Message text Let me start by saying that playing is for fun,
and not to reach a high rank in a fantomatic competition.
Playing to improve the score, for example the difference in dead vs kill, has the consequence that you abandon the game if you realize you
cannot win, leaving your teammates in trouble,
or that you choose only some planes and some scenarios
which are clearly uneven (like the 1 snipe vs 2 albDVA case).
On the other hand, playing an uneven game maybe fun: it can be
an interesting challenge to proove ones ability.
For this I propose an alternative, but very simple, scoring method
which keeps into account the different winning probabilities.
As a practical example I'll take the last two games I've played
in the 'runner vs dancer' scenario. The average score of the
two planes was the following:
SpadXIII : 40
FokkerDrI : 54
(the statistics is low, so this should be taken just as an example of the method)
Assume that in another game, of the same scenario, the score is:
Player A with Spad XIII : 50
Player B with FokkerDrI : 35
My proposal is to assign to the players the following score:
Player A = 50/40 * 100 = 125
Player B = 35/54 * 100 = 64.8
In other words, the score of a player is related to the average
score obtained with that particular plane in that particular scenario,
with the factor 100 as a useful normalization constant.
In this way, suppose that you have an uneven match in which the plane
BIG gets on average 100 and the plane SMALL gets on average 20 .
If the match ends with the score:
BIG = 80
SMALL = 30
then the player which was flying SMALL gets a score of 150, while the player which was flying BIG gets only 80 points.
As you can imagine, the advantage of this proposal is that
comparing with the average score makes flying small planes more appealing than it currently is, and it minimizes the temptation
of abandoning a game just because you risk to loose.
Clearly the variables involved in a game are many more than this:
do I get a bonus if my faction wins? do I get a bonus if I survive up to the end?
These kind of questions are interesting, but the risk is to start an endless discussion.
The method I propose is simple, but a little bit more fair toward weak planes.
In order to use it, a database with a relevant number of games must be kept (at least 20 matches are needed before the statistics is
large enough to use this method) and continuosly updated.
How to combine many games is a more tricky business; as a first
approach I would simply average out the results. One could also think to define a
"monthly ace", but more complex methods could be invented.
Discussion on this item, in particular by people who mantain the site, is welcome.
Marco.
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
