Well, as a sociologist I must interpret the data that show me the statistics. Although I do not have such an important variable as is "number of missions played" but enough to interpret the "effectiveness" of our two great roles pilot: Fighter and Bomber.

To determine the effectiveness of the fighter, I took into account the K / D ratio and D / W ratio (how many times you have to die for receive a victory) and in short, I just got a result that I compared with the overall average of the Top 100.

So not only how many times you kill a red before being shot down is important, also the victories marked by the K / D ratio, otherwise you would be talking about a pilot with a good K / D is good for the team? no, he must win and that is reflected in their effectiveness porcensage.

To determine the effectiveness of a bomber, I used the D / H ratio (how many deaths are necessary for you can destroy a hangar). I also determined the number of airports that has been destroyed by each pilot, gave a percentage added up and the effectiveness of their victories.

then the top of each of the categories,
hope you like it, because the numbers do not lie:

Thanks ZIZA, this is interesting, I will make a couple of points

Some of your top fighters got there by camping and spawning, using cheap kills. I don't mind the droppers or the sneakers but the people who became top fighters on the back of cheap easy kills is not the reputation I would want to have.

The top fighters should be broken down to 2 categories

1 the top head on shooters like bluemax, von, cannon and many more.

2 and the top dogfighters who has mastered maneuvering down to a science like zebra and kestrel.

Here's a funny story that several know, when I was new i hit 7000 kills and had only 1 hanger, no one could figure out why, we even had threads on the problem trying to figure out why my hits on the hanger would not register.

Someone jokeingly posted a picture of a hanger, it turns out I was bombing the buildings, I didn't know what the hangers looked liked.

My name for several months was DAVY Crockett one lol

awesome job ziza, hope i can be on this list someday...

Thanks ziza!

I like checking out the numbers. It's interesting to see the different ratios between deaths/kills/hangars/wins etc.

It's true that the numbers don't lie, however there are many factors of how someone plays which are not reflected by the statistics. Separating it into bombers/fighters helps but there are more considerations such as if someone stays in outnumbered situations. Someone who always stays to the bitter end will have a lower win and k/d ratio than someone who leaves when things begin to go bad. Someone who spawnkills will have a higher kdr, someone who uses every opportunity to take hangars even if there are no reds in a game will have a higher hangar ratio, or if someone stays in dogfights with only noobs as opponents, etc...


Basically, what I'm saying is that while the statistics are great to see I hope that pilots don't play in a way that is only focused on improving their statistics.

And, the facepalm moment of the decade goes to... DAVY CROCKETT!

Otherwise, this list is remarkably accurate. I love how pluribus is #7 in bombers, that's quite telling. Calle is the spawnkiller supremo, but that factor would be nigh-impossible to accurately record.

Otherwise, impressive work by Ziza. I can certainly appreciate the effort that went into this compilation!

Mac wrote: And, the facepalm moment of the decade goes to... DAVY CROCKETT!

Otherwise, this list is remarkably accurate. I love how pluribus is #7 in bombers, that's quite telling. Calle is the spawnkiller supremo, but that factor would be nigh-impossible to accurately record.

Otherwise, impressive work by Ziza. I can certainly appreciate the effort that went into this compilation!

And the biggest douche award belongs to Mac. See how easy it is to make ignorant, unnecessary statements?

If some send me a list of pilots who are only shooter or only fighter ( for me, it's not the same ) that will be nice.

I can see, whit this numbers, how be a shooter it's not a good choice for one, cause the ratio of deaths it's amazing. And be a fighter it's not a good choice cause hangars ratio.

I can determined the % profile pilot of shooter, fighter and even of sneaker only if some send me a list of " what rol do you play more "
And I can do for determined stats between two squads. I can do many things whit the stats of honorable pilots that we know they don't make spawnkills. This is only a top so general and so cold numbers. I can do more whit this.

And btw, all stats take in consideration the wins, then, a big range of error it's eliminate, but I need make a list of spawnkillers for pay attention in the stats that can help me to detect it with numbers

I hate my English lol

Weather[*M]an wrote:

Mac wrote: And, the facepalm moment of the decade goes to... DAVY CROCKETT!

Otherwise, this list is remarkably accurate. I love how pluribus is #7 in bombers, that's quite telling. Calle is the spawnkiller supremo, but that factor would be nigh-impossible to accurately record.

Otherwise, impressive work by Ziza. I can certainly appreciate the effort that went into this compilation!

And the biggest douche award belongs to Mac. See how easy it is to make ignorant, unnecessary statements?

I'm sorry?

Davy offered an anecdotal story. I fail to see how that story wouldn't produce a facepalm. Odds are, that's why he shared it! It was funny! Someone making you facepalm hardly qualifies as any disrespect or dislike.

I enjoy games with Davy immensely. He would also tell you, we have always gotten along fairly well. Getting 7,000 kills to one hangar is funny, and ever-so-slightly "FACEPALM", I don't see how you would say otherwise.

I am pretty sure I said nothing to require the vicious knee-jerk reply. I could care less, but to go straight to "douche"? Pot or kettle?

Btw , I was thinking use the official black list to make negatives medalls that make negative points in the stats. If calle it's a spawnkiller, we must know it whit screenshoots and I'm gonna take not 1 per weekend. Also, pilots who make a nice holding can be .... Sorry I'm gonna explain this in Spanish lol :

Aquellos pilotos que se encuentren outnumered y tengan la captura de pantalla que lo demuestre, serán condecorados con relación a la dificultad de su enemigo. Es decir, si Davy se encuentra outnumered contra noobs, su medalla valdrá 0 lol. Pero si hace un holding contra los top en shooters o algo así, tendrá más puntos. Los puntos serán determinados por la diferencia de efectividad al cuadrado de la sumatoria de los oponentes. De esa forma será justa.

This can be a good way to make squad wars

Mac wrote:

Weather[*M]an wrote:

Mac wrote: And, the facepalm moment of the decade goes to... DAVY CROCKETT!

Otherwise, this list is remarkably accurate. I love how pluribus is #7 in bombers, that's quite telling. Calle is the spawnkiller supremo, but that factor would be nigh-impossible to accurately record.

Otherwise, impressive work by Ziza. I can certainly appreciate the effort that went into this compilation!

And the biggest douche award belongs to Mac. See how easy it is to make ignorant, unnecessary statements?

I'm sorry?

Davy offered an anecdotal story. I fail to see how that story wouldn't produce a facepalm. Odds are, that's why he shared it! It was funny! Someone making you facepalm hardly qualifies as any disrespect or dislike.

I enjoy games with Davy immensely. He would also tell you, we have always gotten along fairly well. Getting 7,000 kills to one hangar is funny, and ever-so-slightly "FACEPALM", I don't see how you would say otherwise.

I am pretty sure I said nothing to require the vicious knee-jerk reply. I could care less, but to go straight to "douche"? Pot or kettle?

Sorry Mac, did you miss the part of where I mentioned that it was an ignorant, unnecessary statement? Oh wait this is grammar gestapo that I am addressing. For a kid with loads of intelligence, your wisdom and insight are lacking. Can't blame you for that. Those are things that come with time.

Ziza has a great thread here, Nick. Let's not spoil it with a pointless squabble. I've pm'ed you.

Good stuff. I'm a math guy, and I've alwys wondered why the carriers hit wasn't reported (would double the ground targets bombed category) and subcategory "hit from tank" wasn't available.

The K/D and kills per win are intuitive enough; the bomber statistics I would think favor the pilots that can shoot their wa through successive respawing reds (I did an equation on this once, assuming the first meeting of two opponents is at sight distance at midifeld, and given the respawn rate how many respawns would the single blue have to shoot down, per red in the game, but that's changed due to the change in the chute timing).

Looking at the list it seems that way, more sky sweepers than perpetual tankers. Also some tacticians in there. I wish total games started was a statistic, and total games completed. Kills and bombed targets per would be very telling, as would completed to started. I'm mired in the 130's, so I can't see who's around me for comparison, but I assume the bom ratios are now moving with two bombs instead of one, and the kill ratios are going up as the noobs now get in earlier and there are more levels of planes to get through before mechanical parity.

This is very interesting to look through thank you for putting to together.

Also something people need to keep in mind is you used to be able to get three hangars with one bomb. If you new the exact spot once in a while you could get four. That being said I think the older player a edge with the bombing stat.

Longrifle wrote: Good stuff. I'm a math guy, and I've alwys wondered why the carriers hit wasn't reported (would double the ground targets bombed category) and subcategory "hit from tank" wasn't available.

The K/D and kills per win are intuitive enough; the bomber statistics I would think favor the pilots that can shoot their wa through successive respawing reds (I did an equation on this once, assuming the first meeting of two opponents is at sight distance at midifeld, and given the respawn rate how many respawns would the single blue have to shoot down, per red in the game, but that's changed due to the change in the chute timing).

Looking at the list it seems that way, more sky sweepers than perpetual tankers. Also some tacticians in there. I wish total games started was a statistic, and total games completed. Kills and bombed targets per would be very telling, as would completed to started. I'm mired in the 130's, so I can't see who's around me for comparison, but I assume the bom ratios are now moving with two bombs instead of one, and the kill ratios are going up as the noobs now get in earlier and there are more levels of planes to get through before mechanical parity.

Yep, in fact, I have others stats that we can use for determined the effectivity per missions. All I need it's " losses games " . But I need the total of missions played or time of log on in the game.

Fascinating stuff, however, without having ratios and other solid pieces, I must still rely on the eyeball test. The stats are good, but with so many variables and no consistent concensus on the ideals that lead to said numbers, I still only trust my eyes to tell me these things. The numbers can be skewed. The eyeball test is more concrete.

I love threads rich in content. Well done. Thanks for the work.

Btw, it's important to say that this stats are out of prejudice

This show us many things. And more important to say too, it's that no matter if some one its a sneaker or a dropper, if that make win for the team, his % increase. But if he only hit hangars and don't win his stats decrease. I can't determined exactly who is a spawnkiller, BUT, if some pilot have a good KD but not wins, his % decrease. If some one its a good shooter or good fighter or bomber, but his team don't win, the % decrease.

This top, I thing, it's more efficient than only be a top for make points.

I can do a more detailed stats if I penalize pilots whit spawnkill actions.

For that pilots who wants an exactly % of his stats, send me a pic whit his profile.

And I see one thing whit this, even the best shooter have a ratio of deaths so hight than pilots who is shooters and fighters.

I find this stuff amazing.
Would you mind giving me some idea where I stand?

My style:
I "sneak". Can't see little dots.
I have NEVER spawn killed.
I have NEVER camped.
I change sides to even games.
I stay, unless I lose connection. (or have to tinkle)
I train new folks.
I am proud of my style.
Just curious.

Thanks.

PS: DAVYCROCHET's story is true.

I have to agree with Weatherman, statistics however meticulously compiled can still lie, or at least not tell the whole truth. Any such list that places Calle who barely plays and BigBoss who hasn't played in two years ahead of BluE MaX is fundamentally flawed. Anyone in any doubt as to the result were Calle and Max to go nose to nose in a mission...any mission? Given your choice of circumstances up to and including MaX vs. Calle plus six other reds, I'll take as much of that action as y'got.

All due respect for the impressive work, Ziza, but I'm not persuaded. Ddubbaj in the top echelon when I've seen him play exactly once in nearly three years? Hmm...

But Weatherman, c'mon! Davy tells a funny self-deprecating story, Mac replies in the spirit in which it was told...so Mac's a "douche"? You just completely missed the point.

Nope, the data is faulty. I'm not on either list:)

Well, I think it would be important to first understand the use of statistics. The statistics are a tool that allow to see REALITY equivalences and numbers.
I think that instead of trying to see if maybe someone has that high kd because it makes something or because he dont make something or because he plays with such style, we should put, first, questioning the style of the current ranking.

Calle is spawnkiller, but still has more wins than other non spawnkillers, just as there are pilots with more wins than he, and not for that reason they are spankillers.

I think you are confusing the "reputation" with "effectiveness." If someone believes that a pilot is not worthy of showing recognition to their effectiveness because it uses methods and styles that do not go in favor of yours or even that much does not play, does well, I think that's another issue .

For example Wig mentions that Calle will not last long in a game and is just in and out, well, that, statistically it has worked.

The statistic is foreign judgments. But that does not mean I will not take their views into account XD. I think that beyond this a top, this works to see how effective we are in relation to how many deaths do we need to achieve win and shootdown a red or reach the goal , and in that sense I did this. And I think I'm right when I say that no matter if you were outnumered, if you were on a mission with noobs or not, because we've all been in those circumstances at some point and the percentage of effectiveness is the average that we all make with our statistics. Further, these are general statistics, I will give numerical value to use as a variable reports on the black list.


can we make a theme only to report Spawnkillers? as a subject where medals are awarded for heroic acts? ( always whit the screenshoot) That way I could give honor to whom honor is due

It's an interesting experiment, Ziza, but I'm afraid it will never work. Not in a way that's illuminating beyond mapping out some raw data, which I still maintain does not give you a complete picture of anything.

One reason it won't work is because "spawn killing" is a purely subjective term. One person's spawn kill is another person's "suppression" or "cover fire". One interpretation that spawn killing constitutes anything involving a plane with its wheels down conflicts with another interpretation that suppressing fire is a legitimate tactic or still another that sees wheels one digital inch off the ground as fair game. One person's "base camping" is another's protection of incoming teammates. Some insist that you must leave the moment you've dropped your bomb(s), others condone staying and fighting until a safe opportunity to break off arises. More than a few players feel that anything goes, all's fair in a war game. They aren't wrong, they just happen to take a view different from yours or mine.

No amount of statistical data and number crunching can take that much subjectivity into account and there's never been anything like comprehensive data or foolproof methodology on the Blacklist Thread. At least half of what gets reported as "spawnkilling" would be argued as acceptable by at least half the community.

My hypothetical about Calle was not aimed at his inclination to quit in mid-mission, my point was that he only rarely plays. But, we could say the same of MaX, lately. I guess my real point is that this is no more accurate than polling opinions and tallying the votes. Unless you could strip out every shred of subjective judgment and somehow access a much deeper pool of stats (like Carrier Hits, as was mentioned here) you're extrapolating from incomplete data. Again, interesting idea, but purely a novelty. Hopefully no one will treat it as something more definitive than it is.

Paul Mantz, Jr. wrote: I find this stuff amazing.
Would you mind giving me some idea where I stand?

My style:
I "sneak". Can't see little dots.
I have NEVER spawn killed.
I have NEVER camped.
I change sides to even games.
I stay, unless I lose connection. (or have to tinkle)
I train new folks.
I am proud of my style.
Just curious.

Thanks.

PS: DAVYCROCHET's story is true.

you are the best example of the application of these statistics lol

you have a negative KD, but your effectiveness as a percentage of Hunting is higher than even KPTN with a positive KD, for the simple reason that he has won a few times in relation to their kills. While you, are very effective for your team because you even have more wins than most of your military rank. The% of hunting is not just about KD

Wigbomb wrote: It's an interesting experiment, Ziza, but I'm afraid it will never work. Not in a way that's illuminating beyond mapping out some raw data, which I still maintain does not give you a complete picture of anything.

One reason it won't work is because "spawn killing" is a purely subjective term. One person's spawn kill is another person's "suppression" or "cover fire". One interpretation that spawn killing constitutes anything involving a plane with its wheels down conflicts with another interpretation that suppressing fire is a legitimate tactic or still another that sees wheels one digital inch off the ground as fair game. One person's "base camping" is another's protection of incoming teammates. Some insist that you must leave the moment you've dropped your bomb(s), others condone staying and fighting until a safe opportunity to break off arises. More than a few players feel that anything goes, all's fair in a war game. They aren't wrong, they just happen to take a view different from yours or mine.

No amount of statistical data and number crunching can take that much subjectivity into account and there's never been anything like comprehensive data or foolproof methodology on the Blacklist Thread. At least half of what gets reported as "spawnkilling" would be argued as acceptable by at least half the community.

My hypothetical about Calle was not aimed at his inclination to quit in mid-mission, my point was that he only rarely plays. But, we could say the same of MaX, lately. I guess my real point is that this is no more accurate than polling opinions and tallying the votes. Unless you could strip out every shred of subjective judgment and somehow access a much deeper pool of stats (like Carrier Hits, as was mentioned here) you're extrapolating from incomplete data. Again, interesting idea, but purely a novelty. Hopefully no one will treat it as something more definitive than it is.

this is so true

But it never hurts to make an analysis of both sides, the quantitative and subjective, I think

Die a lot, kill many red but not win, winning many missions when you die so many times. This can explain and give an idea about our effectiveness in relation to other forms of flight.

And with respect to the subjective concept of spawnkill, I guess that has no solution. Just as no solution that are increasingly the drivers that turn like F-22 and so many things (which by the way are in the same squad). But I really think its interesting a look quantitative of the pilots

A further thought, and this one you may take personal exception to although it isn't intended to cause offence:

Ratios are meaningless. To be honest, I can't see your spreadsheet pics clearly enough to get much real sense of who's who and who's where, but I know there are players with astronomical K:D ratios in excess of 8 or 10 to 1. Ratios that disproportionate don't point to effectiveness or skill so much as they point to some additional technical advantage or other factor. If we all know who the most skilled players we play against are, and those players maintain K:D ratios two or three times our own...and then a tiny handful of players have ratios double or triple those...you aren't looking at skill. Unless you allow for the possibility of a baseball player with a .900 batting average, or a soccer player who scores 10 goals in every match. See what I mean? The averages in any sport or game tell you something about what sort of superior play is reasonable and what is so far off the chart that...well, that it demands review, like world class athletes being tested for steroids. But those athletes, as ridiculously doped up as their performance is, never do anything even approaching the equivalent of a 10:1 K:D ratio in Dogfight!

A more interesting project if it were possible would be to analyze the statistical probabilities measured against some sort of standard or model, and see who those numbers tag as anomalies. For example; there's a 13 year old kid called Bloodmist242, also called Darkmist242 and KingofHearts. To my knowledge he doesn't play anymore, but when he did he was unstoppable. Not merely highly skilled, this was something unnatural, beyond the scope of what this game and its limitations should logically allow. And he admitted to me that he had access to technology beyond what the rest of us had at the time. You know, Ziza, that I'm of the opinion that there are more than just that one such player with a clear, unmistakable tech edge. Brian and Vampire and DxP have slogged away for years to get the numbers of kills they have. Pluribus has played long and hard to build his specialized Hangar stat. Players like Reid and 420 and Samweb and Enzo (eas) have done the same. Someone who argues that a 10:1 K:D ratio means a player who's literally four times more skilled than any of the above loses all credibility. Four times Roger Federer is not Novak Djokovic, it's a freak. Four times Marco Antonio Barrera is not Julio Cesar Chavez...it's Superman.

Until there's a way for statistical evaluation to factor in anomalous connection speed, device performance, individual lag, Windows sync incompatibility, statistics won't tell us anything about who's better than whom. But they might well tell us who's on the DF-PEDs.

Wigbomb wrote: A further thought, and this one you may take personal exception to although it isn't intended to cause offence:

Ratios are meaningless. To be honest, I can't see your spreadsheet pics clearly enough to get much real sense of who's who and who's where, but I know there are players with astronomical K:D ratios in excess of 8 or 10 to 1. Ratios that disproportionate don't point to effectiveness or skill so much as they point to some additional technical advantage or other factor. If we all know who the most skilled players we play against are, and those players maintain K:D ratios two or three times our own...and then a tiny handful of players have ratios double or triple those...you aren't looking at skill. Unless you allow for the possibility of a baseball player with a .900 batting average, or a soccer player who scores 10 goals in every match. See what I mean? The averages in any sport or game tell you something about what sort of superior play is reasonable and what is so far off the chart that...well, that it demands review, like world class athletes being tested for steroids. But those athletes, as ridiculously doped up as their performance is, never do anything even approaching the equivalent of a 10:1 K:D ratio in Dogfight!

A more interesting project if it were possible would be to analyze the statistical probabilities measured against some sort of standard or model, and see who those numbers tag as anomalies. For example; there's a 13 year old kid called Bloodmist242, also called Darkmist242 and KingofHearts. To my knowledge he doesn't play anymore, but when he did he was unstoppable. Not merely highly skilled, this was something unnatural, beyond the scope of what this game and its limitations should logically allow. And he admitted to me that he had access to technology beyond what the rest of us had at the time. You know, Ziza, that I'm of the opinion that there are more than just that one such player with a clear, unmistakable tech edge. Brian and Vampire and DxP have slogged away for years to get the numbers of kills they have. Pluribus has played long and hard to build his specialized Hangar stat. Players like Reid and 420 and Samweb and Enzo (eas) have done the same. Someone who argues that a 10:1 K:D ratio means a player who's literally four times more skilled than any of the above loses all credibility. Four times Roger Federer is not Novak Djokovic, it's a freak. Four times Marco Antonio Barrera is not Julio Cesar Chavez...it's Superman.

Until there's a way for statistical evaluation to factor in anomalous connection speed, device performance, individual lag, Windows sync incompatibility, statistics won't tell us anything about who's better than whom. But they might well tell us who's on the DF-PEDs.

You yourself have shown that response to you question. How is that possible. that many players are not able to increase the KD? all its about head on.

I have 11: 1 ratio since i get star in this game, even when it was in the early levels. This is where Davy answered this question, there are shooters and fighters. A fighter has better KD than some Shooter. thats all

In these statistics, the KD represents 50% of the effectiveness of a hunt, the other 50% are the times he has won in relation with their deaths.

I know, the statistics do not show everything, but definitely show the deaths necessary to win, to destroy a hangar or to shootdown a red . How many deaths a shooter needs to get to the hangar and destroy it? That represents 50% of the effectiveness of a bomber the other 50% is the amount of destroyed airport in relation to the overall average.

And by the way if I remove my data from the statistics, and all those pilots with KD higher than 5. The percentage of effectiveness of a fighter only decreases by 2%. Pilots with high KD does not make much difference in the overall average when measured equally.

I understand your point, but I think the problem is not about what can be shown or not the statistics, but rather with statistics are even more obvious the difference in flight styles.

What I'm pretty sure I can do is determine the level of shooter , but would need a list of all active drivers. For example, a pilot with 70% effective as hunting, can be divided into two parts. 50% shooter and 20% fighter. All with this variables, indicated by the overall average intermediate (shooters with kill ratio of 4, for example)

All my intention is to show how many deaths pay a victory, a shootdown and a hangar, and from that, determine your effectiveness

I get it, Z, but I just don't...get it.

The suggestion that you could gain some empirical data from asking players what percentage "fighter" and what percentage "shooter" they are strikes me as highly implausible. Like, as in, impossible.

I've been playing Dogfight for 2.5 years. For a long while I spent most of my playing time flying straight up the middle and either knocking down the pixel in the distance or being knocked down by it. How long a time? No idea. There was a brief early period when I experimented with Pluribus/FLYMAGIC style high altitude bombing runs. How brief a period? Not a clue. Over the past few months I sometimes carry bombs on every run, sometimes on no runs. Sometimes on some runs and not on others. I dogfight in every mission. I go head-to-head in every mission. I succeed and fail at both. How much of each approach to what degree of success in which number of missions? If my life depended on knowing, I'd be typing this while dead.

How in the world can anyone put an accurate percentage on his/her playing style unless he/she only does one thing to the absolute exclusion of doing anything else?

I love ya like a rock, Ziza, but I gotta say it; nobody has a straight up 11:1 K:D ratio! If you're a statistician you should be looking at that with a very, very skeptical professional eye, no matter how nice it is to believe that you're simply that much better than anyone else in the entire world. Like, as in, twice or three times better than the best players there are. If Muhammad Ali and Venus Williams had a baby and that baby grew up and had a baby with Tiger Woods and that baby grew up and went back in time and had a baby with Albert Einstein...it still wouldn't have an 11:1 K:D ratio! Not unless it had an anomalous connection/device/lag/bargain-with-Satan...or Windows 8.

You are good. You are not that good. Nobody is that good, not without an edge. A BluE MaX or a Von Hulk or a Dragon Rojo puts a nasty beating on me and I suck it up, take my medicine, enjoy having been bested by someone exceptionally skilled and move on. Somebody beats me 11 times to 1? Or 44 times to 4? Seriously. What do you really think it means? I and many of the players at the top of the rankings have a roughly 2.5:1 K:D ratio. Does it mean you're actually 4.4 times more skilled? Than any of us? Take me out of the discussion. Are you four times better at Dogfight, do you know four times more tricks and maneuvers, do you implement them four times more effectively, than Brian Strachan, 1001, Von Len, Rodama, Von Hulk, Arkangel, Frank Baracca and on and on...because you're a dedicated "fighter"? Seriously? I'm no professional statistician but I know enough to know when numbers don't add up to common sense.

Wigbomb wrote: I get it, Z, but I just don't...get it.

The suggestion that you could gain some empirical data from asking players what percentage "fighter" and what percentage "shooter" they are strikes me as highly implausible. Like, as in, impossible.

I've been playing Dogfight for 2.5 years. For a long while I spent most of my playing time flying straight up the middle and either knocking down the pixel in the distance or being knocked down by it. How long a time? No idea. There was a brief early period when I experimented with Pluribus/FLYMAGIC style high altitude bombing runs. How brief a period? Not a clue. Over the past few months I sometimes carry bombs on every run, sometimes on no runs. Sometimes on some runs and not on others. I dogfight in every mission. I go head-to-head in every mission. I succeed and fail at both. How much of each approach to what degree of success in which number of missions? If my life depended on knowing, I'd be typing this while dead.

How in the world can anyone put an accurate percentage on his/her playing style unless he/she only does one thing to the absolute exclusion of doing anything else?

I love ya like a rock, Ziza, but I gotta say it; nobody has a straight up 11:1 K:D ratio! If you're a statistician you should be looking at that with a very, very skeptical professional eye, no matter how nice it is to believe that you're simply that much better than anyone else in the entire world. Like, as in, twice or three times better than the best players there are. If Muhammad Ali and Venus Williams had a baby and that baby grew up and had a baby with Tiger Woods and that baby grew up and went back in time and had a baby with Albert Einstein...it still wouldn't have an 11:1 K:D ratio! Not unless it had an anomalous connection/device/lag/bargain-with-Satan...or Windows 8.

You are good. You are not that good. Nobody is that good, not without an edge. A BluE MaX or a Von Hulk or a Dragon Rojo puts a nasty beating on me and I suck it up, take my medicine, enjoy having been bested by someone exceptionally skilled and move on. Somebody beats me 11 times to 1? Or 44 times to 4? Seriously. What do you really think it means? I and many of the players at the top of the rankings have a roughly 2.5:1 K:D ratio. Does it mean you're actually 4.4 times more skilled? Than any of us? Take me out of the discussion. Are you four times better at Dogfight, do you know four times more tricks and maneuvers, do you implement them four times more effectively, than Brian Strachan, 1001, Von Len, Rodama, Von Hulk, Arkangel, Frank Baracca and on and on...because you're a dedicated "fighter"? Seriously? I'm no professional statistician but I know enough to know when numbers don't add up to common sense.

Yeah... What he said. (SORRY, HULK NOT SO SMART)

I like reading all this stuff. Don't understand it all.

Thanks for doing it for me.

I just wanted pseudo-mathematical proof that I suck at this game and by not worrying about my stats I have maintained a low level of success while having a high level of FUN!!