Why Score is a Joke...

[bj229r]

I am more interested in the opinions on whether or not to just get ridd of rank and keep stats. As stated previously, I argue that the RANK issue is the root cause for the behavior of some pilots in game. Stats should stay, as they provide valuable insight into which areas one should focus their efforts towards for improving.


Standing by to be laughed off the stage...

I cant disagree with that

[SmokinLoon]

Not exactly.  Duel guys like tonyjoey, kazaa, and kappa on 'any given day' and see how often you win.  All of which typically rank very high in fighter...

More often than not.. yes exactly.  

[Rino]

     I find it hard to believe this post made 4 pages while i was in dialysis 

[bj229r]

Ouch, are you on a transplant list?

[cactuskooler]

I'm more rank than all of you.

[Krupinski]

You fly 109 K4's and 51's, 2 of the most survivable planes in the game, (admittedly, DARN hard to hit stuff with taters, much less see out of that thing) save maybe the d9. Have no idea HOW you fly...(run with borg cube, hunt for 1 on 1's, etc) The only score that has any merit is how you do in 1 on 1 combat, and that counts much more than running goons or egging undefended towns

lol.

[Rino]

Ouch, are you on a transplant list?

     See the social worker next week...things are looking up 

[Rino]

   I go to start the process next week, things are moving along 

[grizz441]

The only score that has any merit is how you do in 1 on 1 combat, and that counts much more than running goons or egging undefended towns

I disagree.  As important as 1v1 skill is, there are many situations in the MA that require just as much skill to be lethal.  There are so many different types of shots that develop in this game based off of different merges/alts/planes that 1v1 fighting cannot begin to address.  Reverses on much faster aircraft, reverses on turny birds, escaping 3v1-4v1s when you are out E'd, 90 degree deflection tatering, crossing shot development from hundreds of different situations, knowing when to fight, knowing when to flee, evading to the rhythm of a bogey trying to line you up, the list goes on.  As skilled as some guys are in this game in a 1v1, they flounder in the MA because they have an incomplete skill set.

[uptown]

Score is a afterthought for me anymore because it really doesn't prove anything. It's handy if ya like to control a CV but I don't. I enjoy the stats part of score though. Especially in fighter mode, as it tells me hit percentage. Of coarse that can be gamed too by simply hunting bombers, but trying to double my kill time and getting a 8ish hit percentage without vulching and buff hunting is quite a challenge for me.

[papjohns]

You fly 109 K4's and 51's, 2 of the most survivable planes in the game, (admittedly, DARN hard to hit stuff with taters, much less see out of that thing) save maybe the d9. Have no idea HOW you fly...(run with borg cube, hunt for 1 on 1's, etc) The only score that has any merit is how you do in 1 on 1 combat, and that counts much more than running goons or egging undefended towns

I wouldn't say I fly P51s. 95% of my fighter sorties are in a K4 (there is something to be said about learning one plane inside and out). I have 3 modes. 1. Normal Mode (K4), 2. I am pissed off at my Squad mode (any allied plane) and 3. Wreckless Attack "Gonna Die in a 10v1" Mode (G14; mostly when I know wife ack/kid ack is imminent).

However, this thread isn't about me...I just wanted to prove that mostly any idiot can get a good overall rank (to avert the inevitable...oh yeah prove it...I bet you can't do it noob!) and that the rank system is counterproductive to overall game play. That is my perception anyways, and I maybe way off base. Next, I offered a solution.

As far as controlling CVs (I know it will come up), base it on veterancy instead of rank (longer subscription gets to override command of CV).

Try it out for a month, and I wouldn't be suprised to see less timidness/rank protection (guilty as charged on occassion) and more fights on the tactical and strategic level.

Papa

[papjohns]

   I go to start the process next week, things are moving along 

Good Luck.

[Messiah]

rank has been broke since implementation

[ink]

A lot of people like having the "scores"and they know, because they have a good score they are better then those that don't have a good score......


me personally I enjoy looking at my stats, I compare them to my own stats, and see the progression(err hope to see  progression)

but why get rid of something many people like?  so what if they are clueless "score potatos" and most often die quite easily if ya catch em 1v1??????


 "38 takes more skill to fly then the others"    

   38 is easy mode.... used right...so is the 51.....so is the spit 5-8-9-16......K-4......every plane in the hanger, if you fly it exclusively, and learn it's ins and outs, any plane is easy mode, so get off your high horse, of "I am better cuz I fly a harder plane"  every time I see you, you are in the horde picking in that ol bomber of yours.

[Nutzoid]

Yes, score may be a joke to some, probally most, but there are others who put way too much stock in it. I've never had a really good score, but I play to have fun when and where I can. If I wind up a tour with a decent score (for me  )then so be it. However maybe we're looking at this thing from the wrong perspective. As it is right now, I agree that rank doesn't mean a whole lot. Example, don't fly for three days,   and you'll find your score has probably changed, and not for the better. You may finish a tour with a great rank, only to find that next tour you couldn't hit a bull in the bellybutton with a base fiddle! This is the category I fall into, not that I've ever had great rank, just the second part.

So what if a scoring system allowed you to keep your rank and carry it over to the next tour, provided you met certain criteria. For instance, say we had a system where ones rank change based on a numerical designation? What if we all were ranked, using our stats, and "conditions" to advance to the next level?

What if we had a ranking system that went something like this?

1. Basic Pilot
 a. Basic Pilot I
 b. Basic Pilot II
 c. Basic Pilot III
2. Intermediate Pilot
 a. Intermediate Pilot I
 b. Intermediate Pilot II
3. Advanced Pilot
 a. Advanced Pilot I
 b. Advanced Pilot II
 c. Advanced Pilot III
 d. Advanced Pilot IV
4. Master Pilot
 a. Master Pilot I
 b. Master Pilot II
 c. Master Pilot III
5. Air Marshal

In order to advance to the next level, as stated above, the AH Pilot must accomplish a set of tasks....IE as a Basic Pilot, you would be required to land at least two victories in order to move up. To move up from say Master Pilot II to Master Pilot III, one would have maintain a K/D ratio of say 13to1 throughout the tour, or something like this. Each progressive step up would require the passing of a task/s. Control of task groups could be determined by K/D ratio, or by some other means. At the end of the tour, if you haven't made it to the next level, you don't lose your "rank" and start over, you keep it and continue to try and make it up the ladder provided you were logged on at least a fixed amount of time. Maybe four hours a week, or so?  For someone to actually lose a rank they would have to not log on to the game for an extended time. (this could always be worked out later)

With so many threads out there about score, I was hesitant to post this. Well kick it around see what you think nothings set in stone, the levels can be switched or what have ya,  this was mainly an idea to get us all looking in a new direction.