Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Vinkman on January 22, 2014, 12:13:00 PM
-
I proposed to Drop the hit% as part of the ranking system and replace it with Perk points Earned
Rationale:
Why hit% is a weak ranking metric
Hit% is really already accounted for in kills/sortie, and kills/hour.
I will bet these are directly correlated to hit% and as such they do not provide a separate or unique discriminator.
It encourages behavior not really beneficial to game play. I.E holding fire until you are extremely close, even if that is not the best idea for mission out come. Or only attacking bombers at very close range.
Why Perk points earned is stronger metric
Perk points are racked up by killing more capable planes with less capable planes.
The P-40 pilot should enjoy a rank advantage over the SPitXVI pilot, if all other stats are Equal. Perk points are the only metric that accounts for that.
this would encourage better pilots to fly lower ENY planes which could help balance the gameplay in way that ENY never seems to achieve. And since it's voluntary, there's less whining.
Please vote yes! :aok
-
+1
-
It encourages behavior not really beneficial to game play. I.E holding fire until you are extremely close, even if that is not the best idea for mission out come. Or only attacking bombers at very close range.
About all the great air combat tacticians have always emphasized the importance of getting close before firing. It's the standard recommendation traditionally given by most AH trainers as well ("Want to hit? Want to kill? Don't spray... get close")
Why would that be "not really beneficial to game play"?
:headscratch:
-
About all the great air combat tacticians have always emphasized the importance of getting close before firing. It's the standard recommendation traditionally given by most AH trainers as well ("Want to hit? Want to kill? Don't spray... get close")
Why would that be "not really beneficial to game play"?
:headscratch:
Hit% to a large extent favors taking some gun packages over others, some targets over others (bombers), and really, I don't think it should count in the rank. The kills are what counts, if a guy is getting the job done with a poorer aim then he's flying better, right? If a guy is flying a P-47 with the heavy ammo load to get several kills per sortie, why he's paying a weight penalty.
Perks per sortie OTOH as a ranking category., that is brilliant and fair. I've suggested the same thing myself. It would be another reward for flying something besides the "standard" rides, and we need all of those we can get.
+1
-
+1
Probably encourages people to be better shots too, and actually learn better tactics.
-
Hit% to a large extent favors taking some gun packages over others, some targets over others (bombers), and really, I don't think it should count in the rank.
That wasn't what i was questioning. He explecitely stated "getting extremely close" as being not beneficial to game play, and that's what I do not understand
-
Please vote yes! :aok
I vote no.
HiTech
-
Ok, thats one "no" and...oh wait...votes over :D
-
I vote no.
HiTech
(http://evannelorraine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/boom.jpg)
-
I vote no.
HiTech
Well you're the boss. :salute
HiTech,
Can you provide a basic reasoning for hit% over Perks? Thanks.
-
That wasn't what i was questioning. He explecitely stated "getting extremely close" as being not beneficial to game play, and that's what I do not understand
The high performance planes like the Las, P51s or a spit 16s to name a few have an advantage here for sure. They can close fast and get closer where a slower plane might have to take a shoot at 600-400 because that is as close as you can get all things being equal. Get in close is not always an option.
If you take out the newbie prone P51 do the faster planes have a better hit percentage? If they do, then the OP's point is valid.
Then you have to cross other bridges. I can live longer in a faster, smaller plane than I can in say a P38. Should I get a break for choosing a plane that is easy to hit. I think not.
I was going to+1 one this one but I have talked myself out out of it.
-1 A mute point after the HT vote but still that is how I see it.
-
The high performance planes like the Las, P51s or a spit 16s to name a few have an advantage here for sure. They can close fast and get closer where a slower plane might have to take a shoot at 600-400 because that is as close as you can get all things being equal. Get in close is not always an option.
If you take out the newbie prone P51 do the faster planes have a better hit percentage? If they do, then the OP's point is valid.
If anything, faster planes have a lower hit%. Higher speed mean they rarely can saddle up and generally fire at longer ranges. Less aim time, More snap shots, more shooting at rather bad angles.
-
Hit% to a large extent favors taking some gun packages over others, some targets over others (bombers), and really, I don't think it should count in the rank. The kills are what counts, if a guy is getting the job done with a poorer aim then he's flying better, right? If a guy is flying a P-47 with the heavy ammo load to get several kills per sortie, why he's paying a weight penalty.
This, not to mention that hit % favors prolonged turnfights which result in tracking shots. A pilot using energy tactics will rarely having tracking shots and will instead typically have snapshot opportunities. Snapshots are not an issue to the person utilizing them, but penalizing a pilot who fires a half a second early to make sure his rounds hit a target who's flying at a 90* deflection doesn't logically make sense.
This also doesn't factor in that these stats are inherently biased towards planes have a higher number of smaller caliber guns (read P51's, P47's, etc.). A pilot who misses the first .250 seconds of his burst and adjusts to hit his target will have more on-target time than the pilot flying a plane armed with cannons. For example, a P51 pilot who shoots for .250 seconds, missing, and then adjusts his aim to hit his target, hitting them for 1.25 seconds, has a hit rate of 83%. A pilot flying an LA-7 might also miss for .250 seconds, but any plane they hit will barely last half a second against a constant barrage of 20mm's, let alone 1.25 seconds. This means that even if both pilots have the exact same accuracy, the cannon rounds have less on-target time (as they do more damage and destroy the target quicker). This means that cannon-armed planes shoot less to destroy the same targets that MG-armed planes do, making their misses have a functionally higher stat weighting.
All of that being said, I don't feel like it's game-breaking or even a huge issue, but I don't understand why hit % is used when it's not directly tied to overall performance. Just my .02
-
If anything, faster planes have a lower hit%. Higher speed mean they rarely can saddle up and generally fire at longer ranges. Less aim time, More snap shots, more shooting at rather bad angles.
I see your point and bow to that aspect of the discussion but I think you overshoot my point if one considers an equal E state for all planes. If you can not close, you spray and pray.
-
I see your point and bow to that aspect of the discussion but I think you overshoot my point if one considers an equal E state for all planes.
But that's a very theoretical one that doesn't happen that way in the arena. And my initial question actually still stands :D
-
I vote no.
HiTech
I'm with this guy (vote-wise). I win!
-
This means that cannon-armed planes shoot less to destroy the same targets that MG-armed planes do, making their misses have a functionally higher stat weighting.
I don't think so! I think that no matter which airplane you fly, if you fly it consistently, then your hit percentage will be higher. If you switch planes often, then your hit percentage will suffer a small amount. And, of course there are exceptions to the rule. There always are.
-
The P-40 pilot should enjoy a rank advantage over the SPitXVI pilot, if all other stats are Equal. Perk points are the only metric that accounts for that.
For the bloody hell, +1! Even though my ride is eny10, its absolutely true. Defending against a mass of heavy fighters in a K4 or D9 can be fun, but a horde of La7s and 4hogs vulching a field is just disgusting.
But replacing the hit ratio with the amount of perk points earned is just a no-no. They playing time is already represented in the rank formula ;)
-
"I can't shoot therefore I want it taken out from counting towards my rank. My main ride is 15ENY and a nice little perk farmer, that would be better for me"
This is what happens when a scoretard wants to substitute his bad attribute for one not determined by his own ability.
Because accurate shooting is just as a skill as ACM, on logical grounds I can't support this apocalyptic dingleberry of a wish.
Perhaps perks earned should be an addition to the score system rather than a substitute for a current stat?
-
I proposed to Drop the hit% as part of the ranking system and replace it with Perk points Earned
Rationale:
Why hit% is a weak ranking metric
Hit% is really already accounted for in kills/sortie, and kills/hour.
I will bet these are directly correlated to hit% and as such they do not provide a separate or unique discriminator.
It encourages behavior not really beneficial to game play. I.E holding fire until you are extremely close, even if that is not the best idea for mission out come. Or only attacking bombers at very close range.
Why Perk points earned is stronger metric
Perk points are racked up by killing more capable planes with less capable planes.
The P-40 pilot should enjoy a rank advantage over the SPitXVI pilot, if all other stats are Equal. Perk points are the only metric that accounts for that.
this would encourage better pilots to fly lower ENY planes which could help balance the gameplay in way that ENY never seems to achieve. And since it's voluntary, there's less whining.
Please vote yes! :aok
Does the current "ranking" system calculate in what type of plane you fly? Or to put it another way, does it bring the perk value of the plane with which you get a kill into its ranking calculation at all? Correct me if I'm wrong because I really know very little about how scores work, but perks seem to be the only measure of the difficulty level at which a player chooses to play at, correct?
-
Currently the fighter rank is calculated by creating an average rank from the player's individual ranks in these five stats: K/D, K/S, K/T, Hit % and kill points (total damage done). It doesn't take any account of what type of planes you fly to achieve those stats. So for those players who fly for rank it acts as a disincentive to try non-uber planes. I proposed something similar to the OP's perk idea a while ago, except for it being an average per kill rather than the total earned.
-
Currently the fighter rank is calculated by creating an average rank from the player's individual ranks in these five stats: K/D, K/S, K/T, Hit % and kill points (total damage done). It doesn't take any account of what type of planes you fly to achieve those stats. So for those players who fly for rank it acts as a disincentive to try non-uber planes. I proposed something similar to the OP's perk idea a while ago, except for it being an average per kill rather than the total earned.
Thanks for the info Greebo, that clarifies things nicely.
I would think that any format that doesn't provide a weighting to the aircraft flown, as a first step, is pretty lacking in its completeness. A format that is grounded on the premise that a kill in a P-47M is the same as a kill in a Ki-43 isn't worth much. The driver of the prior is clearly a dweeb, and the later a skilled master in the art! (ok, that's a bit overdone, but we get the idea ;->). So in that sense I think the OP has a legitimate point wrt to the addition of perk weighting.
I wouldn't agree that hit % should be removed in place of it though. Seems to make sense to have it there. Sure, its easy to see how it could be "gamed" by those who need to chase score, but for the majority of players its a reasonable tool to have in the calculation format.
-
While we are speaking of scores: A minor thing I'd like to see is having the one man "squads" totally filtered out on the squad ranks & scores:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/topsqd_zps425d6c1d.jpg)
It's a minor thing as it would really change not much for the game itself and possibly few people are looking at squad rankings at all (unlike pilot score, I didn't look at it for years until someone 'congratulated' me on my supposedly 'gamed' #1 squad rank in fighters a few days ago).
But it just makes no sense to me having the squad rank list filled up with single pilots.
-
I vote no.
HiTech
(http://0.tqn.com/d/middleeast/1/G/Y/C/-/-/iraqi-elections.jpg)
-
Currently the fighter rank is calculated by creating an average rank from the player's individual ranks in these five stats: K/D, K/S, K/T, Hit % and kill points (total damage done). It doesn't take any account of what type of planes you fly to achieve those stats. So for those players who fly for rank it acts as a disincentive to try non-uber planes. I proposed something similar to the OP's perk idea a while ago, except for it being an average per kill rather than the total earned.
+1 on Perks/Kill inclusion. Being number one shouldn't mean vulching in a Tempest for 12 sorties and calling it a tour.
Assists/Death would also separate the wheat from the chaff. A player that requires multiple enemies to dispatch indicates a skilled pilot and/or one who flies into harm's way.
No need to replace Hit%, just add these to the score requirements.
Edit: instead of perks/kill, ENY/Kill would be even better.
-
"I can't shoot therefore I want it taken out from counting towards my rank. My main ride is 15ENY and a nice little perk farmer, that would be better for me"
This is what happens when a scoretard wants to substitute his bad attribute for one not determined by his own ability.
I'm an excellent Shot
I don't play for score or rank, so your assumptions as to my motivations are a transparent attempt to falsely question my character in public. shame on you.
Because accurate shooting is just as a skill as ACM, on logical grounds I can't support this apocalyptic dingleberry of a wish.
Hit% is a skill, but landing 2% more of your rounds seems less important than killing twice as many planes. but in the rank system doesn't treat it that way.
Perhaps perks earned should be an addition to the score system rather than a substitute for a current stat?
Oh so you agree. :salute
-
+1 on Perks/Kill inclusion. Being number one shouldn't mean vulching in a Tempest for 12 sorties and calling it a tour.
Assists/Death would also separate the wheat from the chaff. A player that requires multiple enemies to dispatch indicates a skilled pilot and/or one who flies into harm's way.
No need to replace Hit%, just add these to the score requirements.
Edit: instead of perks/kill, ENY/Kill would be even better.
I like all these as well :salute
-
Hit% is a skill, but landing 2% more of your rounds seems less important than killing twice as many planes. but in the rank system doesn't treat it that way.
Actually, if you really kill twice as many planes by giving up 2% hit percentage, it's verly likely you will get rewarded by the rank system, as your k/s, k/d and k/h will just massively jump up.
-
Oh so you agree. :salute
He is pretty mad at you, aint he? Dont take it up.
-
I'm an excellent Shot
I don't play for score or rank, so your assumptions as to my motivations are a transparent attempt to falsely question my character in public. shame on you.
This is a blatant lie.
-
For the bloody hell, +1! Even though my ride is eny10, its absolutely true. Defending against a mass of heavy fighters in a K4 or D9 can be fun, but a horde of La7s and 4hogs vulching a field is just disgusting.
But replacing the hit ratio with the amount of perk points earned is just a no-no. They playing time is already represented in the rank formula ;)
you voted too late. the voting is closed and the answer is no.
semp
-
Actually, if you really kill twice as many planes by giving up 2% hit percentage, it's verly likely you will get rewarded by the rank system, as your k/s, k/d and k/h will just massively jump up.
It doesn't
-
This is a blatant lie.
Vinkman's scores for LW tour 168
Kills per Death + 1 1.49 459
Kills per Sortie 1.00 398
Kills per Hour of Flight 6.84 157
Kills Hit Percentage 11.39 80
Kill Points 12665.57 178
That's top 3% of pilots for accuracy. :O
-
It doesn't
Let's just look at your own score last tour:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/vinky_zps0c2ff582.jpg)
rank sum 1556, which placed you at #141 in fighters
Now let's check how twice as many kills in exchange for a loss of 2% points of hit percentage would have played out:
K/D 2.9 would have resulted in rank 191
K/S 2.3 -> rank 41
K/H 11 -> rank 27 (I didn't double k/h, only assumed x1.5)
hit% 4.62 -> rank 939
Kill Points 24,000 -> rank 105 (again, just x1.5 points)
rank sum 1303, which would have given you fighter rank 102
Even if I had left your k/h and kill points alone (despite having twice as many kills), your rank would still have improved
-
Vinkman's scores for LW tour 168
Kills per Death + 1 1.49 459
Kills per Sortie 1.00 398
Kills per Hour of Flight 6.84 157
Kills Hit Percentage 11.39 80
Kill Points 12665.57 178
That's top 3% of pilots for accuracy. :O
vinkman what exactly is the kills hit percentage? is that percentage of rounds that actually hit a target? just asking because mine is like 10.89 and I always empty my guns before landing. I want to get that bullets wasted achievement.
semp
-
Let's just look at your own score last tour:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/vinky_zps0c2ff582.jpg)
rank sum 1556, which placed you at #141 in fighters
Now let's check how twice as many kills in exchange for a loss of 2% points of hit percentage would have played out:
K/D 2.9 would have resulted in rank 191
K/S 2.3 -> rank 41
K/H 11 -> rank 27 (I didn't double k/h, only assumed x1.5)
hit% 4.62 -> rank 939
Kill Points 24,000 -> rank 105 (again, just x1.5 points)
rank sum 1303, which would have given you fighter rank 102
Even if I had left your k/h and kill points alone (despite having twice as many kills), your rank would still have improved
sorry lusche I think we're on different pages. I meant if you flew more sorties and killed twice as many planes at the same rate. Not if all the metrics were doubled. but while you're at it, double only my hit% and see what happens to me rank.
-
vinkman what exactly is the kills hit percentage? is that percentage of rounds that actually hit a target? just asking because mine is like 10.89 and I always empty my guns before landing. I want to get that bullets wasted achievement.
semp
yes I believe it the % of your rounds fired that score damage. hitting a tree doesn't get you anything. Also, if you are in fighter mode, shooting building's yields no damage points, so those count as misses. Lusche confirm? :salute
-
sorry lusche I think we're on different pages. I meant if you flew more sorties and killed twice as many planes at the same rate.
If you killed twice as many planes it would almost mandatory result in a bigger k/s and k/h, especially if it would be a result of taking less care in shooting. If you get more kills by taking more low % shots, it raises your k/h and k/s. What you are now saying is shooting worse AND less kills in the same tame. That's a different claim.
but while you're at it, double only my hit% and see what happens to me rank.
Only doubling your hit% would have resulted in a fighter rank of 77
But similar would apply to the other categories:
Doubling your K/D - rank 95
Doubling K/S - rank 103
Doubling K/H - rank 123
Doubling points rank 118
Doubling your k/h gets the least improvement in total rank because it's already very good. It's in the nature of things that improving your worst category will result in the biggest improvement in overall rank. In your case that's K/D and hit%. But not because any of them is generically more important for the resulting fighter rank.
-
It doesn't
Here's what I meant. A comparison of Dolby and Messiah. Both Stats are very similar with two big differences....
(http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz12/vinkman/ScoreCompare.jpg)
Messiah has flown more sorties and killed 1.6X the number of planes Dolby has. That difference earns him only 15 advantage toward his overall fighter rank. Dolby landed 2X bullet 15% vs 7.8% that difference earns him a 268 point advantage toward rank. One could argue that if hit% mattered, Dolby would have much better stats in the other categories. But without hit% the two are almost dead even. with it. Dolby is #5 and Messiah is #21
So having vastly more kills doesn't earn you much. While landing your bullets, even if that doesn't lead to any more kills, earns huge amount.
-
You could do the same with ANY other category, if both players are reasonably close in all others. That's not exclusive to hit%. It's all abotu where you stand in each metric that defines how much you will gain overall by improving it.
Doubling a bad or mediocre hit% will gain you a lot in fighter rank. Doubling an already stellar hit% wont do much. The exactly the same would apply to K/H or K/S...
-
You could do the same with ANY other category, if both players are reasonably close in all others. That's not exclusive to hit%. It's all abotu where you stand in each metric that defines how much you will gain overall by improving it.
Doubling a bad or mediocre hit% will gain you a lot in fighter rank. Doubling an already stellar hit% wont do much. The exactly the same would apply to K/H or K/S...
Not exactly. The hockey stick shape of the hit% histogram indicates behavior in that metric that is not like the others. And at its limits, I.E. in the top 50 player, this causes its marginal utility to be higher than the other metrics.
-
you voted too late. the voting is closed and the answer is no.
semp
Thank you for explaining this fact for me. Welcome on my ignorelist.
-
Like some others, my brain hurts with trying to understand some of the stats and formulas.
Can anyone answer this simple question accurately please:
If you fly a high ENY plane, i.e. a plane far from being a perk plane, does rank\score significantly factor this in?
Thanks. :salute
-
I don't play for score or rank
Sorry vink I should have spelt it out for you.
The only thing in your mind is rank and score.
You must think some of us were born yesterday; Common theme is score or rank with you, wishlist, questions, ingame, all score oriented.
If it weren't this may have started as a wish for asking that "the perks earned should be added as a score items. Which could help lesser aircraft get out of the hanger."
As for using my stats in an attempt to back up your wish, I think it has actually hindered it.
Of all the things you chose a Picker vs a Fighter. The fighter, gets his reward, that's justice for his efficiency on the trigger.
Hitting well is just as important as ACM. It is a skill in itself to judge where to aim and when to get that shot, some do it better than other some don't.
Distance of the shot is irrelevant, efficiency is.
Perks earned could possibly encourage lower ENY aircraft usage, score tards would get their reward for flying lesser aircraft.
Your motive is easy to see through; You want a stat that stands in your way removed, just so you can feed your endless ego and jump up the rank system to feel good about yourself.
If you truly want to feel good about yourself, forget score, and be happy in the way you fly and fight.
I've told you before numerous times. "Don't chase score it affects your flying and your thought process."
This wish is just an attempt to remove something in the path of your goal; a good rank. That's sad.
-
Like some others, my brain hurts with trying to understand some of the stats and formulas.
Can anyone answer this simple question accurately please:
If you fly a high ENY plane, i.e. a plane far from being a perk plane, does rank\score significantly factor this in?
Thanks. :salute
I asked a similar question upthread. You'll find your answer there.
-
This is a blatant lie.
Maybe dolby should e.mail vinkman's employer to confirm whether it was vinkman at the controls or a professional standing in his stead.
-
If he essentially begs me to I shall icepac ;)
Keep bringing it up icepac, it doesn't serve me poorly. I thrive on damned if you do damned if you don't situations, especially when it crumbles a fantasists whole world.
I doubt vinkman will threaten me with home visits from Navy Intel, CIA and Blackwater by tracing my IP.
-
If he essentially begs me to I shall icepac ;)
Keep bringing it up icepac, it doesn't serve me poorly. I thrive on damned if you do damned if you don't situations, especially when it crumbles a fantasists whole world.
I doubt vinkman will threaten me with home visits from Navy Intel, CIA and Blackwater by tracing my IP.
:rofl
thats some of the funniest things I have read on the BBS :aok
-
About all the great air combat tacticians have always emphasized the importance of getting close before firing. It's the standard recommendation traditionally given by most AH trainers as well ("Want to hit? Want to kill? Don't spray... get close")
Why would that be "not really beneficial to game play"?
:headscratch:
LOL, self serving statement of the year!
"great air combat tacticians" did not encourage engaging only high hit probability targets to build their fighter score.
Nice idea Vink. Never did agree with hit percentage being a factor. Points account for some of what you have proposed though. More points are awarded for fighters. I don't know how that is calculated, but probably could be improved. Seeing hit % is beneficial, but shouldn't be part of score.
-
LOL, self serving statement of the year!
"great air combat tacticians" did not encourage engaging only high hit probability targets to build their fighter score.
Nice idea Vink. Never did agree with hit percentage being a factor. Points account for some of what you have proposed though. More points are awarded for fighters. I don't know how that is calculated, but probably could be improved. Seeing hit % is beneficial, but shouldn't be part of score.
oh yeah they did. remember in real life if they died, they couldnt respawn. the main thing in acm in real life is dont get in a situation that will get you killed. that aside some people got killed trying to help another who got into a situation that got both of them killed.
semp
-
oh yeah they did.
Juvenile response follows... Oh no they didn't.
Just because pilots were sometimes told to be careful, or to specifically target bombers doesn't mean they had a free pass to be cowards all the time and only attack "safe/easy" targets. There was a war on and that meant a fighter pilot had just as much obligation to risk his life in seemingly suicidal circumstances as every other soldier in ww2.
the main thing in acm in real life is dont get in a situation that will get you killed.
No that was not the main, thing. The main "thing" was defeating the enemy and completing your mission without undue regard to your own safety. Your safety and the safety of your aircraft was secondary depending on the consequences of failing in any particular situation.
Don't compare score padding in AH to real life. We don't give medals of honor for safety.
-
Juvenile response follows... Oh no they didn't.
Just because pilots were sometimes told to be careful, or to specifically target bombers doesn't mean they had a free pass to be cowards all the time and only attack "safe/easy" targets. There was a war on and that meant a fighter pilot had just as much obligation to risk his life in seemingly suicidal circumstances as every other soldier in ww2.
that's where you are wrong muzic, the first rules of acm combat were meant to be so you wouldnt die. as for calling people cowards in this game, that is childish. if we have cowards then we must also have heroes. do you know of any heroes in this game?
semp
-
. do you know of any heroes in this game?
semp
zack1234 is my hero
-
do you know of any heroes in this game?
Yes i do. You are not amongst them. Furthermore, you are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Childish coward, eh?
-
Yes i do. You are not amongst them. Furthermore, you are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Childish coward, eh?
would love to hear what your definition off a hero in a cartoon game is.
semp
-
would love to hear what your definition off a hero in a cartoon game is.
semp
I doubt it'll be someone that bails out when a lone 109 shot down his teaming partner. :D
-
would love to hear what your definition off a hero in a cartoon game is.
semp
Here you are:
one who plays for fun, both for his fun and his playing partners fun, let it be green or red.
-
that's where you are wrong muzic, the first rules of acm combat were meant to be so you wouldnt die. as for calling people cowards in this game, that is childish. if we have cowards then we must also have heroes. do you know of any heroes in this game?
semp
That would be in real life, we on the other hand are talking about game play here. NOBODY DIES. So if you don't want to engage in a fight why are they playing is the question I often ask myself. They should go play off line where NOBODY will engage them.
-
If you killed twice as many planes it would almost mandatory result in a bigger k/s and k/h, especially if it would be a result of taking less care in shooting. If you get more kills by taking more low % shots, it raises your k/h and k/s. What you are now saying is shooting worse AND less kills in the same tame. That's a different claim.
No it wouldn't, you would just have to fly twice as many hours.
Only doubling your hit% would have resulted in a fighter rank of 77
But similar would apply to the other categories:
Doubling your K/D - rank 95
Doubling K/S - rank 103
Doubling K/H - rank 123
Doubling points rank 118
In other words the hit% has the highest marginal utility which is what I said. :D
-
I know there is a lot of discussion around hit% and most of it was good discussion, but the real point of the thread was to ADD perk points. Using the example of Dolby again, he gets most of kills in low ENY planes, compared to some in the top 50 who fly 5 ENY and perk planes exclusively.
The impact of this could be calculated by reviewing the kill stats and calculating PERK points for each kill based on ENY differential. We would have to apply %landed to all evenly, and ignore Perk multiplier, but I think it would be very close to actual. It would be interesting to do for the top 50 and see if the order changes much.
-
Pand would probably be fighter #1 :D
-
Pand would probably be fighter #1 :D
Ehm, was in the top10 many times only flying an eny30 ride, sometimes in the top5 too... ehm :)
-
Some planes are at great disadvanage with hit %
FW190A5 is one of the worst flying with its historic package of 2* 151 2* FF 20mm and 2* 7.7mms
Also the Fw190A8R2 have a similar disadvantage.
-
Save, I would think the spit with the 12 MG would be about the worst % hit plane.
I know flying the P47, I am much more liberal with the lead showers than when I take out a Mustang.
-
I vote no.
HiTech
No on replacing or no on adding?
Can you share your thoughts on why? :salute
-
Can you share your thoughts on why? :salute
Yes I can.
HiTech
-
Yes I can.
HiTech
Rats, out smarted again.
Would you share your thoughts on adding perks to the rank score?
-
Yes I can.
HiTech
In English;
(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/siggy-1.jpg)
-
Save, I would think the spit with the 12 MG would be about the worst % hit plane.
I know flying the P47, I am much more liberal with the lead showers than when I take out a Mustang.
I have had some tours where I averaged over 12% in a P-47, but lately can't hit shat.
-
Rats, out smarted again.
Would you share your thoughts on adding perks to the rank score?
:airplane: OK, you want to know who is best fighter pilot? Tell you what, you know how much ammo you have when you take off, all you have to do is count the ammo when you land vs number of kills! If you have no kills, bottom of the list! Have 4 kills and expended 650 rounds, go to head of list. I flew, or tried to fly wing one night with Pand, he landed 9 kills and had 40 rounds of .50 cal in a Bravo! If that isn't the best, I don't know what you would consider the best.
-
:airplane: OK, you want to know who is best fighter pilot? Tell you what, you know how much ammo you have when you take off, all you have to do is count the ammo when you land vs number of kills! If you have no kills, bottom of the list! Have 4 kills and expended 650 rounds, go to head of list. I flew, or tried to fly wing one night with Pand, he landed 9 kills and had 40 rounds of .50 cal in a Bravo! If that isn't the best, I don't know what you would consider the best.
sounds like you are good bait hahahaha
Ps... not taking away from Pand here...he is a good 51B driver....
-
Rats, out smarted again.
Would you share your thoughts on adding perks to the rank score?
If your goal is to have the score system change who is shown as a high ranking pilot. Your perk idea would have very little effect.
HiTech
-
Hitech, Vinkman's idea does have some merit, but to make it measurable would take some thought.
Why do I think his idea has merit? Simply, we would see more of the plane set put to use. There are many subscribers that consider the rank system a measure of there performance against other players. By changing the metrics a bit, we would certainly see more of the early/mid-war vehicles used on a frequent basis. Which, would reflect HTC's hard work modeling those vehicles.
respectfully,
ammo
-
:airplane: OK, you want to know who is best fighter pilot? Tell you what, you know how much ammo you have when you take off, all you have to do is count the ammo when you land vs number of kills! If you have no kills, bottom of the list! Have 4 kills and expended 650 rounds, go to head of list. I flew, or tried to fly wing one night with Pand, he landed 9 kills and had 40 rounds of .50 cal in a Bravo! If that isn't the best, I don't know what you would consider the best.
Pand is good, granted, (and a jolly nice chap,) but please think a little before you take someone's bait. I say because he isn't the best, and I'm sure he would accept that like I do.
-
Hitech, Vinkman's idea does have some merit, but to make it measurable would take some thought.
Why do I think his idea has merit? Simply, we would see more of the plane set put to use. There are many subscribers that consider the rank system a measure of there performance against other players. By changing the metrics a bit, we would certainly see more of the early/mid-war vehicles used on a frequent basis. Which, would reflect HTC's hard work modeling those vehicles.
respectfully,
ammo
the ranking system is not really a measure of their performance against other players but rather their skill in understanding how the ranking system works.
for example we had a couple of years ago a guy who flew the mossie a zillion straight missions bombing towns over a 2 day period without ending his sorty. when he was tired he would take the mossie to a rear base and park in there. he ended up in second place in attack mode only because the other guy captured 2 bases. is avoiding combat a measure of his skill?
same thing while in fighter mode. you will see more than a couple of fighter score hordes stay high above everybody and if anybody comes close they quickly move away. they will only attack if sure it will get a killed and will really avoid combat at all costs.
do I think they are doing anything wrong? nope, it's their 15 bucks, let them play the game as they enjoy it. but changing the ranking system is not gonna change how people play. most couldnt care less if they rank 1000 or 1.
semp
-
Save, I would think the spit with the 12 MG would be about the worst % hit plane.
It wouldn't. Hit percentage isn't dependent on any part of the plane, it's purely influenced by the player. If you're a crappy shot, you're not going to have a very good hit percentage no matter how many guns your plane has or doesn't have.
I know flying the P47, I am much more liberal with the lead showers than when I take out a Mustang.
That just shows you don't have any sort of firing discipline and just waste ammo spraying and praying without really taking the time to aim properly before firing. I fly the P-38J, which has a very large amount of ammo but yet I routinely land with half of my ammo still left and 4-5 kills and with a high hit percentage. Why? Because I take the time to practice my gunnery and don't waste it spraying and praying.
ack-ack
-
Why do I think his idea has merit? Simply, we would see more of the plane set put to use. There are many subscribers that consider the rank system a measure of there performance against other players. By changing the metrics a bit, we would certainly see more of the early/mid-war vehicles used on a frequent basis. Which, would reflect HTC's hard work modeling those vehicles.
respectfully,
ammo
It won't increase the amount of early/mid-war planes being used. Many more players just like to fly whatever they want to fly than players that fly for rank. I know it's not going to make me want to fly an early war plane. Nor is it going to be any indicator of someone's skill, just like the current rank system.
ack-ack
-
Pand is good, granted, (and a jolly nice chap,) but please think a little before you take someone's bait. I say because he isn't the best, and I'm sure he would accept that like I do.
:airplane: Not trying argue the point about Pand, but do you know of anyone else in this game which consistently landed 5 to 9 kills in one sortie in a Bravo? I can name you 25 Rooks right now that will tell you the same thing! There are some great, great "sticks" in this game, Bru119, Snailman, GHI, Debrody and I could on for 30 mins naming guys who have impressed me with their continued success in a fighter.
What really impressed me the night that Pand landed 9 kills in one sortie, he wasn't picking and running, he got right down there in the dirt with them. Was I a bait a/c? NO, I just stayed up, but low enough to try to learn something.
My eyes and reaction time at my age, I am easy fodder for any reasonable stick in here. That's why I fly bombers 95% of the time. I still love the game though and hope to be able to play many, many more years!
-
If your goal is to have the score system change who is shown as a high ranking pilot. Your perk idea would have very little effect.
HiTech
If you mean I have an issue with any specific pilot in the top ranks or winner, I absolutely do not.
My only interest is game theory and metrics. I do metrics and data for a living. So the metric formulations and their out comes are like a hobby for me.
As far as the out come of this game, I'm interested in how the metric affects game play, not how they affect an individual pilot.
:salute
-
:airplane: OK, you want to know who is best fighter pilot? Tell you what, you know how much ammo you have when you take off, all you have to do is count the ammo when you land vs number of kills! If you have no kills, bottom of the list! Have 4 kills and expended 650 rounds, go to head of list. I flew, or tried to fly wing one night with Pand, he landed 9 kills and had 40 rounds of .50 cal in a Bravo! If that isn't the best, I don't know what you would consider the best.
that just means he had good aim.....Pand died very fast when I cornered him.
he was a good stick, that had excellent Aim...... but by no means was he in the tops in AH....by no means.
Landing kills is not an indication of ones skill.
I have seen him fly and faced him many times....he always had friends with him.....and ran away when he couldn't get the kill right away....
-
If you mean I have an issue with any specific pilot in the top ranks or winner, I absolutely do not.
My only interest is game theory and metrics. I do metrics and data for a living. So the metric formulations and their out comes are like a hobby for me.
As far as the out come of this game, I'm interested in how the metric affects game play, not how they affect an individual pilot.
:salute
"And it don't take no Sherlock Holmes to see..." that people are very aware of the differences in plane performance and how it affects game play. with all the metrics in the game, one wonders why plane type doesn't factor into any of the scoring categories.
Even if it didn't change the rankings much, there is value in having the plane type factored into the score because it removes the question that it's a huge factor. It either does, or it doesn't. Putting it in satisfies all. leaving it out, leaves questions. :salute
-
that just means he had good aim.....Pand died very fast when I cornered him.
he was a good stick, that had excellent Aim......
Pand has the MoH, awarded by... himself.
Seriously, he does not fight. Unless bait/pick is considered as fighting. End of the story.
K/D means nothing for me. Yup, im just an a-hole.
-
"And it don't take no Sherlock Holmes to see..." that people are very aware of the differences in plane performance and how it affects game play. with all the metrics in the game, one wonders why plane type doesn't factor into any of the scoring categories.
Even if it didn't change the rankings much, there is value in having the plane type factored into the score because it removes the question that it's a huge factor. It either does, or it doesn't. Putting it in satisfies all. leaving it out, leaves questions. :salute
For those who wish to score well, the current score system does a very good job at ranking them. People are not forced into any plane, so they can choose what planes they wish to use to score well. The issue is that many people want to use their own Idea of what a "Good pilot" is. But then they want to use the term good pilot generically. A pilot who's gunnery is better may choose a faster non turning plane, simply because that is his best way to turn is skills into points. Other players may be good at SA and wish to use a slower turning plane against multiple bogies because it leverages there skills into score. Why should either of these players be reward or have a detriment for the way they wish to score?
And a 3rd player will not care about score at all, and simply fly what plane he likes for his own reasons. He may not care if he dies, he may crash just to get back to base faster. And hence there really is no way to numerically quantify "SKILL".
So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.
And hence
Putting it in satisfies all.
It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.
HiTech
-
So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.
Interesting points. I think the same could be said when trying to compare which of the playing styles mentioned requires the most "skill".
It's all a matter of perspective.
-
So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.
And hence
It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.
HiTech
This was my first thought when I read this,players already argue about eny of plane X verses plane Y or that plane A should have this eny or plane B should have that eny.
I can safely say I can outfly atleast 50% of the players ingame but it doesnt do me much good when I cant shoot them down because my aim sux...
Personally I think it should be about fun,however you find it,whatever you do,afterall it is a GAME and they are supposed to be fun!
:salute
I became a trainer to help improve game play for everyone,I somehow feel like I've failed at this.
-
For those who wish to score well, the current score system does a very good job at ranking them. People are not forced into any plane, so they can choose what planes they wish to use to score well. The issue is that many people want to use their own Idea of what a "Good pilot" is. But then they want to use the term good pilot generically. A pilot who's gunnery is better may choose a faster non turning plane, simply because that is his best way to turn is skills into points. Other players may be good at SA and wish to use a slower turning plane against multiple bogies because it leverages there skills into score. Why should either of these players be reward or have a detriment for the way they wish to score?
And a 3rd player will not care about score at all, and simply fly what plane he likes for his own reasons. He may not care if he dies, he may crash just to get back to base faster. And hence there really is no way to numerically quantify "SKILL".
So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.
And hence
It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.
HiTech
:airplane: You make a good point! I think that everybody in this game have different goals for themselves and their own method of deciding where or not they have succeeded in a sortie! For me,, I could care less about my ranking, I judge my success as a player in this game by grading myself on how I handled the bombers in my mission.
Did I approach the target where one pilot can kill more than one hangar in first pass! Did I arrange the number of aircraft in the right defensive box, so as to maximize the field of fire, did we shut the base down in one pass, did I plan the return pass back to town so as to inflect maximum building kills, did I get 80% of my bombers home safely, including drones, did we prepare the target base to make it easier for heavy fighters to clean up and allow the troops in.
All of the things I have listed are important steps to be taken in mission planning, but even if we didn't succeed in capturing target base, if we succeed in carry out these operations, then I feel good about the mission.
Is any of that reflected in the scoring system? Of course not, but for my scoring system, that is where I get my satisfaction in playing the game!
-
For those who wish to score well, the current score system does a very good job at ranking them. People are not forced into any plane, so they can choose what planes they wish to use to score well. The issue is that many people want to use their own Idea of what a "Good pilot" is. But then they want to use the term good pilot generically. A pilot who's gunnery is better may choose a faster non turning plane, simply because that is his best way to turn is skills into points. Other players may be good at SA and wish to use a slower turning plane against multiple bogies because it leverages there skills into score. Why should either of these players be reward or have a detriment for the way they wish to score?
And a 3rd player will not care about score at all, and simply fly what plane he likes for his own reasons. He may not care if he dies, he may crash just to get back to base faster. And hence there really is no way to numerically quantify "SKILL".
So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.
And hence
It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.
HiTech
Hitech,
as you have said, those sentences are right, but please see Vink's point. Reaching a 4+ K/D, a good hit ratio, great kills/time, etc is relatively easy in a Spitfire16. I guess its a valid point that the same numerical stats worth more if the given player have reached them in a P40E that if he had the same score only flying a Spit16/Tempest.
I was flying a low eny ride, im not asking for any changes, just trying to point out what i think he wanted to tell.
-
I became a trainer to help improve game play for everyone,I somehow feel like I've failed at this.
Never think that. :salute
-
Hitech,
as you have said, those sentences are right, but please see Vink's point. Reaching a 4+ K/D, a good hit ratio, great kills/time, etc is relatively easy in a Spitfire16. I guess its a valid point that the same numerical stats worth more if the given player have reached them in a P40E that if he had the same score only flying a Spit16/Tempest.
I was flying a low eny ride, im not asking for any changes, just trying to point out what i think he wanted to tell.
if it is so easy then why doesnt the spit16 have those stats?
semp
-
if it is so easy then why doesnt the spit16 have those stats?
semp
Might be better to say easier. It still takes some experience and adherance to a concervative flying style to achieve stats stats like those. A noob on his two-week trial probably would not be able to do so with a spit xvi or any other ride.
-
if it is so easy then why doesnt the spit16 have those stats?
semp
I have said, relatively easy, dear Mistress Smartarse.
-
I have said, relatively easy, dear Mistress Smartarse.
probably because you are just being vague. you are saying getting kills in a ponyd is "relatively easy" but as compared to what? the full plane set? the storch? goons? 190's? zekes?
see I had to actually look up the term "relatively easy", as you know english is my 3rd language. so the english terms are sometimes not relatively easy for me to understand as for example german. so I wanted to make sure I didnt misunderstand what you said.
what I think you are trying to do is what was mentioned before. you are trying to define which airplane is easier to get kills than other. but regardless of which airplane you think it's easy and which it's hard, you can never come up with a standard that will define which airplanes are easier to fly and which are hard.
you probably have better luck trying to define skill. or the other term, people love to use "given two players of equal skill....". this one makes me laugh as there is no such thing as two players of equal skill.
:salute
semp
semp
-
Many times it is not even what plane we even choose to fly but someone's very skewed view of what makes them great and you not. In some cases we are blasted and blasted AND BLASTED on 200 to this. Like many, I appreciate much of the comradery on 200 but our only weapon in these abuses is Squelch.
Luckily it is only a few that do this and AH have noticed them to the degree of muting them for a time. Too often though they go right back to it. :frown:
Remind we why there is no small permanent\persistent squelch list?
-
See rule #4
-
Why not use the current scoring methods to award a highest score in each plane each tour. Lots of people could be the highest score every month, just in different planes. The overall highest score could be left as is, which is usually achieved by using a high percentage of perked planes and gvs.
-
Many times it is not even what plane we even choose to fly but someone's very skewed view of what makes them great and you not. In some cases we are blasted and blasted AND BLASTED on 200 to this. Like many, I appreciate much of the comradery on 200 but our only weapon in these abuses is Squelch.
Luckily it is only a few that do this and AH have noticed them to the degree of muting them for a time. Too often though they go right back to it. :frown:
Remind we why there is no small permanent\persistent squelch list?
Best thing to do is to ignore. Or better still simply avoid ch200, which can be entertaining and at times is great to playfully give an opposing player a hard time. The problem is some do so in a less than mature manner.
-
Why not use the current scoring methods to award a highest score in each plane each tour. Lots of people could be the highest score every month, just in different planes. The overall highest score could be left as is, which is usually achieved by using a high percentage of perked planes and gvs.
If I understand that right. +1
I think modest planes are awarded more points for actions? Perhaps that would better achieve factoring in pilots that fly modest planes.
...of course that is admittedly my very skewed take how rank should work. P-40s should factor in greater than say an LA-7 etc.
-
If I understand that right. +1
I think modest planes are awarded more points for actions? Perhaps that would better achieve factoring in pilots that fly modest planes.
...of course that is admittedly my very skewed take how rank should work. P-40s should factor in greater than say an LA-7 etc.
Are you worried more about "rank" or are you looking to provide incentive for other players to jump into higher ENY planes?
-
For those who wish to score well, the current score system does a very good job at ranking them. People are not forced into any plane, so they can choose what planes they wish to use to score well. The issue is that many people want to use their own Idea of what a "Good pilot" is. But then they want to use the term good pilot generically. A pilot who's gunnery is better may choose a faster non turning plane, simply because that is his best way to turn is skills into points. Other players may be good at SA and wish to use a slower turning plane against multiple bogies because it leverages there skills into score. Why should either of these players be reward or have a detriment for the way they wish to score?
And a 3rd player will not care about score at all, and simply fly what plane he likes for his own reasons. He may not care if he dies, he may crash just to get back to base faster. And hence there really is no way to numerically quantify "SKILL".
So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.
And hence
It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.
HiTech
Yes the word "Rank" implies for many a measure of quality or skill. If that is not the purpose of the Rank, then there is no need to change it. Thanks for the insight. :salute
-
<snip>
I became a trainer to help improve game play for everyone,I somehow feel like I've failed at this.
It isn't always the teachers fault that a student fails.
In your case though Morf, it isn't your fault. :salute
-
How about adding an ENY kill ratio to the list of considerations for calculating rank? Might encourage people to play around with the less "uber" planes.
I think it would just be cool to see who has the most success with flying the more "challenging" planes. Speaking of ENY, how closely does ENY mirror kill ratios? For example, do 5 ENY planes like the P-51 or LA-7 have a 4 times better kill ratio than a 20 ENY P-38J?
-
I think it would just be cool to see who has the most success with flying the more "challenging" planes. Speaking of ENY, how closely does ENY mirror kill ratios? For example, do 5 ENY planes like the P-51 or LA-7 have a 4 times better kill ratio than a 20 ENY P-38J?
Will try to publish that Sat/Sun. See my stats thread for 2012 data.
-
Will try to publish that Sat/Sun. See my stats thread for 2012 data.
What page are the 2012 stats on? That thread should have an index or something. :P
-
What page are the 2012 stats on? That thread should have an index or something. :P
It starts right on the first, that's what the threat was originally was about. On page for there is a general fighter usage & K/D overview http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345669.msg4565254.html#msg4565254
-
Why not use the current scoring methods to award a highest score in each plane each tour. Lots of people could be the highest score every month, just in different planes. The overall highest score could be left as is, which is usually achieved by using a high percentage of perked planes and gvs.
This idea has some merit.
It would give more players a chance at being a "top scorer" in something. In addition, I think you'd likely see a wider variety of fighter types flown in the MA, as players choose more obscure planes to try to be "the best scorer" in it.
Kind of a fun idea, IMO.
+1
-
Can you clarify if this is factored into rank (just curious):
1. You see red guys on radar.
2. You up a plane from the closest base and head to engage them.
3. When you get there they are gone.
Is the time you spent heading to a battle that will never occur factored into ones rank?
If yes...why?
Thanks,
Slade :salute
-
It effects your "Kills per Hour of Flight" portion of the score.
If you up a base under attack and get 20 kills in an hour but die 40 times they off set a bit with the "kills to death" category.
Remember, all "score" categories can be "adjusted" by how you fly. Don't use score as a guide to how your doing compared against others. Just play your game and compare your score against your score to see how your improving.
-
I personally don't care how I rank "overall" in a given category, but do use Kill per Death as my per personal metric of success. My gunnery has always been respectable enough for me is I guess Hit % is a metric to a smaller extent.
I don't measure my success against other players - just against my personal goals.
-
It effects your "Kills per Hour of Flight" portion of the score.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I don't measure my success against other players - just against my personal goals.
Ditto. It was simply a curiosity.