reid340 wrote:

dogss wrote: I would have to say for some of the older players time not age wise. Coming up from wing commander and so on against guys like bizzi watup Sgt,rock bomber the,vampire ddubja when they where still chasing rank...and of course Strachan. Spawnkilling,wasnt frowned upon,really. You literally had games pretty much every game where you had three kills maybe 25 deaths. And they didn't care they kept putting you down over n over again. Only one mod and not nearly as much as activity on the forum. It was great if you could sneak in on,their side n,watch them kill eachother but,even then it,was just a matter of time before the beating began. It was an unholy feeling when you took off and saw three ir four of those guys coming at you, game had less people then,too so there was no running away. It,was hell doubling your kill death ratio and then some,but most of us got there. Lol still were some of the best games. And then being,able to shoot them down later on,was total bliss.
Those guys though are,what made me,stick around and,try to get better great group of guys the old aces.

That's exactly how it was. Also nobody cried about getting sk

lol i forgot to mention you. You were one of the worsts. Really it was a game of total ruthlessness back then and I loved it. Dont like getting spawnkilled figure out how to make me miss your ass on approach echoed throughout dog fight. Was a blast anger flowed freely but a great respect for eachother

What would be really interesting is to see how these stats have changed since the break in servers - we all feasted at times on noobs, and it wasn't rare to have a 40:1 game. Since the playing field has become somewhat level, it would be interesting to see how everyone's ratios have changed.

I was asked to generate new numbers so here they are!

Top 5

Excel File if anyone wants to play around with the numbers

www.itworkz.ca/top100.xlsx

Conclusion: 420 rules this game, by far!

Congratz, 420!

Edit: Explaining - for me, the best player is the one with the highest "real" k/d ratio, that is, not counting the crashes. And a ratio of 27 is unbelievably high!

DAMN!!!,,BLOB STILL BEATING ME IN CRASHES!!!!....ONE DAY BLOB I WILL BE THE BEST....ONE DAY.

Pedrinho wrote: Conclusion: 420 rules this game, by far!

Congratz, 420!

Edit: Explaining - for me, the best player is the one with the highest "real" k/d ratio, that is, not counting the crashes. And a ratio of 27 is unbelievably high!

To celebrate we should all get to shoot her down...just once so we can say we did it

Also YEMX has been watching thedarkmist262 tear up the leaderboard and the answer to the ultimate question is:

NO he has always been this good actually in the last little while he is below his usual KDR! Here are the numbers:

SnidleyWhiplash wrote:

Pedrinho wrote: Conclusion: 420 rules this game, by far!

Congratz, 420!

Edit: Explaining - for me, the best player is the one with the highest "real" k/d ratio, that is, not counting the crashes. And a ratio of 27 is unbelievably high!

To celebrate we should all get to shoot her down...just once so we can say we did it

In my entire "Dogfight life", I only shot her down ONCE. And she was blue...

SnidleyWhiplash wrote: Also YEMX has been watching thedarkmist262 tear up the leaderboard and the answer to the ultimate question is:

NO he has always been this good actually in the last little while he is below his usual KDR! Here are the numbers:

Thanks for the heads up Whip, I'll try to pay more attention this time.

thenightmaresbegi wrote:

SnidleyWhiplash wrote: Also YEMX has been watching thedarkmist262 tear up the leaderboard and the answer to the ultimate question is:

NO he has always been this good actually in the last little while he is below his usual KDR! Here are the numbers:

Thanks for the heads up Whip, I'll try to pay more attention this time.

You've been kicking our butts so we all expected some freakish KDR like 7.2 or higher

Okay Kids,

I went a bit further, and more controversial. I took Snidely's data, and combined parts to get a new category I call Combat Effectiveness - the one pilot who has a combination of all the measurable skills that is sure to carry the day. I add the individual kills, hangars bombed, and games won together, and from that I subtract the amount of crashes. I then divide that number by the number of deaths. The final number represents how well rounded your skill sets are when combined - not just who has the most kills, the fewest deaths, the most hangars bombed. It tells you that when you throw in ALL aspects of the game, how well do you rank against your peers. Maybe who is the Most Valuable to their team.

I kept the first column intact to show 1 - 100, and this represents where your new Overall Ranking is, especially when compared to the second column which indicated where you stood on the DF rankings when Snidely pulled the data last. You may need to click on the chart to get the full picture to pop out.

Here's pilots ranked 1 - 20



ranks 21 - 40



ranks 41 - 60



ranks 60 - 81



ranks 81 - 100

Thanks Tex..quite interesting. I like the subtraction of the crashes as most of them are not caused by pilot error after level 10. And how you guys extrapolate such data is awesome and clever.

So how do you figure a person who started the game well over a year ago and every game was a spawnkilling fest. Every game was at least 30 deads over kills (usually more).... Most all deads were at spawn point....
When was the last time anyone had 89 death's in a game and maybe 5 kills......say 80 of those death's were from spawnkills.............

This whole combat effectiveness thing is rather wrong. Like i said before kill ratio and the like really doesnt show how good a fighter you are. How about how effective a pilot is in killing the zep, or all of the other aspects of the game. I still thing kill ratio while good thing is only part of it. For i know many pilots who can dogfight but are ineffective at destroying the zep compared with others.

This does not show how good a pilot one is. Zep game chute landing erc are just as important as all of the kill ratio. I know many with good kill ratio who are ineffective against the zep. I appreciate kill ratio but its only partly a sign of ability.

Big Tex wrote: Okay Kids,

I went a bit further, and more controversial. I took Snidely's data, and combined parts to get a new category I call Combat Effectiveness - the one pilot who has a combination of all the measurable skills that is sure to carry the day. I add the individual kills, hangars bombed, and games won together, and from that I subtract the amount of crashes. I then divide that number by the number of deaths. The final number represents how well rounded your skill sets are when combined - not just who has the most kills, the fewest deaths, the most hangars bombed. It tells you that when you throw in ALL aspects of the game, how well do you rank against your peers. Maybe who is the Most Valuable to their team.

I kept the first column intact to show 1 - 100, and this represents where your new Overall Ranking is, especially when compared to the second column which indicated where you stood on the DF rankings when Snidely pulled the data last. You may need to click on the chart to get the full picture to pop out.

This is very interesting but I don't know that it will show combat effectiveness, or say game winners. As a mathie I always try and determine if the test/stats support the information being proposed and if you look at the list it pretty much follows the KDR. I understand what you are going for the problem is the attributes we have cannot be added and subtracted since they are independent events. Like kills, hangars and games won don't really relate to each other. I think most valuable player would be the one who has the most games won when they are playing. What we need to find is a way to determine how many games have been played or essentially the winning percentage for each player. So I just tried to figure out how to make an amount of playing time by dividing the persons kills by their KDR to equalize the play time since that should be close to the amount of 'play' in each player. Now I took the wins and divided the amount of 'play' I found in the last step and found it follows the deaths per win. After thinking about it that kind of makes sense since the most valuable person is the one who dies the least per each game won.

Here is what I think...of course I very well could be wrong...

Now I would like to point out what I thought was proof this is wrong. Look at Pluribus but if you look at his stats he has a ton of wins for the actual time he 'plays.' His KDR isn't that bad and he has almost half as many hangars as he does kills! I say this looks as good as it gets with the numbers we have. What we need is total games played...

LOL, Snidley, Your a good man... I just wanted to point out the wrench thrown in my bike spokes back when I first started (so to say)... My bike was overended along time ago.... I do like looking at the stat's....
I think I'll move on to a tricycle....
The stat's are fun.... Please keep going... And thanks for chiming in Swop..... I know you think alot of Snidley also....

Edit: I reread your post Snidley, I like the way you think.... (mathie) Lol..... A problem solver for sure.....

dentinhead wrote: LOL, Snidley, Your a good man... I just wanted to point out the wrench thrown in my bike spokes back when I first started (so to say)... My bike was overended along time ago.... I do like looking at the stat's....
I think I'll move on to a tricycle....
The stat's are fun.... Please keep going... And thanks for chiming in Swop..... I know you think alot of Snidley also....

Edit: I reread your post Snidley, I like the way you think.... (mathie) Lol..... A problem solver for sure.....

Thanks Dent! and you even spelled my name right

BigC5798 wrote: Whip could you do one of those for me? You don't have to if its too hard, but could you try?

Here you are sir!

Whippy,

This is really totally bogus if one doesn't add all of the many many aspects of the game like Zepplin game and landing and chute etc. Please it is really making yourself dig into a pit kind of.

I'm a mathie too but if the math doesn't factor in all aspects of the game then the math is "incomplete" and I would say "worthless" except to show the minimal aspects of the game that the math represents. I'm sorry Whippy.

Your grade for this is an ................"incomplete".

and for combat effectiveness the same goes for that because the comabt effectiveness of destroying the zepplin is not included and some of the chute and some of the tank too.

doughens wrote: I'm a mathie too but if the math doesn't factor in all aspects of the game then the math is "incomplete" and I would say "worthless" except to show the minimal aspects of the game that the math represents. I'm sorry Whippy.

Your grade for this is an ................"incomplete".

and for combat effectiveness the same goes for that because the comabt effectiveness of destroying the zepplin is not included and some of the chute and some of the tank too.

But Swop these are the numbers we have. I know it's not correct, I was trying to get to some representation of what Big Tex was after so I tried my best with what we have. Really what we need as I said is number for total games played that we can divide the wins by to see who wins the most. If you have a better idea I would like to hear it.

I think you also didn't do math on the kill/crash ratio. Whether one crashes or gets shot down they should be looked at exactly the same. I really think that sense the math doesn't include all of the many aspects of the points that we really shouldn't do the math or at least we need to make "better inferences" and "correct inferences" than the ones that some are concluding.

What you need is to include successful zeppelin shots for destruction, you need to include "kill/crash" ratio. Truly without the zepplin destruction and landing and all it seems futile.

It shows how well you do certain aspects of the game but not ALL aspects of the game for there truly are pilots who are better in one to one dogfight who are not as good at destroying the zepplin or other aspects of the game with that specific pilot.

Whippy, I REALLY like you and respect you. So please don;t get the wrong idea. I'm so sorry if "words fail me". Thanks good buddy

doughens wrote: I think you also didn't do math on the kill/crash ratio. Whether one crashes or gets shot down they should be looked at exactly the same. I really think that sense the math doesn't include all of the many aspects of the points that we really shouldn't do the math or at least we need to make "better inferences" and "correct inferences" than the ones that some are concluding.

What you need is to include successful zeppelin shots for destruction, you need to include "kill/crash" ratio. Truly without the zepplin destruction and landing and all it seems futile.

It shows how well you do certain aspects of the game but not ALL aspects of the game for there truly are pilots who are better in one to one dogfight who are not as good at destroying the zepplin or other aspects of the game with that specific pilot.

Whippy, I REALLY like you and respect you. So please don;t get the wrong idea. I'm so sorry if "words fail me". Thanks good buddy

unfortunately we don't really have the info to do any of that. What wip is doing looks fine to me. It is about all you can do with that information.

doughens wrote: I think you also didn't do math on the kill/crash ratio. Whether one crashes or gets shot down they should be looked at exactly the same. I really think that sense the math doesn't include all of the many aspects of the points that we really shouldn't do the math or at least we need to make "better inferences" and "correct inferences" than the ones that some are concluding.

What you need is to include successful zeppelin shots for destruction, you need to include "kill/crash" ratio. Truly without the zepplin destruction and landing and all it seems futile.

It shows how well you do certain aspects of the game but not ALL aspects of the game for there truly are pilots who are better in one to one dogfight who are not as good at destroying the zepplin or other aspects of the game with that specific pilot.

Whippy, I REALLY like you and respect you. So please don;t get the wrong idea. I'm so sorry if "words fail me". Thanks good buddy

But the KDR includes both shot down and crashes since it's total kills over total deaths. What you are looking for we don't have. With the numbers we have I say the best representation we can have is deaths per win. I did omit the kills/crash but that to me is more a matter of how careful you are...

doughens wrote: I think you also didn't do math on the kill/crash ratio. Whether one crashes or gets shot down they should be looked at exactly the same. I really think that sense the math doesn't include all of the many aspects of the points that we really shouldn't do the math or at least we need to make "better inferences" and "correct inferences" than the ones that some are concluding.

What you need is to include successful zeppelin shots for destruction, you need to include "kill/crash" ratio. Truly without the zepplin destruction and landing and all it seems futile.

It shows how well you do certain aspects of the game but not ALL aspects of the game for there truly are pilots who are better in one to one dogfight who are not as good at destroying the zepplin or other aspects of the game with that specific pilot.

Whippy, I REALLY like you and respect you. So please don;t get the wrong idea. I'm so sorry if "words fail me". Thanks good buddy

And Swop I always like you man you just seem to be coming down on my ideas a little harsh lately. Don't worry we're cool man.

"I did omit the kills/crash but that to me is more a matter of how careful you are..."

Whether you crash or get shot down your not "effective". kamikazi vs non-Kamikazi if you get my drift.

To be at full "Combat effectiveness" one SHOULD be careful and not be "reckless" with the kamikazi.

BTW, I don't want to come across too harshly. I have a strong opinion on this but that doesn't mean that I think less of you in any way. I hope you can see that and recognize that in me. I don't want to be a "sad Swop".