Keeping UberPlanes In Check

[funked]

If a few planes are drastically better from the rest of the planes, how can you keep everybody from flying them?

Adaptive Score Multiplier

"Raw Score" is calculated via the current method.

At the start of each tour, the Raw Score per sortie for each plane type is logged.  This average Raw Score is continuously updated during the tour.

After each sortie, a pilot is awarded an amount of points equal to his Raw Score divided by the average Raw Score per sortie.

If has an average sortie, he gets 1.0 points.  If he has a below-average sortie, he gets less than 1.0 points.  An above-average sortie is greater than 1.0 points.

To put this in concrete terms, let's say we have the Fiesler Storch and the Su-27.  The Fiesler Storch gets 0.1 kills per sortie on average, and the Su-27 gets 10 kills per sortie on average.

So if I launch in a Storch and get a kill, it's worth 1 / 0.1 = 10 points.

If I launch in a Su-27 and get a kill, it's worth 1 / 10 = 0.1 points.

So an incentive is created to fly lousy planes instead of uber-rides.  One's score will be based on how well one does relative to other people flying the same plane, instead of how one does relative to people flying the best plane in the set.

[Pongo]

This would have an interesting effect.
the better pilots who flew the spit Ix would not only have a better plane, but they would be double awarded for each victory. As the new pilots drove the avagage down the better pilots would get extra points even though they flew a better plane. The few people that fly the more difficult planes more effecitvly would be penalised because of the stiff compitition.
Is this the effect you are after?
How about just rating the planes by quality and giving points based on the AC they shoot down..IE a FW killing a supperior spit IX would get 1.3 points while the spit if victorios would only get .7 points.

In WW2 this would be hard to do but here we are dealing with absolute and recorded flight models and firepower ratings....so it would be easy to do. Then you are only competing against yourself and the enemy not every one who ever flew your ride..

[funked]

Pongo,

First off, I fly just about all the planes, and I could give a rat's bellybutton about scores.  So this isn't about rewarding myself.  You didn't accuse me of that, but I want to make it clear.

However I get the impression that a lot of people DO care about points and it is that group whose minds I wish to control.    

Now to address your dire predictions for my proposed scoring system.
Your predictions seem to be based on two assumptions (correct me if I'm wrong):

1.  "The worst pilots fly the best planes / The best pilots fly the worst planes."
(You say a disproportionate percentage of new pilots fly the Spit. Mk. IX)

AND

2.  "The scoring results of an aircraft are unrelated to the quality of the aircraft."
(You say the Fw 190A-8, which is one of the more dominant scoring planes, is inferior)

I'm not sure either of these assumptions is true.  And as a result I don't think that your predictions will come true.

I'll be specific:

1.  Your first assumption is an assumption about pilot psychology.  In my experience the best pilots fly everything.    
However since the sim is growing so quickly, there is a high percentage of relative newbies in the arena at a given time.  With a high enough quantity of newbies in a single type, you are correct that the newbie-type could get an artificially low average raw score.  


2.  Your second assumption is valid only if the planes are very close in capability, as in the current arena.  With a couple of exceptions, the aircraft in the game are all at 1944 or 1945 specs, and the matchups are pretty dang close.  In the long term I expect we will get more early-war aircraft, and there will be some large disparities in capability.  

Imagine a Ki-43 vs. an F8F Bearcat.  There is absolutely no way that any pilot can consistently do better in a Ki-43 than in an F8F.  In such an extreme case, the combat results will be directly related to the quality of the aircraft, even with a wide variation in pilot skill.

So if the planeset is big enough (think Warbirds), your second assumption becomes less and less valid.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]

[funked]

Hmmmm upon further review, why not go at the problem directly?

My goal is to prevent one plane from becoming too popular.

So just tie the score multiplier to popularity.  Reward people for flying a less popular plane.

The more people fly a plane, the lower its score multiplier becomes.

Count the number of sorties per day of each aircraft type, and use that as the measure of popularity.

So if Plane X is twice as popular as Plane Y, Plane Y pilots get double the points per kill as Plane X pilots.

Ya know I think Warbirds had this at one point.

The HTC guys probably had this same discussion long ago LOL!

[Vermillion]

Would love to see a score multiplier applied to your sortie score based on the usage of an aircraft  

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[Gunthr]

 I would be comfortable with trying
a score multiplier based on "Popularity" i.e. amount flown.

As I recall from WB, planes like Spit IX had a factor of 1.0, whereas the Bf109 Franz for instance had something like a 7.0 if I remember correctly.  

I think it could be good for AH.

------------------
 

http://www.ropescourse.org/flying.htm"" TARGET=_blank>332nd Flying Mongrels

[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 05-01-2000).]

[funked]

Another thing I didn't mention.

Another way to limit uberplane usage is a "rolling plane set" like Warbirds has.  Each day of a tour of duty simulates a specific month (or quarter) of the war.  New planes become available on tour days that correspond to the period of the war when they reached combat status.

One problem with this system is that you have to have a big plane set to make it work.

And certain very popular planes do not appear until late in the set.  I know certain squadrons that basically boycott Warbirds for two weeks before their plane appears.

So I like score multipliers.  

[Badger]

Is there an uber plane here?

I had thought it was pretty well balanced, with LW planes actually being able to give allied Spit 9's and 51's a real go of it.

I'm referring to it in comparison to WB, where I always found the Spit 9 to be an awesome and popular ride, although there's a vocal faction in WB's who claim it's actually inferior to WB's 190's as an example.  In AH, the Spit 9 seems to have the strengths it should, yet not be what I've always thought of as an "uber" ride here.

Regards,
Badger

[Kieren]

funked is referring to future uber planes, such as the Spit XIV or Me 262.

[Torque]

THE UBER MYTH
 
Ok so a F4U taking off from a capped field is what an UBER? (lol), but and F4U at 15k is an Uber AC.

All AC are created equal they all have different envelopes so one must fly them accordingly.


BTW UBER must stand for "UNABLE to BALANCE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS”

There are no Uber AC, just Uber pilots




[This message has been edited by Torque (edited 05-02-2000).]

[funked]

Badger, I think it is amazingly well-balanced here.

I started this thread because the subject of possible future uber-planes came up on another thread, and I thought this topic merited it's own thread.

[funked]

Yeah right Torque.  You get in a Fairey Fulmar, I'll get in a Spitfire Mk. V.  We'll see how long you play that tune.  

[Pongo]

Well torque has one thing right..I have an over developed capability to whine....
I like your second idea better.  I dont aggree with your assumptions any more than I aggree with Torques self serving assessment of the capabilities of the aircraft he refuses to fly vs the one he insists on flying.
I am not being silly here. What I said is true. It is alot eisier to be effective in the spit then the 190a8...But you are right pilots vote with there feet and maybe just most of the people share that communal misconseption.
Any way I like your second idea better, and others apperantly do as well, if it was shaken loose by my disagreement with post one.. well thats ok with me..


>

[Torque]

Funked you hit the nail on the head.

Now if we engaged in a High speed vertical fight guess i'd be Uberboy, but if it was a  tight turn fight you'd be Uberboy......see my point.

No Uber AC just people.

[Torque]

I deleted that last sentence.No attack on you Funked just my thoughts on how ppl think one AC better than another

[This message has been edited by Torque (edited 05-01-2000).]