Components of fighter score...

[Lusche]

Another way to look at it is like this.  They're both fairly average when it comes to K/D, K/S, and K/T. Nothing terrible, but nothing to get too excited about either.   Better than the majority of players, but nowhere near "elite" yet.  There are probably several hundred players who outrank them in those categories though.  The same could be said for their points (which are awarded for hits, not necessarily kills).

A bit of a hijack:
"Nothing terrible, but nothing to get excited". Sometimes I think we (including myself) are judging players from a very high point of view. I wonder were "elite" truly begins. Both player A and player B have a K/S better than 95%(!) of all players, same goes for player A's K/H. Even his K/D of "only" 2.86 is getting close to that 95%, player B's 4.42 is putting him in the top 3%. Maybe not elite, but maybe still something to get excited about. (I know I was when first breaking 3.0 K/D, I couldn't believe I was now "up there", as I rarely encountered players in that "weight class")
When I think back to my university days, the top 5%of students were considered to be quite "elite"


Addendum

A quick check of tour 141. To get into the top 10% or top 5% in each fighter score category, you approximately needed:



And getting into the top 5% of everything would get you into the top 50 ranks.

[Lusche]

And, as I said, % hit is highly punished by packet-losses.

So are European or Aussie players by flying at offpeak times with much less combat opportunities (K/H, K/S) or players with a life who can't put many hours into the game (kill points).

And if you have so many packet loss that it significantly lowers your hit%, you have really big issues apart from score anyway. I can't imagine anybody with such a bad connection with constantly loosing packets who wouldn't warp or disco a lot. After all, it should be very remarkable if only gunnery data would be affected by lost packets...

[The Fugitive]

Kovel, I think your looking at it backwards. Pilot B isn't being penalized for his hit%, but Pilot A is being rewarded for his.

Pilot A flies the K4 and so must need "snipe" his shots and shoot better to succeed. So he is being rewarded for that extra skill. Where as pilot B flies spits, Chogs, and La7's and get the kills while "spraying" a bit more.

[Kovel]

Hya Fugitive,

Look at this way: Pilot A is rewarded a lot more for %hit than Pilot B for getting better 3 important areas (lets say 2, K/D and K/S).

In the end, K/D and K/S is the last performance goal. The other areas are important, but I think they only add to the whole picture.

¿Why? Because I am suppossing that every1 in fighter pilot mode likes killing the most while dying the less.

 

[Kovel]

Now look at this:

Column 1: For each area we divide Pilot B value by Pilot A
Column 2: For each are, we divide specific area rank Pilot B by specific area rank Pilot A

ex:

               Pilot A                  Pilot B
k/d(rank)    2.26 (#211)     4.42 (#124)

Column 1 for k/d: 4.42 / 2.26 = 1.54
Column 2 for k/d: 211 /  124 = 1.7

So, a difference factor of 1.54 for that area makes a difference factor of 1.7 in the rank for that specific area.

Doing it for every specific area:

Area       Value Dif. Factor   #Rank Dif. Factor           
K/d               1.54                 1.7
k/s                1.08                 1.13
k/t                1.23                 2.11
%hit              1.45                 2.3
kill p.             1.22                 1.14

You could even plot a graph with both variables and you would see that a little differences in %hit creates big diferences in the global rank. And % hit is not as a leading indicator as K/D or K/S or K/T

 

[mtnman]

Kovel, I think you may be confused on how the scores are calculated.  It's not a mathematical calculation between player A and player B stats that decides their rank.  It's a simple comparison.  One is doing better overall than the other, that's all.

It's just a comparison ranking.  Back to this-  %hit      7.66 (368)         5.26  (850)  Player A is ranked 368 because 367 players are shooting more accurately than him.  Player B is 850 because 849 players are shooting better than him.

Player A is being rewarded because he's doing so well compared to his peers (not mathematically).  Player B isn't rewarded nearly as much, because he's not doing nearly as well compared to his peers.

It's only a 2.4% increase in accuracy between player A and B, but that small amount allowed a lot of other players to slip in between them.  Player A has a better rank because he's beaten out almost 500 players by increasing his Hit% slightly.

[Shane]

Addendum

A quick check of tour 141. To get into the top 10% or top 5% in each fighter score category, you approximately needed:

And getting into the top 5% of everything would get you into the top 50 ranks.

What I did below was change only my hit % for tour 141 to 7.6% and 9.4% - if I had (heh) hit either of these targets my fighter rank would have been impacted somewhat significantly.

[The Fugitive]

You have to remember that the scoring system is relative to ALL players, not individual.

The higher you place in a category the harder it is to move up.  While both players are in the top 5% in hit% both are still compared to the rest of the players. Player A is in the upper echelon with only a few others, where as player B is still in a much larger group (relative to player A) of good shots. If they made a list of the top 500 pilots by hit% player B would be a nobody like most of the rest of us. On the other hand if the list was a top 200 neither would be on it.  

The whole system is a "rating" comparing you to all the other players. The problem is the scoring system is easily manipulated so that "comparison" is warped and what you see as the system "favoring" one category or another is really the inability of the system to track each player accurately.

Another thing you may be in error about is this, "I am suppossing that every1 in fighter pilot mode likes killing the most while dying the less". I know many players that couldn't care less about dying less as nobody really dies, it's a game. A majority of players play the game to accomplish a task such as capturing territory and they will do ANYTHING to do that. This is why you see so many dive bombers aurger, and guys running back and forth through the ack to make 4 runs on the radar tower to take it down dieing in the process, or bailing once they drop there bombs on a town.

While I think aim/hit% is the most important (hit harder means you kill quicker, kill quicker means you kill more, killing more means you survive better) I don't think it should weight heavyer in the figuring, but if it did, it would apply to all players the same and we would have the same out come in score.

[Lusche]

What I did below was change only my hit % for tour 141 to 7.6% and 9.4% - if I had (heh) hit either of these targets my fighter rank would have been impacted somewhat significantly.

A pure buff hunting sortie every once in a while in an .50 cal equipped ride should the trick.
But of course, you may find that terribly boring...

(note to all newbies: Yes, hit% and score is really that little meaningful and that easy to skew! Remember this next time you are trying to play the score card on CH200 or country  )

[mtnman]

Let's see the ranks in every area:

Factor  Pilot A               Pilot B
K/d        2.86 (211)         4.42 (124)
k/s        1.62 (147)         1.75  (130)
k/t        7.45 (148)         6.05  (313)
%hit      7.66 (368)         5.26  (850)
kill p.      27k  (47)          33k   (41)

#Rank      50         114

And, from another point of view. Pilot B with a worse %Hit has better K/D, K/S and K.P. So, a better %hit doesn't mean, in the end, a better performance

 

Exactly.  Now you're getting it.  Hit% isn't enough to drive your rank up on it's own.

And that's also a reason I look at Hit% primarily, and ignore the rest.  It's too easy to drive K/D, K/S, K/T and points up "artificially" by vulching, ganging, etc, so they don't give me a good read on someone (that doesn't mean those aren't valid scoring tactics, or that they shouldn't effect overall rank).  As such, I don't see those as accurate measures of individual skill.  

If I want to look at someone's "individual skill" I feel Hit% is the only one that gives any form of accuracy, because flying with the best wingman, or squad, etc, won't lift your Hit% appreciably.  K/T is second, IMO.  K/S would be third, and K/D would be the last thing I'd really consider as "telling".

[Lusche]

If I want to look at someone's "individual skill" I feel Hit% is the only one that gives any form of accuracy, because flying with the best wingman, or squad, etc, won't lift your Hit% appreciably.  K/T is second, IMO.  K/S would be third, and K/D would be the last thing I'd really consider as "telling".

I would look only at all stats (including relation fighter/attack sorties as well as plane kill statistics)) as a whole, because hit% can be "gamed" almost the same as any other stat. Someone could exclusively and very timid hunt bombers and get a great hit%.... but is other stats will show.
A very high hit% is an indicator, but it really just a reason to look at all other stats too to get the picture. And even then I would not go as far as calling the result "skill level", but more a "game personality profile". A player's score's & stats are like a business card to me

[Shane]

If I want to look at someone's "individual skill" I feel Hit% is the only one that gives any form of accuracy,

so you're saying i suck?  

[Shane]

I would look only at all stats (including relation fighter/attack sorties as well as plane kill statistics)) as a whole, because hit% can be "gamed" almost the same as any other stat. Someone could exclusively and very timid hunt bombers and get a great hit%.... but is other stats will show.
A very high hit% is an indicator, but it really just a reason to look at all other stats too to get the picture. And even then I would not go as far as calling the result "skill level", but more a "game personality profile". A player's score's & stats are like a business card to me

^^^^^^^^  QFT

<the safest place to have me is on your dead six when I can't hit anything... nose bounce at fine control level...  I'll take a crossing shot any day (and ironically enough I was tracking how many crossing shots it was taking me - it was 4,   and I know it should have been 2, lol)>

I posted a similar perspective about how I perceive stats:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,318164.msg4139151/topicseen.html#msg4139151

[mtnman]

A bit of a hijack:
"Nothing terrible, but nothing to get excited". Sometimes I think we (including myself) are judging players from a very high point of view. I wonder were "elite" truly begins. Both player A and player B have a K/S better than 95%(!) of all players, same goes for player A's K/H. Even his K/D of "only" 2.86 is getting close to that 95%, player B's 4.42 is putting him in the top 3%. Maybe not elite, but maybe still something to get excited about. (I know I was when first breaking 3.0 K/D, I couldn't believe I was now "up there", as I rarely encountered players in that "weight class")
When I think back to my university days, the top 5%of students were considered to be quite "elite"

Wow, you're right Lusche!  I had no idea the overall AH K/D, K/T, and K/S averages were that low (but to be fair, I've never been interested enough in those categories to look into it).  That definitely puts these two guys up in the elite class overall (which is actually reflected in their fighter rank, no?)

When it comes to Hit%, what I consider "elite" comes from your charts (one of which I'm borrowing for this post)-



By my standards, looking at this chart I'd consider the guys with 8% or better to be "elite", best of the pack.  10% or better would put them a step up from there, maybe "best of the best".

Beginning at 6%, I'm considering them "well above average, pretty dang good".  5% and down is just "mixed in with all the rest/ average/ of the masses".  At some point (3% or so?) I consider it more luck than anything when a bullet actually connects with anything, let alone scores a kill.  After all, we're talking about a 97% chance of no damage at all from any given round.

Maybe that's too harsh, but that's how I would break them down.  And I wouldn't base that opinion on one tour either, but rather I'd want to look at someone's averages across several tours, trends, etc.  I also want to see it based on many, many kills, rather than just a few in a tour.

And yes, while Hit% can be skewed, it's still hit %.  How well can someone aim a plane and hit their opponent (which speaks of their coordination as well as all the mental "judgement" required before and during the shot)?  Nobody else is going to do it for them...  As such, it's just a "part of the whole" when it comes to fighter rank, but in my eyes it's still the most telling part.

For the record, my Hit% is skewed.  

I only fly in fighter mode, and I only shoot planes.  That skews it.  I also don't shoot many GV's or buildings, etc.  That skews it.  I generally won't shoot someone else's "cripple", so it's skewed there too (as-is my K/D since I rarely get assists).  And it's safe to say I have less than 20 vulch kills over the last 5 years (which skews my whole fighter rank).  I do a heck of a lot of "scare" shooting (with no real intent to hit) and I do a lot of "speculation" shooting, so it's skewed from that too.  I do my best to set up crossing shots, rather than saddle-up shots, so it's skewed from that.  I shoot fighters as often as possible, and I shoot bombers as often as possible, so I'm sure that messes my Hit% up too.  I like to shoot at friendlies on the runway as I land and see how close I can get without hitting them.  I like to shoot over friendlies shoulders on climb-out (no enemies around) and see if I can startle them.

Of course all that adds up to my "average" Hit%, since my it's based on the rounds I fire vs. those that actually hit my opponents.

Of course

[mtnman]

so you're saying i suck?  

Lol, no. 

But I'd say you make up for some not-so-spectacular shooting with far-above-average use of 3D space.

I'm saying if you could shoot better you'd be absolutely devastating (because I've seen you fly enough times).

Fancy flying isn't taken into account with the current fight rank system though.  The current ranking system gives credit for someone's ability to shoot the bad guys down in the MA (not in a 1v1 in the DA).

You'd be more effective than you already are if you could improve your aim.