Bramley Bomber wrote:


Agreed, because we all enjoy different types of games and planes its hard to give an accurate rating system. For example, I use to play the Voss scenario alot in an attempt to actually do away with all three SE5s. While challenging the scenario doesn't help a players ratings as its a real challenge to even shoot down one most of the time.

A better rating (as it shows character) is to show a list of what games and planes a player prefers. I've seen players only set up easy scenarios where one plane greatly outclasses another and they always pick the side that has the best chance of winning (where is the challenge in that). But on the other hand I've seen players only pick challenging games where it would be a challenge to not get shot down. Then when someone attempts to show a rating of players the better or more interesting player rates low (do to the harder scerios he/she likes to play) where the fluffy player rates high due to the fact he/she only plays one sided scenarios in their favor.

A better rating system, if one really wants to set it up, is to rate all the scenarios with a number as to which plane they pick. Some scenarios will have a positive score while others a negative score. For example, (and this is only an example) the scenario with 2 spads and 2 albs the score would be "1" for all that enter because its pretty ballanced, but the Voss scenario would be different. A score of say 6 for the player that picks the Fokker Dr.1 and a score of -1 for the players that pick the SE5a.

In short, a proper rating system would be to rate the scenarios and score the players by what scenarios they play and which planes they pick.

Watch your six,

C&B