Post Your Stats

[nesnl]

Take a screenie and post it up.

[Triped]

Mine definitely aren't as good as yours. Surprised I'm best with Biplane and worst with Loopy. Now I know who to practice with!

Edit: attachment looks ugly for some reason.

Played 1 day 8 hours

Loopy .84
Bomber .89
Explodet .92
Biplane .93
Miranda .87

[tmm3k]

Damn that's a lot of kills with the Explodet. And I'm frankly surprised that I've managed a K/D ratio above 1 for Loopy and Miranda--I suck with both of them.

[Ferret]

I am posting in this thread.

[Pillars]

Bomber = no.

[TheCapedAvenger]

I only play loopy: K/D = 1.9

[nesnl]

When I only see you play Loopy I figured you just mostly played Loopy, but that is incredible! Now I really wish I could have seen that one time you played the Explodet.

[Blank]

too lazy to print screen:

203,491 total exp

loopy- 1563 1003 1.56
bomber- 2424 1491 1.63
explodet- 2321 1371 1.69
biplane- 3760 2146 1.75
miranda- 2857 1593 1.79

[Spirtz]

lol how do you take a screen shot with mac.... im a mac noob still

[Snowsickle]

Played: 3 days, 20 hours, 43 minutes

Total experience: 317,874

Loopy: 10725 5911 (1.81)
Bomber: 169 203 (0.83)
Explodet: 3165 1581 (2.00)
Biplane: 2074 1336 (1.55)
Miranda: 3823 2958 (1.29)

Also a note to Lam: the even 2.0 just displays as "2" ingame. For readability and consistency it would be better to display everything to 2 decimal places, even if its an even number.

[Blank]

what's with all the noob bombers

[tmm3k]

Originally Posted by Spirtz

lol how do you take a screen shot with mac.... im a mac noob still

install windows xp

[Ferret]

Originally Posted by ZellSF

I care too little about ratios

I want accuracy stats, those would be more fun.

Loopy: 100%
Bomber: 25-75% grenades, 98-99% tailgun.
Explodet: 0-4% direct missile hits, 95-99% partials. Mines: 0-25%
Biplane: Only plane it would be relatively interesting, and even then the spam of the secondary and firing it for the second after your target is dead would skew it drastically.
Miranda: 100% assuming laser touches count. 75% if charges/warps count as a missed shot.

Tracking, area effect and in general the various large differences between weapons make recording accuracy rather futile to attempt and meaningless to interpret.

[ZellSF]

Filesize and size restrictions on uploads makes no sense, but I want a png. So here it is.

Accuracy stats would still be fun to have, count area effect as hits and the players will vary a lot in accuracy. Much more fun than ratios at least, which doesn't really encourage helping in team games.

[Ferret]

Originally Posted by ZellSF

Accuracy stats would still be fun to have, count area effect as hits and the players will vary a lot in accuracy. Much more fun than ratios at least, which doesn't really encourage helping in team games.

How does accuracy tracking encourage help in a team game? If you want to suggest assist tracking then that's a fine stat to include in the game, and accuracy for nukes/big bombs would also be an interesting and useful stat, but I don't understand this. Is a kill/death ratio not a function of accuracy, in that if a player misses constantly he will have considerably lower kills than deaths? If I have an 80% accuracy but no kills, did I help my team to win more than if I had a kill/death ratio of 7:1, indicating on a full official server that I was able to, on average, kill the entire opposing team during the course of one of my lives. What if in that 80% accuracy I fired 5 shots and hit with 4? Did I help?

I would also say that it discourages team play because if you're playing for a high accuracy, you are discouraged from firing your weapon at the enemy if you think you will miss or that one of your teammates will kill him first you have a disincentive to engage. If you think killing discourages team play, at least if playing for kills you always have the incentive to attack the enemy.

[Vi*]

My ratio for bomber is exactly 1. Probably because my instinct still is to fly above an enemy and then hold secondary fire to drop bombs on them, and I'm not even a high enough level to have weirdo non-fun bombs yet. This is what happens when you play random.

[ZellSF]

How does accuracy tracking encourage help in a team game?

I didn't say it did. It just doesn't discourage it.

I would also say that it discourages team play because if you're playing for a high accuracy, you are discouraged from firing your weapon at the enemy if you think you will miss or that one of your teammates will kill him first you have a disincentive to engage. If you think killing discourages team play, at least if playing for kills you always have the incentive to attack the enemy.

If you're playing for kills only, yes, if you're playing for ratios however, you have an incentive to run away from any fight your team can't handle, you have the incentive to avoid bomb runs or even carrying the bomb because it'll mostly always kill you.

Accuracy is a more fun stat because it will vary a lot and it's not something people are as likely to abuse as ratios (in old Altitude I can't remember anyone fighting for the accuracy award by avoiding taking uncertain shots). It's not a good representation of skill, but no stat is.

[Blank]

It's hard to argue "fun", but I'd rather see people's ratios than their accuracy. anyone who's willing to "abuse" ratio farming is just as likely to abuse accuracy farming (I'm guessing you mean bot farming, if that's even tracked).

Don't get me wrong, ratio is ultimately pointless and only serves for bragging purposes... but can you even brag about accuracy? Where loopy missiles track, lasers just need a rub, and the slightest bump will count for the AoE of explodets... what's there to brag about :| Even Biplanes get screwed cause I know I'll often use MG's just to right myself/avoid a stall which'll lower my accuracy.

I'm not against showing it, but there's just much more stats I would RATHER see tracked. (Average life span in a given plane, bomb taken/hit success ratio, powerups usage per plane life, health restored in a given plane life/or damage taken per plane to kill, etc).

[DiogenesDog]

Original account on the left, new account on the right.

Look how much I've improved!

[Blank]

Originally Posted by DiogenesDog

Original account on the left, new account on the right.

Look how much I've improved!

Flexible wings confirmed as overpowered.

[ZellSF]

Originally Posted by Blank

It's hard to argue "fun", but I'd rather see people's ratios than their accuracy. anyone who's willing to "abuse" ratio farming is just as likely to abuse accuracy farming (I'm guessing you mean bot farming, if that's even tracked).

Don't get me wrong, ratio is ultimately pointless and only serves for bragging purposes... but can you even brag about accuracy? Where loopy missiles track, lasers just need a rub, and the slightest bump will count for the AoE of explodets... what's there to brag about :| Even Biplanes get screwed cause I know I'll often use MG's just to right myself/avoid a stall which'll lower my accuracy.

I'm not against showing it, but there's just much more stats I would RATHER see tracked. (Average life span in a given plane, bomb taken/hit success ratio, powerups usage per plane life, health restored in a given plane life/or damage taken per plane to kill, etc).

I would much rather see team based stats myself like bombs caught, bombs dropped, stuff like that. I just think accuracy is a more "fun" stat to have on because imo, it doesn't reward running away from fights as much as ratios do.

[TheCapedAvenger]

I think the best measure is xp/minute. It includes assists, kills, and bombing the enemy base. This indirectly takes deaths into account, cuz if you're dead, you're not generating xp. It also isn't plane-specific. If you generate more xp/min with miranda than bomber, you are a better player with miranda.

Let's call this 'effectiveness'. My effectiveness is 52.8 xp/min. What's yours?

[Ferret]

Originally Posted by ZellSF

I didn't say it did. It just doesn't discourage it.

If you're playing for kills only, yes, if you're playing for ratios however, you have an incentive to run away from any fight your team can't handle, you have the incentive to avoid bomb runs or even carrying the bomb because it'll mostly always kill you.

Accuracy is a more fun stat because it will vary a lot and it's not something people are as likely to abuse as ratios (in old Altitude I can't remember anyone fighting for the accuracy award by avoiding taking uncertain shots). It's not a good representation of skill, but no stat is.

If kills and deaths and ratios weren't tracked, what incentive would I currently have for staying in a fight that my team can't handle? Would people play with the mentality "well this is going to kill me, but that's okay because it's not a stat." Any time a player is alive, he has a chance to somehow prevent his base from being bombed or help his team land a bomb on the enemy base. People do not avoid dying because it's a bad number. It is intuitive.

I disagree with carrying the bomb "most always kill you" based on the experience of carrying the bomb, hitting and not most always dying. Also, you may not know but the amount of bars on a plane increases the damage done the bomb as well, and ace instincts increases this farther. Thus getting 5 kills and having a bomb drop give me a total of 39 exp is helping the team by increasing our damage compared to if the other team attacks us with a bomb from a plane with no bars. If being a stronger, more durable, faster bomb carrier with a bomb that does more damage is not helping my team, I do not understand what I should be doing instead.

The reason you don't remember anyone playing for accuracy is because it always went to whoever was playing a snoopy at around 30-40%. In this version of the game, planes are larger compared to bullets and it's generally much easier to land a hit. While you think it would be fun and vary, I disagree because I am relatively certain that the numbers I posted earlier would be what you would see for most players after enough time. If you continue to disagree with that then there's no point in continuing because we are clearly irreconcilable.

[ZellSF]

If kills and deaths and ratios weren't tracked, what incentive would I currently have for staying in a fight that my team can't handle?

None, but you will have no incentive to run away either when your contribution might help turn the battle in your favor.

The reason you don't remember anyone playing for accuracy is because it always went to whoever was playing a snoopy at around 30-40%

No it didn't, I got the award with miranda lots of times. Explodets and bombers were mostly screwed though.

If you continue to disagree with that then there's no point in continuing

Then don't.

[Snowsickle]

Originally Posted by TheCapedAvenger

I think the best measure is xp/minute. It includes assists, kills, and bombing the enemy base. This indirectly takes deaths into account, cuz if you're dead, you're not generating xp. It also isn't plane-specific. If you generate more xp/min with miranda than bomber, you are a better player with miranda.

Let's call this 'effectiveness'. My effectiveness is 52.8 xp/min. What's yours?

I'd agree with this, but I believe the exp rewards need to be tweaked quite a bit before exp is actually a legitimate gauge of effectiveness. Killing someone when they have 1hp left and are in the middle of nowhere nets me 10 exp, but I haven't really accomplished a whole lot for my team. Backgrounds stats would need to be tracked. Multikills should reward exp in a system like this, since killing an entire team at once is likely to open up a route of attack or disable what could be a push on your base. Single kills, not so much. Bomb disarming (killing a bomb carrier?) would need to be worth more than it is now, since in pure effectiveness terms, saving your base is quite a bit more useful.

Also, 'effectiveness' is going to be skewed hugely by the number of people on at a time. I could probably pull 100exp/minute without a problem in one of those god-awful 30 man servers, but in a nice balanced 4v4 against good players, not so much. There's really not a terribly good way to do it without a more complex formula.

[DiogenesDog]

It's impossible to make the stats actually be truly meaningful. Or at least no game has pulled it off yet.

But I think they're a lot of fun and the more the merrier, so whee.

[Blank]

Originally Posted by DiogenesDog

It's impossible to make the stats actually be truly meaningful. Or at least no game has pulled it off yet.

But I think they're a lot of fun and the more the merrier, so whee.

This.

There's no stat that will track skill. Tracking accuracy isn't any more/less valid a stat to measure a players skill than ratio is. You can farm up ratio and "**** over" your team if you're too ratio-oriented (see: TheCapedAvenger). You can just as easily **** up your team by farming accuracy (not shooting offscreen at big bomb carriers, see: every newbie who doesn't realize shots travel beyond screen range).

[TheCapedAvenger]

Originally Posted by Snowsickle

I'd agree with this, but I believe the exp rewards need to be tweaked quite a bit before exp is actually a legitimate gauge of effectiveness. Killing someone when they have 1hp left and are in the middle of nowhere nets me 10 exp, but I haven't really accomplished a whole lot for my team.

If you only go after 1hp enemies, you will spend lots of time waiting, and hence not generate much xp/min, even if you do get 10 xp per kill. Also, the people that did most of the damage would get xp for the assist.

Backgrounds stats would need to be tracked. Multikills should reward exp in a system like this, since killing an entire team at once is likely to open up a route of attack or disable what could be a push on your base.

But multikills are awarded in terms of 'effectiveness': you get more xp in a given amount of time.

Single kills, not so much. Bomb disarming (killing a bomb carrier?) would need to be worth more than it is now, since in pure effectiveness terms, saving your base is quite a bit more useful.

I agree, perhaps an extra 10xp for killing the bomb carrier.

Also, 'effectiveness' is going to be skewed hugely by the number of people on at a time. I could probably pull 100exp/minute without a problem in one of those god-awful 30 man servers, but in a nice balanced 4v4 against good players, not so much. There's really not a terribly good way to do it without a more complex formula.

I guess if you wanted to, you could divide xp by the number of people on your team to account for this. But in terms of an easy-to-calculate number, xp/min is probably the most robust.

[TheCapedAvenger]

Actually, I think xp/death is a better measure. This way, if you aren't penalized for playing on a near empty server or on a really big map.

My effectiveness: 31.3 xp/death

[argonide]

I have the best ratio in the plane that I play the least... probably because fatty lends itself to kill whoring.

[TheCapedAvenger]

Errr... I think both numbers should be used.

My effectiveness: 52.8 xp/min, 31.3 xp/death

[Spirtz]

PLane ........ kills .......... deaths ............ ratio
loopy ......... 731 .......... 612 ............. 1.19

bomber........ 402 ........... 382 ................1.03

explodet ...... 707............ 620 ................1.14

biplane ....... 7,850............ 6,062 ........... 1.28

miranda........2,503 ............. 1602 ......... 1.54

i agree xp is good but it cost to much or i would

[TheCapedAvenger]

To summarize, having a high xp/min means that you are at least a good, aggressive player on big games. Having a high xp/death means that you are at least a good conservative player.

Having a low xp/death does not exclude the possibility of being a good aggressive player, and vise versa.

[bling]

nerd alert

[Snowsickle]

Originally Posted by TheCapedAvenger

If you only go after 1hp enemies, you will spend lots of time waiting, and hence not generate much xp/min, even if you do get 10 xp per kill. Also, the people that did most of the damage would get xp for the assist.

People don't necessarily go only after 1hp enemies, but it does happen, and artificially increases an effectiveness rating for something that isn't necessarily effective. Basically I'm saying the current exp system is rather skewed: I could do 99% of the damage to 10 planes in 20 seconds and get less "effectiveness" than someone who happened to get the killing blow on those 10 planes, even though in realistic terms I'm the far more effective player.

But multikills are awarded in terms of 'effectiveness': you get more xp in a given amount of time.

My point here was someone can get 5 kills in 20 seconds or 5 kills at once and then a 15 second lull and be rewarded the same. This isn't necessarily bad, but 5 kills at once is usually more skillful and often helps team objectives far more than kills that are spread out. It's not a huge deal but its something that can be tweaked.

[Pillars]

Originally Posted by TheCapedAvenger

To summarize, having a high xp/min means that you are at least a good, aggressive player on big games. Having a high xp/death means that you are at least a good conservative player.

Having a low xp/death does not exclude the possibility of being a good aggressive player, and vise versa.

XP measurements are incredibly weighted towards kills at the moment. In my mind, having a high xp/min ratio for a particular plane means you're [probably] skilled at dog-fighting with said plane. All good players will have high xp/min ratios, but not all players with high xp/min ratios are good.

As others have mentioned, statistical measurements can be useful / interesting to look at, but it's tough to quantify some of the most important attributes of a good, well-rounded player. By supporting a bombing run you're using the HP of your plane as a resource for your team's overall goals...in the statistics screens this is simply measured as a 'death'. Likewise for catching a bomb, or a failed bombing run of your own. Picking off the weakest players on the other team in the corner of the map nets you some kills, but you're doing this at the expense of helping your team control the important sections of the map. Some kills are simply worth more than others [killing the other team's best player, their bomb carrier, or the last defender between your team's bomb carrier and the enemy base.] This doesn't even get into stuff like drawing fire, suppressing fire, soaking damage, intelligent use of power-ups, general situational awareness, etc. Certainly many of these factors help to improve one's kill/death ratio, or one's xp/min ratio, but some of them actually decrease one's ratios.

[TheCapedAvenger]

Originally Posted by Snowsickle

People don't necessarily go only after 1hp enemies, but it does happen, and artificially increases an effectiveness rating for something that isn't necessarily effective. Basically I'm saying the current exp system is rather skewed: I could do 99% of the damage to 10 planes in 20 seconds and get less "effectiveness" than someone who happened to get the killing blow on those 10 planes, even though in realistic terms I'm the far more effective player.

Most likely, those 10 kills will be spread out among your teammates, while you get the assists for all of them. So you will probably get the most XP from that encounter.

I do think the XP system right now is fine in terms of XP for assists. If you do 99% of the damage to 10 planes, those 10 planes are still alive and shooting at your team. It's better to kill a few planes than damage a lot.

My point here was someone can get 5 kills in 20 seconds or 5 kills at once and then a 15 second lull and be rewarded the same. This isn't necessarily bad, but 5 kills at once is usually more skillful and often helps team objectives far more than kills that are spread out. It's not a huge deal but its something that can be tweaked.

IMHO, those two scenarios should be rewarded equally. Getting 5 kills at once is probably due to luck (dropping the bomb, opponents having low health, etc), and not necessarily extra skillful.

[TheCapedAvenger]

Originally Posted by Pillars

As others have mentioned, statistical measurements can be useful / interesting to look at, but it's tough to quantify some of the most important attributes of a good, well-rounded player. By supporting a bombing run you're using the HP of your plane as a resource for your team's overall goals...in the statistics screens this is simply measured as a 'death'. Likewise for catching a bomb, or a failed bombing run of your own. Picking off the weakest players on the other team in the corner of the map nets you some kills, but you're doing this at the expense of helping your team control the important sections of the map. Some kills are simply worth more than others [killing the other team's best player, their bomb carrier, or the last defender between your team's bomb carrier and the enemy base.] This doesn't even get into stuff like drawing fire, suppressing fire, soaking damage, intelligent use of power-ups, general situational awareness, etc. Certainly many of these factors help to improve one's kill/death ratio, or one's xp/min ratio, but some of them actually decrease one's ratios.

Your effectiveness as a team player can simply be measured by the percentage of team games that you win. Of course, you could bias this by always choosing the better team, but if there is a proper team balancing system in place, I think this will be a decent measure. On average, if you win most team games, then that means your presence helps your team.

So, I say effectiveness is measured by 3 parameters: xp/min, xp/death, % team games won.

[Ajplagge]

neato

Biplane needs halp!
bob

[Blank]

Originally Posted by TheCapedAvenger

Your effectiveness as a team player can simply be measured by the percentage of team games that you win. Of course, you could bias this by always choosing the better team, but if there is a proper team balancing system in place, I think this will be a decent measure. On average, if you win most team games, then that means your presence helps your team.

So, I say effectiveness is measured by 3 parameters: xp/min, xp/death, % team games won.

Are you a robot and/or asian? Cause you sure are hung up on math/formulas.