fighter Ranking formula Modification

[Ack-Ack]

Save, I would think the spit with the 12 MG would be about the worst % hit plane. 

It wouldn't.  Hit percentage isn't dependent on any part of the plane, it's purely influenced by the player.  If you're a crappy shot, you're not going to have a very good hit percentage no matter how many guns your plane has or doesn't have.

I know flying the P47, I am much more liberal with the lead showers than when I take out a Mustang.

That just shows you don't have any sort of firing discipline and just waste ammo spraying and praying without really taking the time to aim properly before firing.  I fly the P-38J, which has a very large amount of ammo but yet I routinely land with half of my ammo still left and 4-5 kills and with a high hit percentage.  Why?  Because I take the time to practice my gunnery and don't waste it spraying and praying.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Why do I think his idea has merit?  Simply, we would see more of the plane set put to use.  There are many subscribers that consider the rank system a measure of there performance against other players.  By changing the metrics a bit, we would certainly see more of the early/mid-war vehicles used on a frequent basis.  Which, would reflect HTC's hard work modeling those vehicles.

respectfully,

ammo

It won't increase the amount of early/mid-war planes being used.  Many more players just like to fly whatever they want to fly than players that fly for rank.  I know it's not going to make me want to fly an early war plane.  Nor is it going to be any indicator of someone's skill, just like the current rank system.

ack-ack

[earl1937]

Pand is good, granted, (and a jolly nice chap,) but please think a little before you take someone's bait. I say because he isn't the best, and I'm sure he would accept that like I do.

Not trying argue the point about Pand, but do you know of anyone else in this game which consistently landed 5 to 9 kills in one sortie in a Bravo? I can name you 25 Rooks right now that will tell you the same thing! There are some great, great "sticks" in this game, Bru119, Snailman, GHI, Debrody and I could on for 30 mins naming guys who have impressed me with their continued success in a fighter.
What really impressed me the night that Pand landed 9 kills in one sortie, he wasn't picking and running, he got right down there in the dirt with them. Was I a bait a/c? NO, I just stayed up, but low enough to try to learn something.
 My eyes and reaction time at my age, I am easy fodder for any reasonable stick in here. That's why I fly bombers 95% of the time. I still love the game though and hope to be able to play many, many more years!

[Vinkman]

If your goal is to have the score system change who is shown as a high ranking pilot. Your perk  idea would have very little effect.

HiTech

If you mean I have an issue with any specific pilot in the top ranks or winner, I absolutely do not.

My only interest is game theory and metrics. I do metrics and data for a living. So the metric formulations and their out comes are like a hobby for me.
As far as the out come of this game, I'm interested in how the metric affects game play, not how they affect an individual pilot.

 

[ink]

OK, you want to know who is best fighter pilot? Tell you what, you know how much ammo you have when you take off, all you have to do is count the ammo when you land vs number of kills! If you have no kills, bottom of the list! Have 4 kills and expended 650 rounds, go to head of list. I flew, or tried to fly wing one night with Pand, he landed 9 kills and had 40 rounds of .50 cal in a Bravo! If that isn't the best, I don't know what you would consider the best.

that just means he had good aim.....Pand died very fast when I cornered him.

he was a good stick, that had excellent Aim...... but by no means was he in the tops in AH....by no means.



Landing kills is not an indication of ones skill.


I have seen him fly and faced him many times....he always had friends with him.....and ran away when he couldn't get the kill right away....

 

[Vinkman]

If you mean I have an issue with any specific pilot in the top ranks or winner, I absolutely do not.

My only interest is game theory and metrics. I do metrics and data for a living. So the metric formulations and their out comes are like a hobby for me.
As far as the out come of this game, I'm interested in how the metric affects game play, not how they affect an individual pilot.

 

"And it don't take no Sherlock Holmes to see..."   that people are very aware of the differences in plane performance and how it affects game play.  with all the metrics in the game, one wonders why plane type doesn't factor into any of the scoring categories.

Even if it didn't change the rankings much, there is value in having the plane type factored into the score because it removes the question that it's a huge factor. It either does, or it doesn't. Putting it in satisfies all. leaving it out, leaves questions. 



 

[Debrody]

that just means he had good aim.....Pand died very fast when I cornered him.

he was a good stick, that had excellent Aim......

Pand has the MoH, awarded by...  himself.
Seriously, he does not fight. Unless bait/pick is considered as fighting. End of the story.

K/D means nothing for me. Yup, im just an a-hole.

[hitech]

"And it don't take no Sherlock Holmes to see..."   that people are very aware of the differences in plane performance and how it affects game play.  with all the metrics in the game, one wonders why plane type doesn't factor into any of the scoring categories.

Even if it didn't change the rankings much, there is value in having the plane type factored into the score because it removes the question that it's a huge factor. It either does, or it doesn't. Putting it in satisfies all. leaving it out, leaves questions. 
 

For those who wish to score well, the current score system does a very good job at ranking them. People are not forced into any plane, so they can choose what planes they wish to use to score well. The issue is that many people want to use their own Idea of what a "Good pilot" is. But then they want to use the term good pilot generically. A pilot who's gunnery is better may choose a faster non turning plane, simply because that is his best way to turn is skills into points. Other players may be good at SA and wish to use a slower turning plane against multiple bogies because it leverages there skills into score. Why should either of these players be reward or have a detriment for the way they wish to score?

And a 3rd player will not care about score at all, and simply fly what plane he likes for his own reasons. He may not care if he dies, he may crash just to get back to base faster. And hence there really is no way to numerically quantify "SKILL".

So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.

And hence

Putting it in satisfies all.

It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.

HiTech

[Arbiter]

So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.

Interesting points.  I think the same could be said when trying to compare which of the playing styles mentioned requires the most "skill". 

It's all a matter of perspective.

[morfiend]

So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.

And hence

It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.

HiTech

  This was my first thought when I read this,players already argue about eny of plane X verses plane Y or that plane A should have this eny or plane B should have that eny.

   I can safely say I can outfly atleast 50% of the players ingame but it doesnt do me much good when I cant shoot them down because my aim sux...


  Personally I think it should be about fun,however you find it,whatever you do,afterall it is a GAME and they are supposed to be fun!


     

  I became a trainer to help improve game play for everyone,I somehow feel like I've failed at this.

[earl1937]

For those who wish to score well, the current score system does a very good job at ranking them. People are not forced into any plane, so they can choose what planes they wish to use to score well. The issue is that many people want to use their own Idea of what a "Good pilot" is. But then they want to use the term good pilot generically. A pilot who's gunnery is better may choose a faster non turning plane, simply because that is his best way to turn is skills into points. Other players may be good at SA and wish to use a slower turning plane against multiple bogies because it leverages there skills into score. Why should either of these players be reward or have a detriment for the way they wish to score?

And a 3rd player will not care about score at all, and simply fly what plane he likes for his own reasons. He may not care if he dies, he may crash just to get back to base faster. And hence there really is no way to numerically quantify "SKILL".

So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.

And hence

It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.

HiTech

You make a good point! I think that everybody in this game have different goals for themselves and their own method of deciding where or not they have succeeded in a sortie! For me,, I could care less about my ranking, I judge my success as a player in this game by grading myself on how I handled the bombers in my mission.
Did I approach the target where one pilot can kill more than one hangar in first pass! Did I arrange the number of aircraft in the right defensive box, so as to maximize the field of fire, did we shut the base down in one pass, did I plan the return pass back to town so as to inflect maximum building kills, did I get 80% of my bombers home safely, including drones, did we prepare the target base to make it easier for heavy fighters to clean up and allow the troops in.
All of the things I have listed are important steps to be taken in mission planning, but even if we didn't succeed in capturing target base, if we succeed in carry out these operations, then I feel good about the mission.
Is any of that reflected in the scoring system? Of course not, but for my scoring system, that is where I get my satisfaction in playing the game!
 

[Debrody]

For those who wish to score well, the current score system does a very good job at ranking them. People are not forced into any plane, so they can choose what planes they wish to use to score well. The issue is that many people want to use their own Idea of what a "Good pilot" is. But then they want to use the term good pilot generically. A pilot who's gunnery is better may choose a faster non turning plane, simply because that is his best way to turn is skills into points. Other players may be good at SA and wish to use a slower turning plane against multiple bogies because it leverages there skills into score. Why should either of these players be reward or have a detriment for the way they wish to score?

And a 3rd player will not care about score at all, and simply fly what plane he likes for his own reasons. He may not care if he dies, he may crash just to get back to base faster. And hence there really is no way to numerically quantify "SKILL".

So now trying to rank planes to reflect "Skill" when "skill" can not be defined in the first place , would be nothing but folly.

And hence

It would satisfy almost no one, but instead would simply start complaints about how their favorite plane is unfairly rated for the score system.

HiTech

Hitech,

as you have said, those sentences are right, but please see Vink's point. Reaching a 4+ K/D, a good hit ratio, great kills/time, etc is relatively easy in a Spitfire16. I guess its a valid point that the same numerical stats worth more if the given player have reached them in a P40E that if he had the same score only flying a Spit16/Tempest.

I was flying a low eny ride, im not asking for any changes, just trying to point out what i think he wanted to tell.

[Arbiter]

I became a trainer to help improve game play for everyone,I somehow feel like I've failed at this.

Never think that.   

[guncrasher]

Hitech,

as you have said, those sentences are right, but please see Vink's point. Reaching a 4+ K/D, a good hit ratio, great kills/time, etc is relatively easy in a Spitfire16. I guess its a valid point that the same numerical stats worth more if the given player have reached them in a P40E that if he had the same score only flying a Spit16/Tempest.

I was flying a low eny ride, im not asking for any changes, just trying to point out what i think he wanted to tell.

if it is so easy then why doesnt the spit16 have those stats?


semp

[Arbiter]

if it is so easy then why doesnt the spit16 have those stats?


semp

Might be better to say easier.   It still takes some experience and adherance to a concervative flying style to achieve stats stats like those.   A noob on his two-week trial probably would not be able to do so with a spit xvi or any other ride.