Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: nrshida on September 17, 2016, 03:53:46 AM
-
Today I ran into a player who has PMed me in the past to smack-talk me using relative rank as the core of his 'argument'. Today he was flying a Zero quite high and only getting brave when I was already 2 on 1 etc. Otherwise he'd just climb neutrally. Finally I found him alone and co-e and in two turns only shot him down. Howwibly. Like a dirty rat. As some kind of yellow coolant began leaking from his aircraft. I would rate his ACM understanding at below intermediate level although I've been told he's played for years. My Rank is something over 1100. His: 48.
It got me thinking why is AH scoring apparently focussed on promoting risk aversive gameplay? Is this by design? Could a more sophisticated scoring system promote more combat?
1 - Why is one pattern of behaviour / skill set anticipated for all players, when evidentially there is much variety?
2 - Why is the time of day / density of players not taken into consideration?
3 - Why is there absolutely no circumstance of the fight accounted for?
4 - Why is there no sort of handicap system in place? Now we have an achievement system, can the type and nature of training you do not be incorporated into the scoring system?
5 - When a player drags you into ack why does he automatically get a kill?
6 - If certain aircraft are perked, why aren't less-capable-than-average ones more rewarded in score (especially the specialists players in those)?
7 - Why aren't certain styles of ACM moderated versus others when it comes to scoring?
8 - When a squad is flying in cohesive groups why are they scored equally against those who fly without this advantage?
9 - As additional players join a ganging, shouldn't all those involved get an assist instead of a kill?
10 - Why does Rank, for instance, require you to carry out a spectrum of AH activities when some only choose to fly fighters or bombers or drive vehicles?
11 - In addition to a kill/death ratio why isn't a you/opponents average ratio also not recorded?
12 - Could a subjective-qualitive feedback system balance those purely playing for score and add (or re-add even) a qualitive later to gameplay?
-
Rank is fairly meaningless in the MA. People can milk run stuff and crank it up. Do 1 or 2 bombing runs, attack runs, and vehicle runs and you''ll be ranked in the top 150 easy. Just play and have fun is what I say.
-
6 - If certain aircraft are perked, why aren't less-capable-than-average ones more rewarded in score (especially the specialists players in those)?
Aren't they reflected in the kill and damage points? You don't get the same score per town building destroyed in a Lanc as you get destroying the same building in a G5M.
5 - When a player drags you into ack why does he automatically get a kill?
Because you'd get a kill if you vulched him wheels down on the runway.
10 - Why does Rank, for instance, require you to carry out a spectrum of AH activities when some only choose to fly fighters or bombers or drive vehicles?
Because it's overall rank. If you're a specialist your rank in that individual category will benefit.
1 - Why is one pattern of behaviour / skill set anticipated for all players, when evidentially there is much variety?
3 - Why is there absolutely no circumstance of the fight accounted for?
7 - Why aren't certain styles of ACM moderated versus others when it comes to scoring?
8 - When a squad is flying in cohesive groups why are they scored equally against those who fly without this advantage?
I don't see how the game could possibly know most of these things to take them into account. How could the program possibly tell the difference between a squad flying cohesively and a bunch of people who are near each other but not cooperating at all? How would the game evaluate what style of ACM you're performing? You'd need about 50 or 100 employees at HTC doing nothing but watching films all day and manually adjusting skill based on play style. Not to mention that it would be absolutely impossible to do this objectively or to set standards that wouldn't have half the players screaming bloody murder because behavior they see as dweebish or gamey is being rewarded.
-
Just play and have fun is what I say.
Was just thinking how influential playing for score was on the enjoyment of others. And what would happen if the scoring system became more capable.
Aren't they reflected in the kill and damage points? You don't get the same score per town building destroyed in a Lanc as you get destroying the same building in a G5M.
I don't know to be honest. I heard the Germans recorded two kills for each Mosquito at one point, and the Japanese had a kill-share system.
Because you'd get a kill if you vulched him wheels down on the runway.
I'm not talking about people rtbing, I mean those who deliberately use the ack to solve their ACM problems for them. Vulching should also score less I think.
Because it's overall rank. If you're a specialist your rank in that individual category will benefit.
Why is overall rank listed on the roster and not your speciality / best one then?
I don't see how the game could possibly know most of these things to take them into account. How could the program possibly tell the difference between a squad flying cohesively and a bunch of people who are near each other but not cooperating at all? How would the game evaluate what style of ACM you're performing?
I think most of those are quite straightforward to implement automatically.
You think everyting's fine with the scoring system exacty the way it is then?
-
The rank has no meaning. I don't know anyone that pays any attention to ranking since it can easily be manipulated.
I play a lot so my rank is meaningless compared to someone who can not play as often.
Then there are the players who use low risk attacks like vulching. These people rarely engage in air fights without backup but they often abandon the players that save their butt.
I would bet if htc stopped posting rank, very few would even notice.
-
nrshisa was in AH2 ..so this doenst app.. was seeing if Ah II stil lworked as you killed the 109 ,,with 5 players on..
-
My old pc unable to get a 4 hour erection waa.. If i spend a grand ona new cupter which makes no sense ..titanfall? If dumbarse fugutive guy who you base your cleintel on show's up to nerf me..well Hitech nuff said y brotha.
170 player s in FSO last week!
-
10 - Why does Rank, for instance, require you to carry out a spectrum of AH activities when some only choose to fly fighters or bombers or drive vehicles?
It doesn't.
What you refer to is, obviously, the overall rank. Which, by the very definition of overall, includes all of AH (except manned guns). But you still have also the various subranks. When someone really insists using rank to show off his 1337 fighter skilzz (which is wrong anyway), you gotta look at his fighter rank. If anything, overall rank just shows how much of a 'complete AH player' one is.
And when it comes to fighter rank, AH doesn't propagate total risk aversive gameplay, just partially ;).
For there is also k/h and k/s, kill points, hit%. In AH, it's very common to talk about 'fighter score' when you actually just mean K/D. But the K/D aIn't your score, and the K/D is only a small part of the fighter rank calculation. K/D is usually totally overrated by players when it comes to score/rank (not to speak of game enjoyment). If someone does only constantly run away from any kind of risk, he may 'protect' his pretty k/d, but not his score at all.
But in the end, score just tells you how good you are fitting into the AH scoring system. See it as a different sub-game. If someone else is using his rank to boast about his fighting skills, just ignore it. (However, the 'anybody can become #1' is very wrong either)
On a personal note: Ten times I was featured on the AH front page as the top fighter pilot. At no point I ever did believe I actually was. There always had been plenty of fighter pilots in the MA which thoroughly reminded me by mopping the floor with my plane that I am not. :ahand
-
I don't know to be honest. I heard the Germans recorded two kills for each Mosquito at one point,
Never. One kill is one kill, there was no multiplying nor any sharing.
What existed was, for some time, a point system for for medals, where, for example a fighter got you one point, a heavy bomber four.
-
What you refer to is, obviously, the overall rank.
I feel that is inapplicable to someone who never drives a tank of flies a bomber for instance. Perhaps if a player has 0 in tanks, bombers etc, that shouldn't drag his average down?
And when it comes to fighter rank, AH doesn't propagate total risk aversive gameplay, just partially ;).
For there is also k/h and k/s, kill points, hit%. In AH, it's very common to talk about 'fighter score' when you actually just mean K/D. But the K/D ain't your score, and the K/D is only a small part of the fighter rank calculation. K/D is usually totally overrated by players when it comes to score/rank (not to speak of game enjoyment). If someone does only constantly run away from any kind of risk, he may 'protect' his pretty k/d, but not his score at all.
I was thinking that a more intelligent combination of those factors would be more useful. What would you design as the 'ideal' scoring system Lusche?
But in the end, score just tells you how good you are fitting into the AH scoring system.
Yes I agree. I didn't accept his 'argument' by the way. He just wanted to shut me up and thought that would do it. Lucky for him logical argument isn't scored.
I've always paid very little attention to the score. I realize now it's completely misaligned with my style of gameplay, for example. Especially with my more intelligent (system) ideas, I was thinking that vector information could also be combined with ordinary metrics for a more useful scoring system. I was also thinking to delimit reality from the game more clearly, like the squad example. In WWII everyone was in a communicating squad, essentially. Also no stats webpage in WWII.
Alternatively offering an opt out of scoring entirely would be interesting to me.
Is CrazyIvan telling me I'm old hat? :furious
-
Add in a few new scoring categories:
H/D, or Hit per death, as in how many players it takes to kill you. This also may help indicate how much danger you fly into.
If you are an easy kill, your H/D will be close to 1.0, meaning it takes only 1 player to kill you.
If you typically own 1v1 engagements, it may take assists by many players to kill you. The higher the number, the better.
Plane choice and luck of the draw on opponents can effect this, but over the course of a month, it would be another barometer of "skill" to incorporate with the others used to determine score.
Hit per sortie (H/S) would be the same idea, only not requiring a death to count for your score.
ENY/K, or ENY per kill. This would account for what you use to make your kills in.
An ENY/K of 5.0 would indicate someone who, all else being equal, takes the easy road.
A player with an ENY/K of 29.8 would indicate a player of higher skill, than the above player. Again, provided all else as being equal.
As score stands now, it is far easier to have a better score with the best planes. Adding this in would require score oriented players to get some kills in a middling or lower end ride, or else get passed in rank by someone with similar numbers, but a better ENY/K.
Player A using current score model: Player B using current score model
K/D 5.0 K/D 4.5
K/S 3.0 K/S 2.5
K/H 7.0 K/H 6.5
Hit% 9.0 Hit% 8.5
Kill Points 25,000 Kill Points 24,500
Player A obviously has a better score, but what if we made it tougher to have a high score?
Now adding in new score categories, with all others unchanged:
Player A Player B
H/D 1.5 H/D 3.5
ENY/K 5.0 ENY/K 29.5
Player B didn't score as well in the other categories, but did so in inferior planes and fared much better in dangerous situations against multiple enemies. Adding in these score categories would give a better overall picture of skill than the current method.
-
I think the time factor also plays into it. Those that get to play more have a number of categories bumped up, not to mention all that practice time.
Nrshida's fighter ranking at about 8.5 hours playing time,
Score Rank
Kills per Death + 1 0.59 637
Kills per Sortie 0.36 690
Kills per Hour of Flight 1.87 798
Kills Hit Percentage 1.16 1013
Kill Points 886.86 583
His nemesis's fighter ranking same day at just under 75 hours playing time.
Kills per Death + 1 0.78 387
Kills per Sortie 0.49 399
Kills per Hour of Flight 2.92 441
Kills Hit Percentage 4.74 340
Kill Points 38067.60 2
The kill points is a huge difference, and you just need time to build that one.
K/D and K/S is really two factors. Skill and style. The better fighter will have better numbers here, but if you fly in furball to the death all the time it will bring those numbers down. Those that fly careful..... AKA as nrshidas nemesis in this instance can inflate those numbers a bit.
Kills per hour of flight, this is another number that can be inflated due to time playing. Lets say you find a single great fight where you can get a bunch of kills every ten hours. Nrshida gets one such fight were his nemesis gets 7 of them. In these opportunities your kills for that hour can be very high over your average and so bump it up.
Hit %, is just aim right? Well you can bump this one as well just by hitting buffs. They take a lot more rounds to drop, and as a bigger target are much easier to hit. Find a few dive bombing wonders and rake the crap out of them as they lawndart and your hit% will climb.
Luckily rank is only important in the game when it comes to CV groups, which is too bad but there it is. Just because someone can tweak there rank, or is willing to spend the time to do it certainly doesnt make them a better fleet admiral.
There are a bunch of loop holes in the scoring system. There will always be those that will look for and exploit those loop holes making any type of ranking/comparison a waste of time. I don't think there is any way to make it "fair" as there are just too many factors involved due to time, styles, arena numbers and even the maps that can help a player tweak his/her rank.
I look at it this way, if a beat a player consistently, no matter their rank, I fly this cartoon game better than them. Unfortunately, there are not very many I can beat consistently :D
-
I feel that is inapplicable to someone who never drives a tank of flies a bomber for instance. Perhaps if a player has 0 in tanks, bombers etc, that shouldn't drag his average down?
Why should it not? After all, it's overall meaning how well you do fare in all things combined. If you never tank, your overall rank should 'suffer' accordingly, as you are not that good overall.
If I want to compare myself with others only in certain categories, I'd use the specific sub ranks.
By the way, I actually look at lot at other people's scores (apart from the obvious reasons of having to do so in my position as the unofficial AH statistician), but I only 'judge' people by combination of score and plane statistics. I entirely ignore the ranks. I don't care about who's number one in this and that, and I'd bet neither do the huge majority of AH players.
What would you design as the 'ideal' scoring system Lusche?
I don't know anything like that. While I do would have two rather minuscule changes to it (with one being entirely for statistical reasons), I don't see a way to make it that much more fair. And I'm afraid, many have a very different, distinguished conception of a 'better scoring system' based entirely upon their own playing style ;)
-
Add in a few new scoring categories:
H/D, or Hit per death, as in how many players it takes to kill you. This also may help indicate how much danger you fly into.
Which may be fun, but in my book that could also be a sign for an incompetent fighter pilot with a huge lack in situational awareness. ;)
As score stands now, it is far easier to have a better score with the best planes.
That's why the only major modification I'd propose would be replacing the fighter points category with perks earned. this simple change would factor in your ride, the enemy ride, and your side's perk modifier. Right now I massively benefit from flying late war perk monsters and shooting up enemy bombers. (Not only 3 quick kills, but also heaps of score points)
But even that would be gameable, so to speak. The hot shots of AH would congregate onto a very few "sweet spot" ENY 15-20 rides, and the ENY value debates would get quite heated.
-
Which may be fun, but in my book that could also be a sign for an incompetent fighter pilot with a huge lack in situational awareness. ;)
An incompetent fighter pilot could never do well enough in K/D, K/S or Hit % to ever have a high score.
Oh, and a modification to your idea would be to change from "perks earned" to "perks earned per sortie". Having a cumulative total favors players with more hours, while an average per sortie is fair for all.
-
An incompetent fighter pilot could never do well enough in K/D, K/S or Hit % to ever have a high score.
Wouldn't this argument goes both ways? :)
And you can't get a good h/h or hit% without being reasonably good in it... but you could get shot by many people just by messing up.
No, taking a lot of damage ain't a sign of anything.
-
Wouldn't this argument goes both ways? :)
And you can't get a good h/h or hit% without being reasonably good in it... but you could get shot by many people just by messing up.
No, taking a lot of damage ain't a sign of anything.
It's hits per sortie, not damage. One ping indicates a player took a shot at you. A player that gets in to the mix is more likely to get pinged by multiple players than someone in a Tempest blasting through a furball.
-
It's hits per sortie, not damage. One ping indicates a player took a shot at you. A player that gets in to the mix is more likely to get pinged by multiple players than someone in a Tempest blasting through a furball.
Still the same. Getting hit by enemies could still simply be by messing up SA big time. It's less a sign of anything like skill than any of the existing categories.
It adds nothing.
The "tempest blasting through a furball' (if someone is to find any furballs at all) could be much simpler be adressed by the perk vs score points solution I proposed earlier.
And even that wouldn't eliminate what some would describe "gaming the score"
-
While were at the rank things, some food for thought:
I ran some numbers. The same fighter stats that resulted in having rank 9 for last tour would have given me a rank in the lower 200s 10 years ago...
The changing environment has a profound effect on what gets you into the top and what not.
-
Alright. Just for the record, I'm not the fighter the OP is referring to :D as some of you know I bring up scoring sometimes on the forum. I think AH has one the best scoring models of any game.
I only do this when players who haven't played a while, who I've never seen in the game, talk about the flight model or talk about their skills in air combat, while having nothing to base these accusations on. Just to give them a challenge.
Let's talk about fighter scoring, as most other scores are based on killing stationary objects.
1. Just because you are a good 1v1 fighter doesn't mean you are good in the MA. This is also vice versa. Being good in a 1v1 won't make you #1 fighter, and being good in the MA doesn't mean you are the best 1v1 fighter.
2. There seems to be this notion that flying timidly means you are playing for score. This is false in most cases. Players who fly timidly actually don't rank as good. They tend to have a lower Kills per hour and typically don't get as many kills. Players who fly too timidly don't know how to utilize their E and get quick kills when the time is right. They tend to only land 1 or 2 kills in a 45 minute sortie thus not actually achieving a good score.
3. There is a reason why most players don't actually achieve a good fighter score if they try. They don't understand how the scoring works and don't fly the right planes with the right style. It's almost entirely based on how well you actually know the airplane and the situation you are in. For example, someone who flies a P51D at 25K and only gets 2 kills while BnZing and never taking any risk, is not going to achieve a good fighter rank even if they are actually trying.
4. The best rankers actually take risks, get down and dirty, claw their way out of messes and get 4-5 kills in the process. Even if they die. They get more kills. They get faster kills. And they tend to get better shots on their opponents during the process to make Hit% nice. Some even use bombers to get a better Hit% and points.
5. Myths:
Players who fly timidly are playing for rank.
This is FALSE. Timid flying is based on natural instincts. Running to ack is natural instincts. This type of flying is based on players who do not know how to utilize their plane to the full strength, thereby only using speed as their main advantage to get away from trouble.
The longer a player plays per month the better their rank will be.
This is FALSE. One of the best parts of AH ranking is that it's not based on a time system. For the most part. A player who plays for 150 hours a month, may be #1 in the point category, but they have 4 other categories they have to keep high as well. Sometimes the more play, actually hurts your rank, as you have to keep up the other categories constantly. Some one with 15 hours could have better marks in the other categories, thus giving them a better rank.
The best rankers never die.
This is FALSE. Some of the best rankers die 50% of the time. K/D is only one category. Again, you have to keep it up, but it's not the most important. A player who gets 1 kill and lands, will have a worse rank than a player who gets 4 kills quickly and dies. It's all about understanding the score model.
Players who fly easy mode planes get the best ranks.
This is FALSE. Just because a player flies easier planes, doesn't mean they are good enough to achieve a good score. You still have to know how to fly these planes, get a lot of kills, and keep up your score for more than 15 sorties. Most players cannot achieve this even in easier perked planes. That being said, if a player knows how to utilize a high score, flying an easier plane will give them an advantage.
Any one can achieve high scores, and ranking is easy or unvalued as skill in AH.
This is FALSE. Despite complaints about how some players fly. Achieving a high rank is not that easy. You have to really understand how to fly in AH. Understand your planes, your SA, and actually know how to get kills quickly. You have to know how to find fights on the map and get kills quickly. A person who achieves a high rank understands this. One of the biggest reasons why most players don't score high, is that they don't understand how to utilize different planes for different situations. They don't know how to get quick kills. They don't know how to combined all the categories of rank into one sortie. They don't have the patients to work on their ACM and their SA in the MA, where things are never fair.
Now, I'm not saying that anyone who doesn't do this is a bad fighter. Most just don't care. Most don't even try. And most aren't into #s. What I am sayin is that for the people who do try for rank, or the people who you do think are trying for rank, there are many considerations to how they fly, and what they fly, that can gauge whether they actually know what they are doing. I find it very competitive to achieve a higher fighter rank, And thus I know the type of skills it does take to achieve.
I hope this clarifies your sentiment.
:salute
-
As soon as someone brings up score as a sign of ability I glaze over. It's pretty meaningless because it is so easy to manipulate. You can look at it and kinda get a general idea but it will never tell the whole story no matter how many variables you throw in.
The only true measure of the game is how much fun YOU have playing it. Based on the longevity of the game, it passes the fun test with flying colors.
-
I actually like the ENY per sortie as a score. That would get players in older planes and create better fights.
Also, Louche, it's crazy the difference in statistics from 2006 and now. I think is purely based on # of players and good competitors. You can see from 2006, that it was much more difficult and you had to get much higher #s to be the top fighter.
Kills per Death + 1 9.88 21. 21
Kills per Sortie 5.12 6. 6
Kills per Hour of Flight 18.07 13
Kills Hit Percentage 16.17 27
Kill Points 49447.08 108
Statistics
Fighter
Kills 425 0 0 0 425
Assists 76 0 0 0 76
Sorties 83 0 0 0 83
Landed 38 0 0 0 38
Bailed 4 0 0 0 4
Ditched 3 0 0 0 3
Captured 12 0 0 0 12
Deaths 26 0 0 0 26
Discos 0 0 0 0 0
Time hh:mm:ss 23:30:55 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 23:30:55
Rank 2
-
Also, Louche, it's crazy the difference in statistics from 2006 and now. I think is purely based on # of players and good competitors. You can see from 2006, that it was much more difficult and you had to get much higher #s to be the top fighter.
The score points (= kills tally) and especially the kills/hour were MUCH higher for the top scores back then. Elite furballers could had always found one, join in and rack up a lot of kills in very short times. Now they often have to cope with single cons even during prime time.
-
As soon as someone brings up score as a sign of ability I glaze over. It's pretty meaningless because it is so easy to manipulate.
Agreed that's why I wanted to initiate a discussion about a more system intelligent-based approach. I share your sentimeent about a more internally reflective view but find this rare lately.
Lusche I found this quote:-
"Offensively, the Mosquito units also conducted night time fighter sweeps in indirect and direct protection of RAF Bomber Command's heavy bombers to help reduce RAF bomber losses in 1944 and 1945. The Mosquito increased German night fighter losses to such an extent the Germans were said to have awarded two victories for shooting one down" - Hastings 1979, p. 240.
Perhaps an unsubstantiated rumour. I'm pretty sure the Japanese Navy at least scored partial kills per unit. Couldn't find my Sakai book. I think I actually sent it to an AH player.
Players who fly timidly actually don't rank as good. They tend to have a lower Kills per hour and typically don't get as many kills.
That's also why I brought up point number 2 - Why is the time of day / density of players not taken into consideration? I know the dwindling numbers exasperated this but it's a lot harder to find fights in some European, Australian and far Eastern player's hours than at American Prime time.
No it wasn't you, I said below intermediate ACM :D
-
But even that would be gameable, so to speak. The hot shots of AH would congregate onto a very few "sweet spot" ENY 15-20 rides, and the ENY value debates would get quite heated.
It would be very gameable, and it SHOULD be quite heated. The ENY of all the Luftwaffe fighters is ridiculous. The 109K4 should be a 5, it's one of the deadliest fighters in the game. The 190D9 should be 6 or 8, the 152 the same.
Also, if we had ENY score, kills in perk planes should score 1/4 the normal score, and jets/rockets 1/8.
-
:headscratch:
Is there a point to this subject?
EDIT: As in does anyone expect the scoring criteria to change? Or that it really should be?
-
Is there a point to this subject?
EDIT: As in does anyone expect the scoring criteria to change? Or that it really should be?
Well that's a difficult question. Do I feel the present scoring reflects accurately on my (for instance) AH activities? No (hence the thread). Ought the scoring system be expanded to encapsulate everyone's activies in order to have any merit at all? Probably. Can it be done technically? Certainly. If it doesn't, should an opt-out option be therefore included to reflect the division between those who presently play by the score and those who ignore it? Probably be fairer wouldn't it. Is there any expectation that the suggestion of any new or innovative ideas could be discussed on this forum? Looking increasingly unlikely isn't it. Is it possible to indeed have a constructive discussion in the wider sense here? Signal to noise ratio is leaning on the rather low side of the spectrum. Is your question a real question or another 'let's all keep everything exactly the way it is' remark. Who can tell.
-
Time spent manoeuvring to advantage or waiting for the "pick" or always ensuring you rtb must affect the kills/hr ratio.
I think if you want to influence the fighter score ( in the manner I think you would wish) then the system should reward the kills/ hour more or better still find some way to measure and reward the engagements / hour ( possibly adding pertinent deaths to this scoring element).
Of course this penalises such things as escort......but escort is a rare thing anyway.
Conversely
I see or at least have seen praise here for folk who just throw them selves into a combat with ( should the situation actually be looked at in advance) no hope of a successfull outcome.
Indeed I have, when some what bored, done exactly the same. Diving into a group of enemy knowing they are communicating and slowly ( or some times more quickly) being e drained or manoeuvred to a point where the thousand cuts become one too many or I am saddled with no real hope of evasion.
This is usually the last desperate attempt at entertainment before I log out.
The argument of some is that by doing this I will improve my skill. Playing this genre of game for some 20 years now I think I can pretty well be certain that there is no metamorphism of ability awaiting me. My trained reactions and instinctive ACM is not going to substantially improve.
What I can do is out think my opponent, not give him an edge, maximise my edge, don't do dumb things, know when to bug out, know when to stay for the kill, apply a dicipline of game play.
Do I do this all the time? No this too would become boring. Does it bring reward when applied? Yes..... Because I set out to do it and it worked.
However, somehow I feel that this would not fit into the world that some would wish to advance..........
Experience and guile v energy and skill??
-
In any game the players are going to hunt up and engage in the activities which bring them the most fun. Then there are people that cannot stand for anyone to have fun that does not include them. Aesop even had a fable about it.
The Fox and the Grapes: There are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach.
-
It amazes me how many people whine about others' gameplay. Like "dam, him for finding an efficient and effective way for me not to kill him. Its just not fair!" Whine, whine, whine. Well, if the whiner is so dam good, and it bothers him sooooo much, then he should show his awesome-ness by being able to find a way to hunt down and draw the bad guy into a fight. Otherwise, the bad guys is just doing what he thinks he has to do to play the game to his satisfaction and stay alive while doing it. No doubt its not as much fun to the big game hunter not to have his prey just march right into the trap and commit suicide, but's that's the way it is. To me, such whiners are more of a pain than any timid fighter pilot. Get over yourself. We're not here for your enjoyment, really!
-
Yeah, what I said. :rock
-
Score is the most pointless thing in the entire game. It means absolutely nothing and can not (and never will) show even close to accurate skill level. I remember frequently killing "elite" fighter pilots whose rank was in the top 10 while mine was over 2000.
A lot of people in the MA though have extremely massive egos that blind them to everything but their score and take it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to seriously (I'm convinced these people print out their stats each tour and get them framed to hang on the wall). They have yet to realize that no one cares what your stats in a video game look like.
-
A lot of people in the MA though have extremely massive egos that blind them to everything but their score and take it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to seriously (I'm convinced these people print out their stats each tour and get them framed to hang on the wall).
There are a lot of EGOs flying in AH, but I'm absolutely convinced that the number of players looking at their score like that ^^^^ is very small.
Else it wouldn't be, for example, so simple to get a very good 'overall' rank with just a few missions in everything. Would be much harder if there really was a competition about that.
I firmly believe the vast majority just shrugs when it comes to their ranks. 'Competitive score players' are few & far between, and many do the score thing just for the occasional tour to see how far their get, before falling back into their usual (and probably more fun) routine.
If you see someone running, it's most of the time not for 'protecting their score' (would really work for bombers only anyway). It's because players just can't stand to get shot down. (Or because they are actually RTBing ;) )
-
Also, Louche, it's crazy the difference in statistics from 2006 and now. I think is purely based on # of players and good competitors. You can see from 2006, that it was much more difficult and you had to get much higher #s to be the top fighter.
I actually think the arena is much more competitive now than it was in 2006. Your view may be skewed because you are much better than me, but take it from someone on "the B team..." This game is more of a challenge now than ever.
Take a typical night in fighter town over NDISLES for example... My sorties go something like this:
"Ok, coalt con... niki... darn it, 2cmex shot me down... k4... darn it, there's sawzaw... Oh, good! A 190! Easy kill! ... Darn Starfox... Look behind me, there's some 47s winging... Darn 56th... Now a 38... Akak... Another 38... Shuffler...A spitty! Darn it! What the heck is Bruv doing up this late!? Ooooooooo a low and slow con... WTH now it's a Muppet flying on the other country!"
There are less players, sure, and probably less "top tier" sticks, but the chances of me encountering someone who can clean my clock is exceptional. There really aren't that many people out there who have no idea what they're doing any more. I don't envy the new guy.
-
Time spent manoeuvring to advantage or waiting for the "pick" or always ensuring you rtb must affect the kills/hr ratio.
I think if you want to influence the fighter score ( in the manner I think you would wish) then the system should reward the kills/ hour more or better still find some way to measure and reward the engagements / hour ( possibly adding pertinent deaths to this scoring element).
Of course this penalises such things as escort......but escort is a rare thing anyway.
Conversely
I see or at least have seen praise here for folk who just throw them selves into a combat with ( should the situation actually be looked at in advance) no hope of a successfull outcome.
Indeed I have, when some what bored, done exactly the same. Diving into a group of enemy knowing they are communicating and slowly ( or some times more quickly) being e drained or manoeuvred to a point where the thousand cuts become one too many or I am saddled with no real hope of evasion.
This is usually the last desperate attempt at entertainment before I log out.
The argument of some is that by doing this I will improve my skill. Playing this genre of game for some 20 years now I think I can pretty well be certain that there is no metamorphism of ability awaiting me. My trained reactions and instinctive ACM is not going to substantially improve.
What I can do is out think my opponent, not give him an edge, maximise my edge, don't do dumb things, know when to bug out, know when to stay for the kill, apply a dicipline of game play.
Do I do this all the time? No this too would become boring. Does it bring reward when applied? Yes..... Because I set out to do it and it worked.
However, somehow I feel that this would not fit into the world that some would wish to advance..........
Experience and guile v energy and skill??
Bingo.
-
What we are looking for is kill quality. The numbers side would be hard to obtain. original alt, distance from home, number of localized individuals engaged in the fight, aircraft type, fighting style; really a live judge that can actively evaluate the scoring system. But we need numbers, and im not sure they exist to truly define skill. The real skill is gaming the already established scoring system. If you change the system the players adapt to become number !.
I would like to see score start at 25% in your ack increasing to 100% at 7k and decreasing like the atmosphere from 12k up to 0% at 40k.
Also, Score is an additional 25% at home increasing to 100% at 15 Miles.
Thus the scoring system promotes players of all types to fly at 10k and 15 miles from home to get 100%
:old:
:airplane:
:salute
-
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/124/041/496.jpg)
-
I would like to see score start at 25% in your ack increasing to 100% at 7k and decreasing like the atmosphere from 12k up to 0% at 40k.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that it's so much easier to shoot down a B-17 or B-29 at 33K than at 3k... ;)
-
It amazes me how many people whine about others' gameplay. Like "dam, him for finding an efficient and effective way for me not to kill him. Its just not fair!" Whine, whine, whine. Well, if the whiner is so dam good, and it bothers him sooooo much, then he should show his awesome-ness by being able to find a way to hunt down and draw the bad guy into a fight. Otherwise, the bad guys is just doing what he thinks he has to do to play the game to his satisfaction and stay alive while doing it. No doubt its not as much fun to the big game hunter not to have his prey just march right into the trap and commit suicide, but's that's the way it is. To me, such whiners are more of a pain than any timid fighter pilot. Get over yourself. We're not here for your enjoyment, really!
Which game would you like to play, 50 guys flying at 20k only engaging when the enemy con is busy, AKA "the pick", or a game with 200 guys all below 10k Bnz and turning and burning? Because if you continue to support the High alt "pickers" all of the people who join in to check out the "24 hours of continuous combat" are going to see long climb out times boring duck and chase fights and end their subscription.
People join a game that has quick action when they are looking for a combat game. Whats wrong with tweaking the score, as well as other things that will make it more beneficial for more people to seek out combat instead of avoiding it?
-
It amazes me how many people whine about others' gameplay. Like "dam, him for finding an efficient and effective way for me not to kill him. Its just not fair!" Whine, whine, whine.
Are you referring to the anecdote I introduced this topic with?
-
Which game would you like to play, 50 guys flying at 20k only engaging when the enemy con is busy, AKA "the pick", or a game with 200 guys all below 10k Bnz and turning and burning? Because if you continue to support the High alt "pickers" all of the people who join in to check out the "24 hours of continuous combat" are going to see long climb out times boring duck and chase fights and end their subscription.
People join a game that has quick action when they are looking for a combat game. Whats wrong with tweaking the score, as well as other things that will make it more beneficial for more people to seek out combat instead of avoiding it?
Tweaking the score won't change the way these people fly, the ones who fly high and timidly are already ruining their score therefore changing the score will not change the way these particular people fly.
As an example, I never really get above 15K, most of the time I have 2-3 guys trying to gang me. The majority of the people don't understand how to effectively fly for score. Because if they did, they wouldn't be 25k Chery pickers. They would be inside the furball getting 3-4 quick kills. The players that acruslly get into 1v1 and 1v2 fights and win, are better rankers than players who sit high and pick. Most of the time these players miss their pick shots and don't know how to effectively BnZ. Really and truly, the more aggressive you are, the better score you get, that being said. You still have to know what you are doing.
-
Interesting discussion. I can see it's divisive. Is a pattern emerging I wonder that 'skill' can't be scored and those who pursue it generally ignore score? Is the inverse also implied I wonder?
-
I'd like to opt out of rank. But keep the other stuff for me to look at. Wishlist the opt out Shida, like I need to move a CV, 109T isn't in AcesHigh anyway :D
-
I want to see the tree's score. I say ban tree kills. The trees are using some third party code to kill plans in dramatic fashion.
-
Interesting discussion. I can see it's divisive. Is a pattern emerging I wonder that 'skill' can't be scored and those who pursue it generally ignore score? Is the inverse also implied I wonder?
Skill can be scored to a degree. But what is 'skill'?
Is it the ability to fight many vs. one in a low speed deck fight, cause multiple overshoots and come out the winner? Or perhaps it is the ability to understand relative energy states and apply approprate stratagy to come out on top. Or maybe it is simply the ability to maintain situational awareness and understand when it is best to attack and when to withdraw?
The answer is all these are skills, but which are 'valued skills' depend entirely on each player's viewpoints and experence. HTC can attempt to drive certain behaviors and the perference of certain 'skills' over others through rules or scoring, but in the end it will make no real difference. AH is an open game, and every player will play it in such a way as to derive the most satisfaction from it.
-
I'd like to opt out of rank. But keep the other stuff for me to look at. Wishlist the opt out Shida, like I need to move a CV, 109T isn't in AcesHigh anyway :D
Me too. I'd first have to make a wish that the Wishlist worked. I'm sure now it's connected directly to HTC's round filing cabinet on the floor in the corner of the office. :frown:
Hmmmm 109T. Nice, nice.
Skill can be scored to a degree. But what is 'skill'?
I had some ruminations regarding this along the lines of how players can presently select a sortie to be scored as attack or fighter. I did mention relative ACM methods could be weighed into the scoring system. Rapidly losing conidence that any cohesive 'Wish' could come out of this discussion though. Quite productive in terms of opinion. Hadn't realised quite a high percentage (of present forum posters at least) also completely ignored the score.
-
If you see someone running, it's most of the time not for 'protecting their score' (would really work for bombers only anyway). It's because players just can't stand to get shot down. (Or because they are actually RTBing ;) )
They might not be running to protect their score, but I've noticed that a lot of the guys with better ranks tend to run quite a bit. It might be an ineffective way for them to ever achieve #1 (if that were their goal), but then again if they don't know how to handle any situation where they aren't flying the same direction as their enemy, why should we expect them to know how best to achieve #1 anyway?
Over the years I've made a lot of films for "identification purposes" and when I go back and check they are invariably people with very low scores. Often, people who were routinely on the front page. The argument that you need to be aggressive to be #1 might be true today, but it certainly wasn't in the past, with a sky full of picks. I won't name names, but some guys who would set the pace for scoring seemed to have no pulse once their advantages were antiquated.
-
"Is it the ability to fight many vs. one in a low speed deck fight, cause multiple overshoots and come out the winner? Or perhaps it is the ability to understand relative energy states and apply approprate stratagy to come out on top. Or maybe it is simply the ability to maintain situational awareness and understand when it is best to attack and when to withdraw?"
If you can utilize all of these effectively in the MA, you'd more than likely have a decent fighter rank. It takes all of these skills to understand flight combat and to apply them when the time is right. When a person flies a slower plane, they have to know defensive techniques and counter punch techniques to be able to escape a gang situation. Flying a slower plane in the MA makes these skills much harder to achieve, so it's a good way to challenge yourself and become better at ACM, while typically having a much harder ability to get more kills.
-
[...] but then again if they don't know how to handle any situation where they aren't flying the same direction as their enemy, why should we expect them to know how best to achieve #1 anyway?
Because the latter one could be figured out by a simple look at the score categories and the ranking calculation. It takes so much less to figure that out than to learn acm :D
-
If the top score fighter only flies 262s and tempest to achieve a high score, they will most likey have to run away in any situation where they lose their shooting/E advantage, these planes simply cannot dog fight and have to run.
Most of P51D and 190D drivers act the same way. That's because they don't know how to fly the plane to the full envelope and use the speed advantage to skirt away from the opponent.
The thing is, most players just don't want to die. They spend 25 minutes flying to a base. They don't want to die quickly. That's one reason why I think having closer bases would solve so many problems with the fun level of AH. Closer bases means more furballing, less time to get alt, more people willing to die quickly, and more action to quickly get involved in. Most of the time, If I have to fly 30 miles to a base for 2 cons, I won't even roll.
-
Tweaking the score won't change the way these people fly, the ones who fly high and timidly are already ruining their score therefore changing the score will not change the way these particular people fly.
As an example, I never really get above 15K, most of the time I have 2-3 guys trying to gang me. The majority of the people don't understand how to effectively fly for score. Because if they did, they wouldn't be 25k Chery pickers. They would be inside the furball getting 3-4 quick kills. The players that acruslly get into 1v1 and 1v2 fights and win, are better rankers than players who sit high and pick. Most of the time these players miss their pick shots and don't know how to effectively BnZ. Really and truly, the more aggressive you are, the better score you get, that being said. You still have to know what you are doing.
exactly, but if a "carrot" can be found to make those "pickers" engage more often and maybe longer to get that carrot be it points, perks, or notoriety, it would help add combat to a combat games. The same could be done with the GVers, NOE crowd, base takers, even the strat buffs. If a carrot is found to bring them into more combat it makes the game better.
I don't think you could turn 100% of these people who seem to be afraid to engage do so but if you get a third of them, look at how many more fights you would see.
-
when you get whatever plane you want, and as many of them as you want...what is the problem with getting shot down? It's my belief that it's all about paper egos. If you have rank, etc., on paper others might look and say "ooooh, he's a FPH!" when in reality, he's a runner and a picker who whines when ENY prevents him from flying his late war high advantage plane. This is a major reason why I don't fly anymore. As most of you who know me saw, my main ride was the 110G2 which I STALL FOUGHT. I lost a lot, but I also killed a lot, and my wins meant a hell of a lot more than those who won in the Spits, 51s, Doras, etc. The same goes for those pilots who fly Mosquitoes, P-40s, C202s and the early 109s. Why? because is requires skill to kill in those planes. It takes knowledge of ACM, and knowledge of opponents and their planes to win. THAT is what this game should be about, and it's THOSE pilots who should get the kudos, anyone can get kills and run away, it's proven by some of the worst pilots here. It's people like Shida, and Dolby and Latrobe who made this game fun for me, and frankly it's been ruined by the numb-n*ts like Skyyr and those who fly/flew like him and still do, and still believe they are something special in the game. If there were more like Shida still playing, I'd have stayed.
-
I am a survivalist. A runner. An alt monkey.
I have the desire to get kills. I have the desire to complete my mission, which is when flying fighters, mostly protecting my bases & installations from enemy bombers. I very much dislike getting shot down, but that has nothing to do with score at all. Furball like action quickly exhausts me at my age, and pure furballing/knife fighting all the time is immensely boring to me. I need the fake 'purpose' of helping my current side. I'm not here to become the best dogfighter ever.
That's what shaping my way to fly, not score, not rank. That's why I climb to 30k to hunt that bombers, that's why I often ignore/bypass fighters when looking for them or the goon. That's why I try to RTB all the time. Of course, like everyone others I also get greedy, stupid, lacking in SA or just have bad luck at times.
-
Aces High expresses the economics of everyday decisions. Trying to change other people's preferences works as badly in AH as it does everywhere else.
The attractive targets get most of the action. Human nature.
-
when you get whatever plane you want, and as many of them as you want...what is the problem with getting shot down? It's my belief that it's all about paper egos. If you have rank, etc., on paper others might look and say "ooooh, he's a FPH!" when in reality, he's a runner and a picker who whines when ENY prevents him from flying his late war high advantage plane. This is a major reason why I don't fly anymore. As most of you who know me saw, my main ride was the 110G2 which I STALL FOUGHT. I lost a lot, but I also killed a lot, and my wins meant a hell of a lot more than those who won in the Spits, 51s, Doras, etc. The same goes for those pilots who fly Mosquitoes, P-40s, C202s and the early 109s. Why? because is requires skill to kill in those planes. It takes knowledge of ACM, and knowledge of opponents and their planes to win. THAT is what this game should be about, and it's THOSE pilots who should get the kudos, anyone can get kills and run away, it's proven by some of the worst pilots here. It's people like Shida, and Dolby and Latrobe who made this game fun for me, and frankly it's been ruined by the numb-n*ts like Skyyr and those who fly/flew like him and still do, and still believe they are something special in the game. If there were more like Shida still playing, I'd have stayed.
I think it all comes down to the amount of time you want to spend. If you want to fly 15 minutes to a base and get the necessary alt. Only to die instantly, people are going find less enjoyment. If people only spent 3-5 minutes getting to a fight. Dying wouldn't be as time consuming. Which means it wouldn't be as strenuous rolling and taking a big amount of time just to get into a fair position. This means more people would stay and fight and the fights would be bigger.
There will always be alt monkeys and nuisances, but a shorter base distance would create more actionable fights in a less amount of time.
-
"Is it the ability to fight many vs. one in a low speed deck fight, cause multiple overshoots and come out the winner? Or perhaps it is the ability to understand relative energy states and apply approprate stratagy to come out on top. Or maybe it is simply the ability to maintain situational awareness and understand when it is best to attack and when to withdraw?"
If you can utilize all of these effectively in the MA, you'd more than likely have a decent fighter rank. It takes all of these skills to understand flight combat and to apply them when the time is right. When a person flies a slower plane, they have to know defensive techniques and counter punch techniques to be able to escape a gang situation. Flying a slower plane in the MA makes these skills much harder to achieve, so it's a good way to challenge yourself and become better at ACM, while typically having a much harder ability to get more kills.
Agreed on all counts, but that isn't my point. My point is some (most?) pilots do not have the complete set of skills and either play to their strengths or (more rarely, IMO) challenge themselves by flying a style counter to those strengths. It can also be argued some just don't really care and play for fun.
Aces High expresses the economics of everyday decisions. Trying to change other people's preferences works as badly in AH as it does everywhere else.
The attractive targets get most of the action. Human nature.
Well put. o7
-
I am a survivalist. A runner. An alt monkey.
And that's completely fine Lusche. I sometimes scrape my wingtips along the water in the MA and fly through enemy hangars for fun. It's all normal and good variety I think.
This thread wasn't about changing player's behaviour to suit one faction or another. Mostly I felt let down by a scoring system (when pushed to examine it) which I'm forced to conclude must be ignored, since I wouldn't choose to change my activities just for that. Was just speculating if it could be made more sophisticated and wondering if that would alter gameplay overall. I think it brings up a division. Some people are more quantitive and some more qualitative. Naturally a sliding spectrum.
Often get a knee-jerk response to these kind of topics. Do what you want. BnZ all day long (certainly if you want to maximize win to lose). Ho, gang, whatever. This thread wasn't a whine or rhetoric. I've been here long enough to understand the futility of that.
As most of you who know me saw, my main ride was the 110G2 which I STALL FOUGHT. I lost a lot, but I also killed a lot, and my wins meant a hell of a lot more than those who won in the Spits, 51s, Doras, etc. The same goes for those pilots who fly Mosquitoes, P-40s, C202s and the early 109s. Why? because is requires skill to kill in those planes.
Well said. And more importantly it also requires you to accept that your ability to compete in those planes has a firm upper limit and you are going to get shot down a lot by those whos rides and tactics can easily exceed that limit. I respect those players too. Like Tracerfi (off the top of my head) who'd wade into four or five in a 410. Either that or he was mental, could always be that. F77 flying sortie after sortie in his Mossie against hordes of Spixteens and Corsairs in the DA. That Hurricane Mark I pilot in The Few who flew it because his grandfather was a crew chief in The Big Show. Dolby in his E-4 and Latrobe in the F4.
It's people like Shida, and Dolby and Latrobe who made this game fun for me,
You have to say this tonight brah, I've just literally cancelled my account. I'm playing Frank Sinatra over here!
:salute my friend.
-
I may regret this, but I will weigh in here. My opinion is probably low and of little value BUT.....
Over the years, I have encountered many "HO" experiences. I will admit there have been several where I did not make any effort to divert... even when it was too late. However, in recent years, I have found it more fun to to high or low in an effort to try and make A2A combat more fun and worthwhile. HOWEVER, I have seen where, due to no fault of the other player, I haven't gotten the message "so-and-so has collided with you" even when I've tried to go high or low before we got too close.
I almost have to assume that if you go into a H2H situation that a HO collision is inevitable, and its a gamble and toss up as to "who" will be at "fault".
Too many times I've seen HO collisions with myself where the aircraft coming at me seemed not even to be close to impact but off to one side or another. I've kind of assumed it is just part of the game...
So, if, by chance, you BOTH turn HO, I would suggest that both parties are at fault. I understand the game doesn't score it that way, but I already assume that premise. If someone turns into you and you are not turning, they are going to ram you (front or rear), that's a whole different story.
Again, my opinion may have little weight in this respect, but this is how I kind of view it.
Remember, this is a game, not real life. In a game, you crash or land only to go again. Live and let live, let the proctors of the game decide blame and dish out any consequences. It does no one any good to shout, hound, berate or become enraged at someone else's mistake or intentional "misguided" intentions. Leave it to someone else, continue to be the better person with your head held high and enjoy the game. Its a game, nothing else.
-
I may regret this, but I will weigh in here. My opinion is probably low and of little value BUT.....
Over the years, I have encountered many "HO" experiences. I will admit there have been several where I did not make any effort to divert... even when it was too late. However, in recent years, I have found it more fun to to high or low in an effort to try and make A2A combat more fun and worthwhile. HOWEVER, I have seen where, due to no fault of the other player, I haven't gotten the message "so-and-so has collided with you" even when I've tried to go high or low before we got too close.
I almost have to assume that if you go into a H2H situation that a HO collision is inevitable, and its a gamble and toss up as to "who" will be at "fault".
Too many times I've seen HO collisions with myself where the aircraft coming at me seemed not even to be close to impact but off to one side or another. I've kind of assumed it is just part of the game...
So, if, by chance, you BOTH turn HO, I would suggest that both parties are at fault. I understand the game doesn't score it that way, but I already assume that premise. If someone turns into you and you are not turning, they are going to ram you (front or rear), that's a whole different story.
Again, my opinion may have little weight in this respect, but this is how I kind of view it.
Remember, this is a game, not real life. In a game, you crash or land only to go again. Live and let live, let the proctors of the game decide blame and dish out any consequences. It does no one any good to shout, hound, berate or become enraged at someone else's mistake or intentional "misguided" intentions. Leave it to someone else, continue to be the better person with your head held high and enjoy the game. Its a game, nothing else.
Due to internet lag what you see and what the other sees could be very different. If they set it as you suggest a guy could fly by you at what seem to you a plane width away, and you find your self in the tower. Collisions are avoidable, it is completely up to you. Avoid it and you have no collision.
Below is two films laid on top of each other, from your view you see the plane way out back bouncing around and then you end up in the tower. Fair? I don't think so.
(http://www.gstelmack.com/Collision.gif)
-
And that's completely fine Lusche. I sometimes scrape my wingtips along the water in the MA and fly through enemy hangars for fun. It's all normal and good variety I think.
This thread wasn't about changing player's behaviour to suit one faction or another. Mostly I felt let down by a scoring system (when pushed to examine it) which I'm forced to conclude must be ignored, since I wouldn't choose to change my activities just for that. Was just speculating if it could be made more sophisticated and wondering if that would alter gameplay overall. I think it brings up a division. Some people are more quantitive and some more qualitative. Naturally a sliding spectrum.
Often get a knee-jerk response to these kind of topics. Do what you want. BnZ all day long (certainly if you want to maximize win to lose). Ho, gang, whatever. This thread wasn't a whine or rhetoric. I've been here long enough to understand the futility of that.
Well said. And more importantly it also requires you to accept that your ability to compete in those planes has a firm upper limit and you are going to get shot down a lot by those whos rides and tactics can easily exceed that limit. I respect those players too. Like Tracerfi (off the top of my head) who'd wade into four or five in a 410. Either that or he was mental, could always be that. F77 flying sortie after sortie in his Mossie against hordes of Spixteens and Corsairs in the DA. That Hurricane Mark I pilot in The Few who flew it because his grandfather was a crew chief in The Big Show. Dolby in his E-4 and Latrobe in the F4.
You have to say this tonight brah, I've just literally cancelled my account. I'm playing Frank Sinatra over here!
:salute my friend.
And here I thought I was the only idiot who wades into multiple-on-1 fights in a 410. :)
For the record, I didn't take your post as a whine or anything of the sort. But I did think you were suggesting scoring system changes would change player behavior. My bad and very sorry to hear you quit. I hope it is not permanent and you just need a break. :salute
-
the funniest thing about risk aversion is when you encounter a plane. I fly the p51 99% of the time. so if I find a zero, a yak or most anything that will outurn me I will make a couple of passes and if I am alone, that's all I am gonna do. on some other planes like the 109's or something similar all the do is try to rope me so I get bored and I fly away. been told many times not to run. but they play to the best of their planes abilities and I play to mine.
so the question is should i play to your game or play to mine. I like to play to mine.
semp
-
the funniest thing about risk aversion is when you encounter a plane. I fly the p51 99% of the time. so if I find a zero, a yak or most anything that will outurn me I will make a couple of passes and if I am alone, that's all I am gonna do. on some other planes like the 109's or something similar all the do is try to rope me so I get bored and I fly away. been told many times not to run. but they play to the best of their planes abilities and I play to mine.
so the question is should i play to your game or play to mine. I like to play to mine.
semp
If plane choice didn't matter in world war 2, they wouldn't have needed to make so many different kinds :)
-
It's fun to cut someone's kill/death ratio in half with a single burst.
-
Yeah, 'cause we all know that it's so much easier to shoot down a B-17 or B-29 at 33K than at 3k... ;)
OK OK, the alt penalty scale stops at 25%.
:joystick:
-
so the question is should i play to your game or play to mine. I like to play to mine.
Not relevant to this thread.
And here I thought I was the only idiot who wades into multiple-on-1 fights in a 410. :)
Good on ya.
For the record, I didn't take your post as a whine or anything of the sort. But I did think you were suggesting scoring system changes would change player behavior. My bad and very sorry to hear you quit. I hope it is not permanent and you just need a break. :salute
I wondered if it would but not by design to favour one party or another. Just feels for some player's activities the score is largely insufficient and irrelevant.
AH3 forces some of us out because we can't update our computers. I'd still be playing otherwise.
:cheers:
-
Not relevant to this thread.
Good on ya.
I wondered if it would but not by design to favour one party or another. Just feels for some player's activities the score is largely insufficient and irrelevant.
AH3 forces some of us out because we can't update our computers. I'd still be playing otherwise.
:cheers:
have you got room for a desktop? I'm sure there will be enough spare parts lying around to build one that plays fine.
-
have you got room for a desktop? I'm sure there will be enough spare parts lying around to build one that plays fine.
An Englishman has offered to send a replaced PC. Tis a big favour though with the distance.