saying Richard Bong wasn't one of the best aces because he spent to much ammo,, kills should count as a bigger factor than accuracy
IF you look at the details, you will find similar issues in almost any sub category. Dropping in to help a severly outnumbered teammate on the deck is not good foryour k/d. Nothing hurts k/h more thaqn escorting your big friends to the enemy strats, on ther other side nothing helps your k/h more than vulching fields. Score points are being depending on the amount of time you are spending and so on.
Finally, if you give K/D more weight over the other categories, the result may be more 'cautious' flying...
-
Personally, I consider Hit% to be one of the most "valid" indicators of individual fighter skill, and as such I would be opposed to seeing it removed.
I'd rather remove the other facets (that can more easily be skewed, or effected with help from your friends) such as K/D, K/T, and K/S.
If I was going to look at someone's stats and hope to see indicators of that pilot's skill, long-term Hit% averages is where I'd be looking...
-
Personally, I consider Hit% to be one of the most "valid" indicators of individual fighter skill, and as such I would be opposed to seeing it removed.
I'd rather remove the other facets (that can more easily be skewed, or effected with help from your friends) such as K/D, K/T, and K/S.
If I was going to look at someone's stats and hope to see indicators of that pilot's skill, long-term Hit% averages is where I'd be looking...
except a Niki with four cannons against a jug with 8 fifties,, or any other plane v plane wouldn't be possible in a fair way, considering cannon v machine guns but I would argue it would take less ammo and less skill to get kills with a cannon bird, 303 birds are going to expend a good bit more ammo yet,, and take a very sharp pilot in the LW arena to hold a high K/D ratio
Again,,, just my opinion!
-
it is not random. it is discipline.
actually, it's just hunting bombers to pad the hit % ... for the top ranked players at least
-
actually, it's just hunting bombers to pad the hit % ... for the top ranked players at least
On the other hand, bomber hunting 'hurts' k/h ;)
-
except a Niki with four cannons against a jug with 8 fifties,, or any other plane v plane wouldn't be possible in a fair way, considering cannon v machine guns but I would argue it would take less ammo and less skill to get kills with a cannon bird, 303 birds are going to expend a good bit more ammo yet,, and take a very sharp pilot in the LW arena to hold a high K/D ratio
Again,,, just my opinion!
Which is the beauty of it being hit PERCENT.
It doesn't matter what type of ammo, what type of gun, or even whether you get kills or not. Cannon vs MG matters not. How much ammo it takes to get a kill matters not. Hit% is simply hitting or missing what you're firing at.
It simply measures the ability of the individual pilot to hit what he/she is shooting at...
Sure, it can be skewed short-term by limiting yourself to shooting bombers, etc... But there really aren't that many easy ways to artificially improve it (to make your skill appear greater). As such, it's the best (potential) indicator of individual skill (IMO).
On the other hand, the metrics of K/D, and K/S can easily be skewed (with help from your friends, a squad, or a horde) to artificially improve them (to make your skill appear greater). As such, these are not good indicators of individual skill (IMO).
K/T can even be improved by simply not RTBing... Sure, it's detrimental to K/D, but doesn't do much if anything to K/S (heck might even help that), and the hit against K/D doesn't matter much beyond a certain point anyway.
When it comes to attempting to judge an individual's potential skill by looking at metrics, I don't see that it's valid to look at the metrics that don't rely as heavily on individual skill.
Flying with a wingman will help your K/D, and help your K/S. It won't help your Hit%.
Your wingman can help you stay alive, but he/she cannot help you hit what you're shooting at...
Hit% is also effected to a great extent by how skillful you are in setting up shots, judging speed, angle, lead, timing, etc... And with wing-mounted guns, and the requirement that some guns demand more shots on target imposes additional challenge in maintaining a good shot solution over a longer time, or being able to repeatedly set up good shots, etc...
These are all important skills for a fighter pilot to have, and skills that show up in Hit%, while not showing up as directly in K/D and K/S.
-
If I fly a yak-9T and only fire the 37mil chasing bombers and get one hit kills, then bail to save my K/T ratio is that a mark of a better pilot or just one who understands how to game ? I wouldn't think so, I love to fly the jugs so I never have a good bullet ratio but I just resign to not have a good fighter score and instead have fun
Anyway. Have fun and fly for whatever reason you want, every now and then, I get my name in lights as well but there are not many, if any,, who don't partially fly for score and have a ranking of less than 100,, there is to much "house keeping" to maintain a score as low as 100 or less, some might argue 250, not that there is anything Erin with that!
-
Sure, it can be skewed short-term by limiting yourself to shooting bombers, etc... But there really aren't that many easy ways to artificially improve it (to make your skill appear greater).
Fly exclusively a cannon plane like a N1K in furballs and day to day operations.
Every once in a while, take P-47 or similar into the sky and kill some bombers.
The long time effect on hit% will be considerable :noid
-
If I fly a yak-9T and only fire the 37mil chasing bombers and get one hit kills, then bail to save my K/T ratio is that a mark of a better pilot or just one who understands how to game ? I wouldn't think so, I love to fly the jugs so I never have a good bullet ratio but I just resign to not have a good fighter score and instead have fun
Anyway. Have fun and fly for whatever reason you want, every now and then, I get my name in lights as well but there are not many, if any,, who don't partially fly for score and have a ranking of less than 100,, there is to much "house keeping" to maintain a score as low as 100 or less, some might argue 250, not that there is anything Erin with that!
if you can get #1 fighter rank by flying the yak T and killing bombers, then you deserve it :)
personally i think perks earned per sortie should be another component in each category..
-
Quick not really relevant Question here:
What exactly is it that you can do (apart from running CVs ashore) being Rank#1, that you cannot do as Rank #236782030471910. So whats it matter?
Oh and there isn't a single criteria (hit% included that you cant skew with the help of friends). I could empty entire MG ammo rounds into my friends straight and level bomber formations.
IMHO, the 'try and bring back the damn thing in one piece' mentality should be rewarded more. Too many lancstukas and kamikaze drivers here. :lol
-
Fly exclusively a cannon plane like a N1K in furballs and day to day operations.
Every once in a while, take P-47 or similar into the sky and kill some bombers.
The long time effect on hit% will be considerable :noid
Yup, like I said there are ways to inflate it; bombers being one. In the end, it's the pilot's gunnery that matters. Most pilots in AH have trouble hitting bombers too. And, if the pilot is regularly shooting bombers this is discernible by looking at his stats. No secrets... Over the course of the month though, I don't see many 50% or higher Hit% scores, so most people must not fluff their score too much this way?
The N1K example won't do it easily though, unless you use it exclusively. And, if you flew it exclusively it wouldn't be an "artificial" inflation. It would be an accurate representation of the pilot (not his wingman) being able to hit what he shoots at.
The cannon option works against you as much as it works for you... It kills quicker, so requires fewer shots. If you also fly anything with MG's, those relatively few cannon rounds won't make much difference at all in your overall Hit%.
In order to have an effect on hit percentage you'd want to maximize the sheer number of hits vs misses. As mentioned, the bomber is a viable method, since it's a big, slow target. Conversely, strafing anything other than airplanes will count as a miss (whether you hit it or not) which serves to drag your percentage down.
I've noticed as well that nobody seems to take issue with the idea that K/D and K/S can be easily effected (i.e. artificially inflated) by flying with a squad or wingman? So aren't a true measure of an individuals skill? Maybe we could figure out a way to only track those metrics on 1v1 engagements? These metrics are too easy to "fluff" by diving in and picking an opponent off your buddies 12 o'clock, and/or by having your buddy swing in and pick your opponent off of your six. Hardly a metric of "skill"...
And those "with help" metrics aren't discernible in the stats are they? Lots of room for secrets there...
-
Question: Who cares?
-
Getting 10% higher K/D can get you a higher sub-rank boost than getting 10% higher hit %. It also seems to me that you are directly comparing number sizes that are not comparable. Going from hit% 7 to 8 is not just "tiny", it's an increase by 14%. It would be the same as if your K/D was going from 7 to 8.
Addendum:
I just checked the actual tour 153 K/D and hit% of all players. In fact, getting much smaller relative improvements in K/D than in hit% did boost you way more.
Lusche, to understand my point you need to examine rank without Hit%. Use your correlation formula for tour 153 and calculate what the top 50 fighter ranks would have been without hit% as a factor. Then calculate it without K/D. The ranks will be very different. Then examine which list you think is reflecting the most effective pilots. Then my point will make itself clear. Or be discounted. ;)
-
Which is the beauty of it being hit PERCENT.
It doesn't matter what type of ammo, what type of gun, or even whether you get kills or not. Cannon vs MG matters not. How much ammo it takes to get a kill matters not. Hit% is simply hitting or missing what you're firing at.
It simply measures the ability of the individual pilot to hit what he/she is shooting at...
Sure, it can be skewed short-term by limiting yourself to shooting bombers, etc... But there really aren't that many easy ways to artificially improve it (to make your skill appear greater). As such, it's the best (potential) indicator of individual skill (IMO).
On the other hand, the metrics of K/D, and K/S can easily be skewed (with help from your friends, a squad, or a horde) to artificially improve them (to make your skill appear greater). As such, these are not good indicators of individual skill (IMO).
K/T can even be improved by simply not RTBing... Sure, it's detrimental to K/D, but doesn't do much if anything to K/S (heck might even help that), and the hit against K/D doesn't matter much beyond a certain point anyway.
When it comes to attempting to judge an individual's potential skill by looking at metrics, I don't see that it's valid to look at the metrics that don't rely as heavily on individual skill.
Flying with a wingman will help your K/D, and help your K/S. It won't help your Hit%.
Your wingman can help you stay alive, but he/she cannot help you hit what you're shooting at...
Hit% is also effected to a great extent by how skillful you are in setting up shots, judging speed, angle, lead, timing, etc... And with wing-mounted guns, and the requirement that some guns demand more shots on target imposes additional challenge in maintaining a good shot solution over a longer time, or being able to repeatedly set up good shots, etc...
These are all important skills for a fighter pilot to have, and skills that show up in Hit%, while not showing up as directly in K/D and K/S.
All true mntman, but I'm saying Rank is NOT all about pilot skill. I'm saying it's about being best at what the game is about...killing more enemy planes than kill you (talking fighter rank here). If I was your general, I wouldn't be looking to pin medals on the guys that killed the most bandits, didn't get shot down, and killed them quickly. I certainly would give the medal to a guy that did less of that, but landed 8% of hit rounds vs. 7%. Rounds landed is secondary indicator, not a primary indicator.
Again, I don't think folks with more kills, higher K/D, higher Kills/hour, higher kills/sortie, should lose out to a player that landed more bullets. Because what's the point of landing more bullets, if it didn't lead to killing more planes, and landing more often.
But I do think which plane you fly should be a big factor.
-
The ranking and scoring in AH is %100 arbitrary, it is what HTC sets it at and nothing more. In all fairness, I wish there was a way for HTC to tie the ENY value of a plane to the rank and score of the player. A guy that ups a P40x in LW and gets 5 kills with it has a far more daunting challenge that the guy who ups a P51x and does the same, yet the ranking and scoring reflects none of that. The current system *encourages* the best of the best to be used to claw your way to the top, to a player that has thousands of perks points there is no need to earn any more perks so why even have the challenge of a 20-30 ENY aircraft?
-
The ranking and scoring in AH is %100 arbitrary, it is what HTC sets it at and nothing more. In all fairness, I wish there was a way for HTC to tie the ENY value of a plane to the rank and score of the player. A guy that ups a P40x in LW and gets 5 kills with it has a far more daunting challenge that the guy who ups a P51x and does the same, yet the ranking and scoring reflects none of that. The current system *encourages* the best of the best to be used to claw your way to the top, to a player that has thousands of perks points there is no need to earn any more perks so why even have the challenge of a 20-30 ENY aircraft?
Agree 100%. Score and rank are so far removed from gameplay that they are inconsequential. Doesn't matter if I start in a Spit16 LA7 Nikki or P51. So why would I hop into a P40 unless I really want that extra challenge?
I honestly do wonder why people even bother to 'artificially inflate' their scores? Just to see their name in light on a website?
Now, I do understand HTC's position as well. Limiting players to XYZ aircraft until you have 123 perkies, would severely cripple player interest in the game (just look at EW/MW arenas for proof). Also I believe the perk system exists simply to limit the number of certain truly uber planes that in unchecked numbers could adversely affect gameplay.
The only real solution (and it would be a very very tricky one at best) would be to make rank/score etc. a more relevant part of active gameplay, but they would have to do it, without limiting a player's choice of plane. I dunno what though, maybe stuff like XYZ skin is available for your aircraft once you have accumulated XYZ perks? :huh
I know....how about perking ordinance? :devil "You don't have enough perks for that type of ordinance" every-time you select 1000lb+ bombs. Would Not limit player ability too much and increase the use of smaller sized bombs.
just my $0.02. :salute
-
Lusche, to understand my point you need to examine rank without Hit%. Use your correlation formula for tour 153 and calculate what the top 50 fighter ranks would have been without hit% as a factor. Then calculate it without K/D. The ranks will be very different. Then examine which list you think is reflecting the most effective pilots. Then my point will make itself clear. Or be discounted. ;)
Here are the top 10 fighter ranks computed without hit %
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/hypofighterrank.jpg)
I honestly do wonder why people even bother to 'artificially inflate' their scores? Just to see their name in light on a website?
I doubt that, because the vast majority of players will never see their name written there ;)
-
Gotta do that score hoard to join the cool kids club.
K/D is probably the only stat I might care about, because it shows whether or not I'm improving. Now obviously, flying nothing but 262s and Tempests and getting a 50K/D doesn't make you any better.
-
Here are the top 10 fighter ranks computed without hit %
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/hypofighterrank.jpg)
I doubt that, because the vast majority of players will never see their name written there ;)
Thanks Snail. That's not a big difference, but lazy males a big move. Can you show top 50?
Oh nice job on your top rank :-)
-
K/D is probably the only stat I might care about, because it shows whether or not I'm improving. Now obviously, flying nothing but 262s and Tempests and getting a 50K/D doesn't make you any better.
That's the point on the proposed change. :-)
-
Thanks Snail. That's not a big difference, but lazy males a big move. Can you show top 50?
The picture is too big. But I can tell you it's quite similar. Some individuals may do a big jump up and down, but nothing spectacular. There is no one with (old) fighter rank 100+ that would find himself in the 'top50' suddenly.
Addendum:
I did some further evaluations, and it seems to verify that what MtnMan said about hit% as an indicator. No other single sub-category is that closely matching overall rank as this one. Looking at the top 20 pilots of tour 153, the variations in K/D and the other sub-categories are much higher than within hit%.
Furthermore, by exploring the stat histories of random pilots it also seems that hit% is the most consistent factor individually. The other categories show much more variance there as well.
-
I guess I'm confused, I thought ENY was factored into score as it is... Don't people that fly higher ENY planes get more "points" for killing a lower ENY plane?
-
I guess I'm confused, I thought ENY was factored into score as it is... Don't people that fly higher ENY planes get more "points" for killing a lower ENY plane?
Perk Points: Yes.
Score Points: No.
-
Perk Points: Yes.
Score Points: No.
This is where flying a higher eny plane should be factored in....If I have the same K/D as "any player" but I fly 30 eny planes all the time and they fly 5 eny all the time I should get a better rank.
-
I like the idea of a player eny based off of "Rank" in cases such as I who only fly in one category that would be the "rank" used.......make it that it takes so many sorties for that rank to count towards player eny.
edit
player "eny" would only count towards the person who kills them in perks earned.....not in what they can fly from the hanger.
-
This is where flying a higher eny plane should be factored in....If I have the same K/D as "any player" but I fly 30 eny planes all the time and they fly 5 eny all the time I should get a better rank.
if perks earned was factored in rank it would work this way.. not only flying "worse" planes, but flying outnumbered would be a positive too..
-
Perk Points: Yes.
Score Points: No.
Ah, I guess I never made the connection that the two were separate from each other. :confused:
-
All true mntman, but I'm saying Rank is NOT all about pilot skill. I'm saying it's about being best at what the game is about...killing more enemy planes than kill you (talking fighter rank here). If I was your general, I wouldn't be looking to pin medals on the guys that killed the most bandits, didn't get shot down, and killed them quickly. I certainly would give the medal to a guy that did less of that, but landed 8% of hit rounds vs. 7%. Rounds landed is secondary indicator, not a primary indicator.
What's the difference between "pilot skill" and "being best at"? Does it not take skill to be "best"?
Tripling your hit % means taking 1/3 as much time to land enough damage to be lethal. It takes a "3 shot solution fight" and turns it into a "1 shot solution" fight. The loss of SA, energy, etc., difference between the guy who needs triple the firing time and the guy who can do it in one quick burst/attack is huge. Tripling your Hit% keeps you alive longer, letting you score more kills, land more kills, and do it quicker than the guy who misses more.
As such, a high hit% will pull your K/D, K/S, and K/T up. It's a basic ingredient in all three of those facets.
The reverse is not true. Improving your K/D, K/S, or K/T (or all three) will not help you shoot better.
When it comes to shooting down more enemy than kill you, and doing it in less time, shooting is a key metric.
Shooting well is a measurable skill; and one that will allow you to be better than someone else. Having a high K/D, K/S, and/or K/T are not skills, and won't make you better than the next guy (no matter how high they are).
I do not disagree with the idea that it would be nice to measure other skills than shooting, of course. Currently though, it's the only skill being measured.
Again, I don't think folks with more kills, higher K/D, higher Kills/hour, higher kills/sortie, should lose out to a player that landed more bullets. Because what's the point of landing more bullets, if it didn't lead to killing more planes, and landing more often.
Landing more bullets does lead to killing more planes. More importantly, it leads to killing other planes quicker. Missing your shots does not lead to any of the things you want to see out of a fighter pilot.
If you see more kills, higher K/D, higher K/S, and higher K/T from a "poor shooter" vs. a "skilled shooter", how is that poor shooter getting his kills? Augers? Proxies? Luck? How do you shoot someone down by missing them???
The "more kills" part loses me too. Simply massing up a bunch of kills may be just a result of gobs of time to play. I'd rather have the guy that's twice as effective than the guy with twice the free time.
But I do think which plane you fly should be a big factor.
I agree 100% :aok
FWIW, if you looked at my K/D, K/S, and K/T averages over the last few years, you'd probably assume I'd be a valuable asset to a squad. If you did, you'd be mistaken; I'm a horrible squad member.
-
I think HTC rank system does seek to reward those who put in more hours of play..............
I dont think it is by accident.
It may mask the quality of the player, however if I upped a C202 and shot down 8 Tempests in a few minutes on my one and only mission of the tour, should I be ranked No.1 fighter without ever flying fighter again during that tour?
-
It may mask the quality of the player, however if I upped a C202 and shot down 8 Tempests in a few minutes on my one and only mission of the tour, should I be ranked No.1 fighter without ever flying fighter again during that tour?
No, because it could be a freak occurrence. Maybe not with a tempest, but with other non-perk ENY 5 fighters like the La-7. You could have just encountered a noob. One single sortie should not make you top ace for that month.
Actually you can examine this effect in EW arena. The general activity there is so low, that one single, well 'planned' fighter sortie can easily give you the number one spot for the whole tour, because the number score points don't matter much.
If you would remove score points as a sub category, you would see this a lot in LW -players carefully looking for doing that one 'golden' fighter sortie and flying the rest in attack mode exclusively.
(And no, in contrast to the popular opinion, it currently doesn't happen that much at all.)
And on top of that, the chances for mischievous manipulation would be much higher. :(
-
Attack mode is another area that should be adjusted. Meaning that ground attack should only be scored here to eliminate what some practice. Meaning they fly a few fighter sorties and then switch to attack mode only after that.
-
Ok so if the hit percent is not having a big effect rank, then leave it in.
But add Perk points to the ranking system.
-
If you were running in a race, and you ran in boots, would you expect a time bonus because boots are slower? Most people who want to compete will pick equipment that optimizes their results. Score and ranking is for players who care about score and ranking. One way to optimize scores and ranking is to pick the right tool for the job. If you choose to fly a more challenging aircraft then getting the same score or rank should be more challenging, it should not be adjusted to be as easy as using the best equipment available.
-
If you were running in a race, and you ran in boots, would you expect a time bonus because boots are slower? Most people who want to compete will pick equipment that optimizes their results. Score and ranking is for players who care about score and ranking. One way to optimize scores and ranking is to pick the right tool for the job. If you choose to fly a more challenging aircraft then getting the same score or rank should be more challenging, it should not be adjusted to be as easy as using the best equipment available.
Very good point.
The way it's set up now you can know that (and have the satisfaction of knowing) you're making things more challenging for yourself through your choice of equipment.
We'd lose that option if ENY was factored into ranking.
-
OK so if the hit percent is not having a big effect rank, then leave it in.
But add Perk points to the ranking system.
agreed ...........
To go further maybe one day
if we are now allocating perks earned per tour to the ranking system such that it will see
Fighter Perks
Bomber Perks
Attack Perks
Vehicle/boat Perks
Perhaps we could segregate total perks earned similarly (when looking at the hanger clip board)
Fighter Perks
Bomber Perks
Attack Perks
Vehicle/boat Perks
and even one day
Force the attack category on when bombs/rockets are loaded to fighter/attack aircraft.
Force the attack category on when torpedoes are chosen.
Force formations off when attack category is chosen or forced on.
Force F6 bomb release only on when bomber category is chosen.
Then
We don't earn perk points for Tempests & 262's by bombing GV's from Bostons (hardly elite fighter training is it?)
If we want to dive bomb with a medium bomber then we do not get formations.
We cant dive bomb with heavy bombers.
We cant dive bomb with formations.
Plus we earn perks to use on perked attack planes (Temp, F4U4, Spit XIV, F4uC,{when carrying ord} and the Ar234) and for a future ordinance perk system also to include attack planes.
-
If you were running in a race, and you ran in boots, would you expect a time bonus because boots are slower? Most people who want to compete will pick equipment that optimizes their results. Score and ranking is for players who care about score and ranking. One way to optimize scores and ranking is to pick the right tool for the job. If you choose to fly a more challenging aircraft then getting the same score or rank should be more challenging, it should not be adjusted to be as easy as using the best equipment available.
I think the concept of "handicapping" is well proven............... particularly when it is used to identify and promote proficiency rather than "technical advantage"
equally we do not have a single race, we have many races and the players that take part in the most races have a distinct advantage. This encourages folk to play more, which is all quite right IMO but at the same time this can mask proficiency............... rankings therefore are somewhat arbitary and used to promote the game play mix HTC would like to see.
I would like that game play mix "motivator" to recognise perks earned to promote greater variety in some areas.
-
Wow factoring in the plane used to get a kill in with rank\score...brilliant. :aok
+1
I think you are right. You would see more diverse planes used in the game if this was in place.
I'd almost like to see a handicap factored in based on eny of a plane.
-
I think the concept of "handicapping" is well proven............... particularly when it is used to identify and promote proficiency rather than "technical advantage"
equally we do not have a single race, we have many races and the players that take part in the most races have a distinct advantage. This encourages folk to play more, which is all quite right IMO but at the same time this can mask proficiency............... rankings therefore are somewhat arbitary and used to promote the game play mix HTC would like to see.
I would like that game play mix "motivator" to recognise perks earned to promote greater variety in some areas.
Too bad it's impossible to handicap fighter aircraft in any way that's fair or meaningful. You don't put sprinters and distance runners and hurdlers in the same race and simply handicap them to make it fair. The notion that HTC can somehow make everything "fair", i.e. create conditions where everybody gets the score/rank they think they deserve, is rather far-fetched.
Personally I like the current system where everyone picks the tools that suit their goals and technique.
-
Too bad it's impossible to handicap fighter aircraft in any way that's fair or meaningful. You don't put sprinters and distance runners and hurdlers in the same race and simply handicap them to make it fair. The notion that HTC can somehow make everything "fair", i.e. create conditions where everybody gets the score/rank they think they deserve, is rather far-fetched.
Personally I like the current system where everyone picks the tools that suit their goals and technique.
the current scoring system already requires you to do a little bit of everything.. variety.. factoring in perks to the ranking system would require even more variety. ie. those vulches from a perk plane wouldnt be worth as much as vulches from some high-eny ride.. the GV kills in tiger 2 wouldnt factor as well as those gotten in a panzer.. etc. etc. etc.
i'm pretty sure the guys who care about score would figure it out and do just fine..
-
Too bad it's impossible to handicap fighter aircraft in any way that's fair or meaningful. You don't put sprinters and distance runners and hurdlers in the same race and simply handicap them to make it fair. The notion that HTC can somehow make everything "fair", i.e. create conditions where everybody gets the score/rank they think they deserve, is rather far-fetched.
Personally I like the current system where everyone picks the tools that suit their goals and technique.
Perk points are earned by beating better aircraft with lesser aircraft. Shouldn't A system that ranks how well you play the game include it? Just to turn your question around, Of all the points and stats earned during game play, why should those (perks) be 'excluded' to bias the rank towarsd folks who fly low ENY planes? ;)
Including Perks would add one more competitive dimension to the ranking system. :salute
-
If you were running in a race, and you ran in boots, would you expect a time bonus because boots are slower?...
Is it not about who can do the most with what they have? Sure if you have an F-22 and you know how to game-the-game for score you will be effective. I agree though that many of those score obsessed pilots are fairly good pilots in their own right. Not at just acquiring high score.
Simply stated: If one gets the same amount of kills and hit % in a Spit 1 as does another in a Spit 16, the Spit I pilot should rank higher and get a higher score *. :old:
* My context is all things being equal to both of course.
-
Is it not about who can do the most with what they have? Sure if you have an F-22 and you know how to game-the-game for score you will be effective. I agree though that many of those score obsessed pilots are fairly good pilots in their own right. Not at just acquiring high score.
Simply stated: If one gets the same amount of kills and hit % in a Spit 1 as does another in a Spit 16, the Spit I pilot should rank higher and get a higher score *. :old:
* My context is all things being equal to both of course.
not if he is vulching.....and this is why score and rank are not indicators of actual "skill" they do not take into account "how" they are flying...
I see all the time "a kill is a kill" which I completely disagree with....
make it so perks are awarded in accordance with the % of red and green guys around you.....more red=more perks...more green=less perks....add that to the player eny......
-
Good point Ink.
-
make it so perks are awarded in accordance with the % of red and green guys around you.....more red=more perks...more green=less perks....add that to the player eny......
the suggestion is sound if it can be implemented............but if it cannot, then the added perk influence noted above would still be beneficial IMO.
I suppose that the ratio of freindly players to enemy players (ever being within 2000yards?) from spawn to landing could be used
as a multiplier which = (E+1)/(F+1)
Lets say your "mission" earned 1 perk. But 9 Freindlies had been within 2000 yards and 19 Enemy had been within 2000 yards multiplier =2. Alternativeliy you upped in a horde of 19 Freindlies and an Enemy never came within 2000 yards...........mulitiplier = 0.05.
It would encourage 262 pilits to zoom about amongst as many enemy as possible gaming their perk base............. but then the ENY multiplier would make for less perks to start with and even a 262 pilit is putting himself in harms way letting every one take post shots as he flashes past at 500mph.
-
make it so perks are awarded in accordance with the % of red and green guys around you.....more red=more perks...more green=less perks....add that to the player eny......
Working on that. But that's another thread. :salute
-
the suggestion is sound if it can be implemented............but if it cannot, then the added perk influence noted above would still be beneficial IMO.
I suppose that the ratio of freindly players to enemy players (ever being within 2000yards?) from spawn to landing could be used
as a multiplier which = (E+1)/(F+1)
Lets say your "mission" earned 1 perk. But 9 Freindlies had been within 2000 yards and 19 Enemy had been within 2000 yards multiplier =2. Alternativeliy you upped in a horde of 19 Freindlies and an Enemy never came within 2000 yards...........mulitiplier = 0.05.
I think this is fundamentally correct. I would included Energy state (alt+velocity). Such that your Situational Advantage was the (sum of (enemy E-state/ENY))/(sum of (friendly E-state/ENY)) within Icon range. Perks would then be 1*SA
-
I think this is fundamentally correct. I would included Energy state (alt+velocity). Such that your Situational Advantage was the (sum of (enemy E-state/ENY))/(sum of (friendly E-state/ENY)) within Icon range.
Would you not then have to factor in the players comparable e state in every case. e.g I am in a high speed La5FN flying just above a furball where the enemy has a significant E (and ENY)advantage over the freindlies. Actually my SA is very good but the maths above does not show this.
Unfortunately the SA state is too dynamic (IMO) to lock into such maths ................
within a few minutes of the above I could be low, slow and being chased by 2 other La5FN's whilst 20 comrades(in La7's) are zooming down from alt too late to save me. Now my SA is pretty poor but the maths would show it to be quite favourable...............
The two examples shows the dynamic change state without a mechanism to factor into them some maths that reflect the whole mission (short of computing a running average in real time.)
Also my energy state is a matter of my ACM why should I get a bonus for putting it in a worse situation than my enemy?
Counting each enemy and each freindly to come within #yards is a simple thing............ freindlies and enemies are only counted once and the maths are done upon landing. It may not be as refined as some may wish but it does provide balance when numbers are disproportionate.
I doubt if frequent horde members are that interested in score but if any are, then (this way) they will see the normal perkage earned suffer when mingling with the horde.
-
Would you not then have to factor in the players comparable e state in every case. e.g I am in a high speed La5FN flying just above a furball where the enemy has a significant E (and ENY)advantage over the freindlies. Actually my SA is very good but the maths above does not show this.
Unfortunately the SA state is too dynamic (IMO) to lock into such maths ................
within a few minutes of the above I could be low, slow and being chased by 2 other La5FN's whilst 20 comrades(in La7's) are zooming down from alt too late to save me. Now my SA is pretty poor but the maths would show it to be quite favourable...............
The two examples shows the dynamic change state without a mechanism to factor into them some maths that reflect the whole mission (short of computing a running average in real time.)
Also my energy state is a matter of my ACM why should I get a bonus for putting it in a worse situation than my enemy?
Counting each enemy and each freindly to come within #yards is a simple thing............ freindlies and enemies are only counted once and the maths are done upon landing. It may not be as refined as some may wish but it does provide balance when numbers are disproportionate.
I doubt if frequent horde members are that interested in score but if any are, then (this way) they will see the normal perkage earned suffer when mingling with the horde.
all good points and choices would have to made. I had envisioned that an enemy gets tagged with an SA score (specific to you) when he enters con-range. The points you get when you kill him are those points, not the points at the time of the kill, which would be changing over the course of the fight. So in your case, because you were higher over the furball, the points "potential" for the planes below you is reduced. Two planes above you, moving faster, would be worth more points, then two planes below you moving slower. Slow planes on the runway would be almost worthless. Of course everything could be tweaked. The idea is to score it based on the moment you make the choice to engage or not. the big issue with that is planes joining late. If I'm chasing a bandit that has a even score because we were co-SA when we engaged, but a picker comes in later, isn't harder to kill either of them now? so there is something to be said for the istantaneous points. the drawback to instantaneous is dropping on a lower opponent who never had much of a chance, but you blead e on the way down onto his six o'clock so your SA at the time of the kill was closer to even. This wouldn't score correct either. I think there is a way to use both, but many scenarios would have to be examined to find the right balance.
I wanted to try to look at old films and use this method to score them. But the film viewer would have to have the capability to output the displayed ranges, velocities, and altitudes, by time to perform the calculations. It doesn't, and doing it manually is an exercise in futility, so these ideas sit on hold. ;)
It is an idea I would love to work on. All I need is a film viewer export Macro. (hint) :pray
-
So it (initial SA ratio) could be used to modify the primary perk points earned for a kill.......................
a range is chosen to initiate the comparison between the player and each enemy as it comes into this range. If the player executes a kill on any enemy without the enemy leaving that range then the initial E states are factored in.
If either party "extends" beyond that range then the SA ratio is reset when they re enter.
OK its not about numbers of freindlies v numbers of enemy any more its about e states at the biggining of conflicts we win perkies for.
We could still factor in the numbers count separately as a modifier at the end of mission.
By combining the two that way ...we
-devalue vulching
-devalue hording
-enhance the value of reversing combat advantage.
-devalue over extending
used this way IMO................. a good idea
-
So it (initial SA ratio) could be used to modify the primary perk points earned for a kill.......................
a range is chosen to initiate the comparison between the player and each enemy as it comes into this range. If the player executes a kill on any enemy without the enemy leaving that range then the initial E states are factored in.
If either party "extends" beyond that range then the SA ratio is reset when they re enter.
Yes, you've summed it up nicely...
OK its not about numbers of freindlies v numbers of enemy any more its about e states at the biggining of conflicts we win perkies for.
We could still factor in the numbers count separately as a modifier at the end of mission.
It is, it's just that the numbers are factored in as SA for each plane. So it's [SA(enemy1)+SA(E2)+SA(EN)]/[SA(Friendly1)+SA(F2)+SA(FN)]. Where SA=[(ALT+Velocity)*ENY(f)/ENY(e)],
and where Points = damage/SA
So more Friendlies would mean a HIGHER Situational Advantage score, resulting in lower points (perks)
By combining the two that way ...we
-devalue vulching
-devalue hording
-enhance the value of reversing combat advantage.
-devalue over extending
used this way IMO................. a good idea
yes , that's the idea. :aok
-
hmm that seems a lot of maths
In a furball of 5 enemies and 5 freindlies we are calculating the relative SA ( combining the instantaneous SA for the other 9) each time one of those 5 re- enters the range mechanism and ratio'ing it with the principle...............thats a factorial 10 calculation string (isnt it?)
to make it universal how would we configure it for bombers and ground attack on objects.
Guess that would have to be calculated at the time at which the object is destroyed.
what if there is no enemy in range when we destroy stuff ...............some logic should be inplace to take the SA calc out of the equation (or insert a 0 enemy factor) in this case
unless it (the SA ratio) is taken out all together for destruction perks earned.
re GV's
is energy state an advantage for GV's? if I am lying in wait the advantage is with me as the other guy drives upto my position yet his energy state is higher........... velocity should be made negative for GV's IMO whilst there would/may be an advantage if to the higher GV. Probably better to take the energy state out all together for GV's.
It would mean that the perks earned by several gv's spawn camping would be reduced if they were just picking off spawners one at a time as they spawned in.
I thinks the maths have to work universally across all rides or it gets too complex with to many IF's/NANDs/ANDs/THENs etc etc
-
hmm that seems a lot of maths
In a furball of 5 enemies and 5 freindlies we are calculating the relative SA ( combining the instantaneous SA for the other 9) each time one of those 5 re- enters the range mechanism and ratio'ing it with the principle...............thats a factorial 10 calculation string (isnt it?)
to make it universal how would we configure it for bombers and ground attack on objects.
Guess that would have to be calculated at the time at which the object is destroyed.
what if there is no enemy in range when we destroy stuff ...............some logic should be inplace to take the SA calc out of the equation (or insert a 0 enemy factor) in this case
unless it (the SA ratio) is taken out all together for destruction perks earned.
re GV's
is energy state an advantage for GV's? if I am lying in wait the advantage is with me as the other guy drives upto my position yet his energy state is higher........... velocity should be made negative for GV's IMO whilst there would/may be an advantage if to the higher GV. Probably better to take the energy state out all together for GV's.
It would mean that the perks earned by several gv's spawn camping would be reduced if they were just picking off spawners one at a time as they spawned in.
I thinks the maths have to work universally across all rides or it gets too complex with to many IF's/NANDs/ANDs/THENs etc etc
Each plane needs to track 2 numbers for each other plane. So your plane is tracking 10 planes(yourself included) with 2 numbers each = 20 numbers, and each of the ten planes is doing that so it's 200 numbers for 10 planes. So the overhead formula is 2*(# of planes)^2. I don't think a couple of hundred calculations/sec is a lot overhead.
Since e-state doesn't play much of a part in GV-ing I'd leave those as is for now. It could apply to a bomber. As for attack, mode aircraft, I would have to think about it. Dropping 2x1000lbs bombs on a tigerII is not very difficult, and exactly as easy as dropping them on a sherman. should a Tiger be werth more perk points based on ENY? probably not. Now if a tank was surrounded by 5 whirbles, and their were 4 enemy planes in the air over the tank, then it would seem a tougher SA situation. I think an SA formula could be worked out for that as well.
Also as a for vulching, field guns would count as a fraction of a plane, so if you vulch a field with all the guns up, the guns help even up the SA while they are up.
I'm thinking this would just be for fighter perk point calculations. Then add perk points to the rank system.
-
Each plane needs to track 2 numbers for each other plane.
And each of those planes numbers are determined by the two numbers of each other plane. These are not fixed and so all values have to be refreshed ( with respect to the new plane) as the new plane comes within range of the player.
Or at least so I interpret your maths.
-
And each of those planes numbers are determined by the two numbers of each other plane. These are not fixed and so all values have to be refreshed ( with respect to the new plane) as the new plane comes within range of the player.
Or at least so I interpret your maths.
yes I believe you are correct. I see the SA number being calculated/updated every 1 sec ond or so.