Mistura Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I was wondering how the Leader Status Area works. I scored 35 points with my leader shooting down 2 Mega Aces, and the score was not posted in the Most XP/Mission Area. Plus I have seen scores equal and lower than mine put in place. I think the High Score should stay there, and not someone with the same score or lower. I know it sounds nit-picky, but that is about the only place I have a chance of having a high score. I will not have the time to play 50-100 games every day like some (Lucky People). Thanks, and Keep Up The Good Work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartbert Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 The most "XP/Mission" is based on an average by taking the total XP and dividing by the number of missions flown. If we based the number on the most XP received in a single mission, then you might well be the top pilot in that area. If a majority of players think that it would be more meaningful to base the score on the highest single-mission XP score, we can look at changing it. Opinions are welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistura Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 Oh OK. I thought that was for 1 mission. My mistake. I see people getting a good score with a pilot and not flying him for the rest of the week, and keeping the high average. Players wouldn't do that now would they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuroi neko Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I would say keep track of two different scores : 1) the best single mission XP total 2) the best average, but pruning people with less than 5 missions or so (so that the average reflects constant performance rather than a couple of lucky games). The same could be done for kills/mission, although single best mission would be awarded to the first lucky guy drawing enough ammo to down 3 or 4 planes in a single game . I guess the "5 missions or more" filter would make more sense there. There is also a strong bias, at least in the demo, due to different planes characteristics. Obviously p40s usually get better kill ratios than Me109s. Speaking of which, I also would like to see a "kill ratio" ranking (number of kills/number of bail outs), i.e. taking survival into account. After all, it is more difficult to get high kill total if you value survival in the long run. That could be an incentive for less reckless flying . The "ideal" system would be something like the chess ELO ranking. I guess the maths are not too complicated to implement on the server, and as far as I know this is the system that best compensate for uneven number of games played. [ September 23, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: kuroi neko ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartbert Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I'm almost afraid to ask, but what is the "chess ELO ranking"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuroi neko Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 here is a rather compact wikipedia article on the subject. Basically it is a point-based system that takes the "expected performance" of a player into account. If you get a rather high score, you will be expected to win more and more against weaker players, and the penalty for loosing or even getting a draw against weaker players will increase accordingly. This will tend to stabilize your score around your "real" skill level, since early victories wont prevent you from loosing points for mediocre performances against weaker players. Conversely, a single victory against a strongly rated player will be very rewarding since the inital score difference will be interpreted as an expectation for you to loose the game, yelding increased reward in case of victory. To get an initial ranking, the score is allowed to evolve quickly for the first few games (5 or so). Then a "dampening" effect kicks in and the average score tends to stabilize more and more over the next games. In a nutshell, this is what allows to reduce the advantage of playing many games in terms of global score : many mediocre games will drag you down the ladder, while a few brillant ones will push you up far more quickly. A few years ago I was playing the Close Combat III ELO ranking system, and I was rather impressed by the accuracy of the results. After a hundred games or so, I was hovering around a given rank and I reckoned by and large it was a pretty accurate reflection of my real skill (i.e. better ranked players were indeed better than me, and lower ones usually less successfull). In the end I even took advantage of this ranking system to challenge other players who had about the same score, it was a way to get interresting and balanced games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts