Components of fighter score...

[Vinkman]

VinkMan

 I have to agree. ON THE OTHER WAY, it helps people that get into a big furball near the base and they picks one or two planes which are not paying attention to him, dying, upping again and getting into the furbal again. This is the opposite behavior to the one you described. And for me K/T supports this behaviour. And this behaviour is not better than the one you described, but it is rewarded.

Noir

I can't agree. K/T increases if you kill 3-4 and you die, as you don't have to spend time getting home.

 

I don't dissagree with anything you said. IT rewards being agressive, and punishes, not being agressive. I think the behavior you discribe..Upping at a furball near a base and jumping in the action...is something HTC wants to encourage. Running away and taking 1 hour to get a kill, is something they want to discourage. I think that's why it's in there.   Dying right away will up your K/T, but will hurt your killpoints, and hurt your K/D. So someone cannot up their rank by dying to save the time it takes to fly back and land.

Also Hit% rewards pilots for being good shots. You could say that is implied or a factor in Kills per/sortie, but since you can re-arm, how many kills you are getting on an ammo load is lost, because you can have infinite ammo loads per sortie. So hit% puts how good a shot you are, back in the rank.

[Noir]

going to the fight will take 15mins (10mins is more realistic), coming back from it <5mins.

the less travel time you spend, the better kills/hours you get. If I focused exclusively on K/H I would bail as soon as I'm out of fuel or ammo, at the expense of K/D tho...

[Kovel]

I don't dissagree with anything you said. IT rewards being agressive, and punishes, not being agressive. I think the behavior you discribe..Upping at a furball near a base and jumping in the action...is something HTC wants to encourage. Running away and taking 1 hour to get a kill, is something they want to discourage. I think that's why it's in there.   Dying right away will up your K/T, but will hurt your killpoints, and hurt your K/D. So someone cannot up their rank by dying to save the time it takes to fly back and land.

Also Hit% rewards pilots for being good shots. You could say that is implied or a factor in Kills per/sortie, but since you can re-arm, how many kills you are getting on an ammo load is lost, because you can have infinite ammo loads per sortie. So hit% puts how good a shot you are, back in the rank.

Interesting point of view.... I haven't thought %hit from this point of view 

Anyway, I think that % hit should not have the same weight in final score than K/D. But now you are making me doubt a bit 

[Kovel]

going to the fight will take 15mins (10mins is more realistic), coming back from it <5mins.

the less travel time you spend, the better kills/hours you get. If I focused exclusively on K/H I would bail as soon as I'm out of fuel or ammo, at the expense of K/D tho...

Now I see what you mean........Going into the battle you need to climb and it takes longer. RTBing usually you go diving and faster....thanks Sir.

 

[Lusche]

 Dying right away will up your K/T, but will hurt your killpoints, and hurt your K/D. So someone cannot up their rank by dying to save the time it takes to fly back and land.  

Yes, you can - if you are a top stick and your K/D is high enough already. A pilot who routinely manages to get 5 kills in a furball (and we have a few of them) will suffer just a bit from that additional death, but if that boosts his K/H by 20% or so it can make quite a difference.
However, this is very much theory, as at the end of the day only very few players pay that much attention to score (if at all).

------

And on the question ""Which fighting style is good (or bad) for fighter score?": If you look at the top 50 over some time, you will find many players with very distinct styles (and reputations!) up there, from bold furballers to cautious and methodical buff hunters and vulcher/runners. The only thing that really "hurts" is a lack of aggressiveness. In the end, it's all about killing as many as possible in as little time as possible with as little ammo as possible. Find the style you are happy with. Hardly anyone but you looks at your score anyway, and even when they do, it's quickly forgotten again.

[Kovel]

Yes, you can - if you are a top stick and your K/D is high enough already. A pilot who routinely manages to get 5 kills in a furball (and we have a few of them) will suffer just a bit from that additional death, but if that boosts his K/H by 20% or so it can make quite a difference.
However, this is very much theory, as at the end of the day only very few players pay that much attention to score (if at all).

------

And on the question ""Which fighting style is good (or bad) for fighter score?": If you look at the top 50 over some time, you will find many players with very distinct styles (and reputations!) up there, from bold furballers to cautious and methodical buff hunters and vulcher/runners. The only thing that really "hurts" is a lack of aggressiveness. In the end, it's all about killing as many as possible in as little time as possible with as little ammo as possible. Find the style you are happy with. Hardly anyone but you looks at your score anyway, and even when they do, it's quickly forgotten again.

Hands down for this post 

[LCADolby]

Some of you guys Top Ranks in the geekiness score. 

Flying how I do, (by the seat of my pants) means there is no particular fighting style going towards score. I do a little bit of everything. All I know is, my kill points rank is generally pretty high. I'm not sure what that says but I guess it helps.
As for hit%, I still empty my magazine of bullets if my engine goes out to save weight. Gliding home is a little easier no carrying that extra weight. Often helped a captured become a ditch.
Kills per hour I'm not sure how to take, sometimes the arena has a low population and you have to spend a bit of time circling an enemy field just to get a single upper...

[Vinkman]

Yes, you can - if you are a top stick and your K/D is high enough already. A pilot who routinely manages to get 5 kills in a furball (and we have a few of them) will suffer just a bit from that additional death, but if that boosts his K/H by 20% or so it can make quite a difference.
However, this is very much theory, as at the end of the day only very few players pay that much attention to score (if at all).

I would have to pull some examples and change their "landed" results, modify their points (reduce by half),  then up their kills/T by 20%.  I'm betting it would be very hard to find someone who's rnak would go up. hmmmm.......

And on the question ""Which fighting style is good (or bad) for fighter score?": If you look at the top 50 over some time, you will find many players with very distinct styles (and reputations!) up there, from bold furballers to cautious and methodical buff hunters and vulcher/runners. The only thing that really "hurts" is a lack of aggressiveness. In the end, it's all about killing as many as possible in as little time as possible with as little ammo as possible. Find the style you are happy with. Hardly anyone but you looks at your score anyway, and even when they do, it's quickly forgotten again.

The only thing I think is missing from the score as it stands is the effect of the plane. Not to pick on Hoagi, but he spends 80% of his time in a Tempest, and wins the tour a plenty over guys that run up the same stats in a P-38 or a variety of lower ENY planes. Clearly it's easier to score and land kills in a Tempest than it is in a 109F.   

Since I don't think Rank defines pilot quality, correcting for plane quality is not necessary. EXCEPT, if score effects gameplay. Then the scoring system would want to reflect desired gameplay decisions.  If it did, then multiplying your points by the planes ENY would drive more folks into less super planes. Right now there is no penealty or byass to your score and rank if you spend all your time ponies, Spitsteen, and Tempests.

Should a player be ranked higher for putting up the same stats in a P-40 that another player puts up in Tempest?   

My thoughts are that plane ENY could be factored in, if the rank system is trying to determine who is a better pilot, or if it would force better pilots into lesser planes because such a thing would be better for gameplay.  This last point is very common already as many a very stick try to handicap themselves by flying lesser rides. It wouldn't bother me to see it reflected in the rank.

Thoughts? 

[mtnman]

Hya mtnman,
As you said
Cause: You improve %hit
Effect: You improve K/D, K/S and K/T
I agree with that statement but,
Concerning to the ranking, it should only recflect the final results (K/d, K/s.....) and not the tools you use to get the results (% hit)
Concerning the fuel amount I admit it is an exemple taken to an extreme in order to express my thoughts.
The best your %hit is, the best your K/d and K/s could be.
The havier the plane you you are able to control in a fight (full of fuel) , the best k/d and k/s could be.
(I'm trying my best with my english level Sir  )
 

I see what you mean, but I don't really agree.  Here's why.

Fighter rank is really about shooting down the bad guys, and is an attempt to rank based on that.  "Shooting" is a vital (and measurable) part of "shooting down the bad guys".

All of the criteria being measured is related to shooting down the bad guys, and success in any of those will have a tendency to drag at least one of the other subsections up. 

Improving K/D will bring up K/T (unless you're being exceedingly cautious) because you'll spend more time "alive" (and likely in the "danger zone"), which means less time flying back to the fight after you die.  It'll also bring up your K/S, because if you kill someone you'll probably try to get another one (unless you always RTB after you score a single kill).

If you work to improve your K/S, that is again dependent on successfully killing more opponents without dying yourself, so will bring up your K/D.  And of course hitting anybody at all will add to your points.  It'll also bring up your K/T for the same reason I listed above (staying alive, while getting kills, means less "wasted" time flying back to the fight.

Shooting anyone down will always have a positive effect on all of the sub-sections EXCEPT Hit% (you could easily shoot someone down but have a negative effect on your Hit%).  Shooting a plane down will never have a negative effect on any of the other subsections though.

I'm just of the opinion that improving Hit% will help bring up the others (a lot, potentially), while bringing up the others won't bring up Hit%.

I certainly think "cause" is the wrong word to describe that effect though.  "Byproduct" is more accurate I think.

Also, Hit% is one of the only subsections you can actually practice at (and study), so is really the only subsection (IMO) that measures "skill".  You can't "practice" getting more points or improving your K/D, K/S, or K/T.  That doesn't mean I don't think those other sections are worth tracking though, because in the end they're measurable components of being a good fighter pilot.

Hit% is also the most "individual" of the measures.  Flying with a wingman or horde won't help your hit% much, if at all.  It will help your K/D, though, which will have an effect on points, K/S, and K/T.  And again, I don't see that as a "problem" with fighter rank, because teamwork is also a valid tool for the fighter pilot. 

It just means I don't see K/D, K/T, K/S or points as good measures of an individuals skill.

Personally, I use Hit% as the key measure of individual skill within the ranking system (although it can also be misleading).  I honestly consider any kill made by someone with a 3-4% (or less) hit% to be primarily based on luck.  After all, they miss 96-97% of the time.  That's certainly not a display of skillful mastery of the tools they're using (in my eyes).  If a few of those lucky hits happen to be lucky enough to damage something, or lucky enough to kill someone, well, I still see it as mostly luck.

Hit% gives me a good idea of how good my opponent is at setting up shots (i.e. maneuvering), and judging of his opponent's flight angle, speed, etc...  A person who hasn't mastered flying will never master aerial gunnery, but mastering flying doesn't mean someone has mastered aerial gunnery.  The best fighter pilots master both, and it's reflected in Hit%.  Maneuvering skill on it's own isn't measured effectively with the current fighter rank system.

Of course, Hit% can be skewed.  I can easily bring mine up above 40% by limiting myself to killing bombers.  Doing so also brings my K/D up into the 80/1 range, and gives me gobs and gobs of points.  If I did it with a wingman I could be more effective than that.  Killing bombers doesn't help my K/T though, and they use up too much ammo to help my K/S much (unless I re-arm). 

Would doing this make me "less" of a fighter pilot than the guy that kills lots of fighters in 1v1 fights?  Not by WWII standards, since killing bombers was a vital role of a fighter pilot...

And BTW, flying with more fuel will also help your fighter rank (as long as you can continue to kill your opponents without getting killed yourself).

[Kovel]

mtman

I can't disagree what you are saying, and it is actually very interesting.

Neverthelees, I resist to think that %Hit is not over-weighted as a final factor.

Look at those two real pilots with their real ranks:

Factor  Pilot A    Pilot B
K/d        2.86      4.42
k/s        1.62      1.75
k/t        7.45       6.05
%hit      7.66       5.26
kill p.      27k        33k

#Rank      50         114


mntman. Honestly, I don't know if Pilot A or B vulched, used a perfect ACM, picked, fighted outnumbered....But, given you have the same attitude for both of them, I consider that Pilot B is playing better as a FIGHTER PILOT.

Why? Because he has survived a lot more times, he has killed more enemies per sorties and he has gotten nearly twice the kill points than PILOT A.
.
Pilot B, however has been a little more agresiive, but has a big advantatge in %hit.

Pilot A ranks 50 and pilot B ranks 114. Do you think it is a balanced score?

The difference in %Hit is punishing pilot B more than tha advantage he has due to K/D, K/S and Kill ponits, K/D and K.P doubling Player B's.

For me, it is unbalanced and it is unfair.

(And I also think that lag affects a lot % hit. And I think that lag issues are there every day. It is unfair as well that score is affected so much by lag)

[Lusche]

Factor  Pilot A    Pilot B
K/d        2.86      4.42
k/s        1.62      1.75
k/t        7.45       6.05
%hit      7.66       5.26
kill p.      27k        33k

#Rank      50         114


Why? Because he has survived a lot more times, he has killed more enemies per sorties and he has gotten nearly twice the kill points than PILOT A.

33k nearly twice as much as 27k?    

(And I also think that lag affects a lot % hit. And I think that lag issues are there every day. It is unfair as well that score is affected so much by lag)

No, lag doesn't effect your hit %. All shooting is done your front end, if you have hit your enemy on your screen you have hit him, no matter what he may have seen on his screen.

[Noir]

if you have packet loss your bullets will disappear in thin air, but packet loss != lag

[Kovel]

Ok, I made two mistakes in my last stament:

1. 33k is not nearly twice as much as 27k. I was rounding numbers biased to the way my brain wanted to see them lol sorry.

2. I meant packet-losses instead of net-lag.

Sorry for both mistakes and thank you guys for correcting me and make y last post more accurate 

[mtnman]

mtman

I can't disagree what you are saying, and it is actually very interesting.

Neverthelees, I resist to think that %Hit is not over-weighted as a final factor.

Look at those two real pilots with their real ranks:

Factor  Pilot A    Pilot B
K/d        2.86      4.42
k/s        1.62      1.75
k/t        7.45       6.05
%hit      7.66       5.26
kill p.      27k        33k

#Rank      50         114

Pilot A ranks 50 and pilot B ranks 114. Do you think it is a balanced score?

I do think it's a balanced score.  I think so because these are all weighted evenly, and in relation to the AH populace player A has better stats in the two areas that are more difficult to break ahead of the masses in.

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).

The reason they're ranked as well as they are though is coming down to Hit% in a large part.  If player B's Hit% where a percent or two lower, he/she would probably lose several hundred ranking positions.  Player A could lose 2% there, and still keep his high rank though (lose far fewer positions, anyway).

The reason for that is that while player B is doing pretty good overall, Player A is really breaking into that "elite" status when it comes to Hit%.  They're both pretty good, slightly above average in everything, but A is going to have  a significantly better rank when it comes to Hit%.

Being 50% better in K/D isn't going to count much, compared to the masses.  Being 30% better in Hit% will though (compared to the masses) at least at this level.

[Kovel]

I do think it's a balanced score.  I think so because these are all weighted evenly, and in relation to the AH populace player A has better stats in the two areas that are more difficult to break ahead of the masses in.

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).

The reason they're ranked as well as they are though is coming down to Hit% in a large part.  If player B's Hit% where a percent or two lower, he/she would probably lose several hundred ranking positions.  Player A could lose 2% there, and still keep his high rank though (lose far fewer positions, anyway).

The reason for that is that while player B is doing pretty good overall, Player A is really breaking into that "elite" status when it comes to Hit%.  They're both pretty good, slightly above average in everything, but A is going to have  a significantly better rank when it comes to Hit%.

Being 50% better in K/D isn't going to count much, compared to the masses.  Being 30% better in Hit% will though (compared to the masses) at least at this level.

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

As you can see, Pilot B is much more punished because of % Hit than rewarded for better k/d and k/s.

So, %hit overweights k/d + k/s + kill p. altogether.

Ok, I agree that %Hit values are the most concentrated for the population of players, and if you improve a little bit, you rank in that area increases surpringsly. But this is exactly the, for me, the unfair reason of why %hit overweights even 3 very important areas altogether.

And, as I said, % hit is highly punished by packet-losses. I think it is the only area that is hurted by network issues. This and discos. Although discos can't be representative if you fly enough hours and packet losses can be always there, every minute you fly.

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