Common stats project for dedicated servers

[TorwaK]

Hi people,

 

last week =RvE=Fusion came to me with some idea that why we don't create a common stats page for dedicated servers and publish them all together at single website. If we create such system it'll not matter where people fly and which server because all server datas will collect at single place and we can publish it from there.

 

For this purpose we seperated our MySQL server which worked on =TuAF= Server-I already. Now our MySQL server is indepedent and works on a different Linux server platform to process stats queries faster.

 

Another thing is we're going to create some authorization system for stats recording. We planned that it'll not save the player's stats by nickname to stop stats abuse. Therefore we're going to use people's IP address to save it and if the player IP address is changed, he/she will able to update his/her IP address from stats page after he logged in it "before enter the game". If not his/her status will not be updated.

 

We're not going to authorize all Lock-On dedicated servers to use the system. If they would like to be participant of the project, only well know squadron servers will be able to save and publish their records at this site.

 

We'll share some encoded LUA files with participant of the project. They just need to copy them to Lock-On folder at server. I'll let you know when it's ready.

[The_GOZR]

Great idea for lockon i did it for IL2 with severals servers ;)

[S77th-GOYA]

I've been giving some thought to how stat rankings are generated and how to more accurately decide who the best pilots are. Stat rankings commonly share the problem of giving credit for simply flying more often rather than being based on who actually performs better. Although I still haven't worked it out completely I have come up with something to help eliminate this problem:

 

Take the number of total kills and divide it by the total minutes flown. This would give a sort of "efficiency factor". This could be put into the ranking calculations to help level the playing field. Certianly a pilot that gets 100 kills in 5 hours is doing better than a pilot that gets 200 kills in 20 hours.

[X-man]

I've been giving some thought to how stat rankings are generated and how to more accurately decide who the best pilots are. Stat rankings commonly share the problem of giving credit for simply flying more often rather than being based on who actually performs better. Although I still haven't worked it out completely I have come up with something to help eliminate this problem:

 

Take the number of total kills and divide it by the total minutes flown. This would give a sort of "efficiency factor". This could be put into the ranking calculations to help level the playing field. Certianly a pilot that gets 100 kills in 5 hours is doing better than a pilot that gets 200 kills in 20 hours.

I dont know, I tend to think it'll increase the spam and less tactical thinking. A higher kill-per-time doesnt nessecerly mean that you a better pilot. I think a Kill-to-death ratio is better then...

[Boberro]

@TorwaK - at least IP identification :P

IMO changes are going to better.

 

@GOYA - what scoring do you mean? TuAF 2 or 1?

[S77th-GOYA]

@GOYA - what scoring do you mean? TuAF 2 or 1?

 

I am referring to air to ground but the same problem exists with air to air stats. However, a fair ranking system for air to air might be different.

 

By the way, there still needs to be some sort of other factor to give weight to pilots that destroy more difficult units. But killing a BUK radar with a Kh-58 is not the same as killing it with cannons. It can become very complicated but to be truly fair, these things should be addressed.

[X-man]

I am referring to air to ground but the same problem exists with air to air stats. However, a fair ranking system for air to air might be different.

ahhh, Ok ;)

[Boberro]

I am referring to air to ground but the same problem exists with air to air stats. However, a fair ranking system for air to air might be different.

 

By the way, there still needs to be some sort of other factor to give weight to pilots that destroy more difficult units. But killing a BUK radar with a Kh-58 is not the same as killing it with cannons. It can become very complicated but to be truly fair, these things should be addressed.

 

Aha I usnderstand. I also thought about scoring example flying Su25T is (much) harder than A10 (AFM, ect), so more example by destroying T-80 or Avenger (or any unit) by Su25T i would be 3 points, by A-10 it is would be 2.5 points or 2, or destroying by cannon T-80 is harder than Maverick or Vikhr, so = more points let's say more about 0.5 when we used cannon. I though about other changes but I forgot it now :smilewink: Scoring count method is very complicated, unfortunetely.

[S77th-GOYA]

Yes it could get very complicated. Regarding your example, personally, I don't find the Tfrog difficult to fly, only more tricky than the hog. To an experienced pilot, flying either is second nature. The thing that can't be ignored as an advantage for the hog is the cannon. Conversely, the Tfrog has a much more diverse and sometimes more powerful choice of underwing ordnance. Perhaps a different stats page for each plane is the only way to be really fair. Comparing hogs to frogs is like apples and oranges.

[Boberro]

About the nature it is true, but even if you are experienced manoeuvers are harder and it is perciptible. I saw many times, A10 players shoot unit, fly very close and turn back for next units, in TFrog it isn't so easy. But anyway I remember first days on Frogfoot its were very nervous to me, but now I successfully fly and learned many tricks on keyboard ^^. Hog cannon. Powerful tool of death. Sometimes Iam very nervous when see "...by cannon" some units in one time. Frogfoot cannon is so poor :cry:, and there is no many bullets for shooting :S

 

It would be really nice to have two stats - for Hogs and Frogs separately.

 

About AA - why not make example if you hit somebody by deadly R-27ET you gain example 15 points, by poor R-27T or R you gain 25 points. IMO it is easier to make it in AA than AG, AA is rather tiny when we look on AG :)

[RvEFuSiOn]

We are going to discuss between all the major squadrons on how to award points on the stats board. To make it fair and way more tactical!

 

also there will be a standardization, meaning all servers participating will have to abide by certain mission and settings standards, to make it absolutely equal where u go!

[borchi_2b]

air to air scoring should be done like this:

 

crash to kill and it should be devided by by plane, cause it is a grater challenge to kill somebody with the su27 then to kill somebody with the mig or f-15 cause they are fearly easy to fly and fight with.

thats why i think we should devide the scoring into the specific planetypes so we could figure to find out who are the best pilots of each typ of plane

 

sounds cool and fair to me at least

 

the reason for the crash to kill stats is, that i could kill 100 planes in 1 hour but got killed 200 times so that would not be taken into account when you search for the best pilot and bvr or dogfight is not just about killing it is about surviving and flying tactical

[PoleCat]

Sounds like a great Idea let us know how we can help out.

 

PoleCat Out

[Frostie]

If you want to complicate things to get a better pilot scoring system then scoring points could be multiplied until death in both A/A and A/G ie.

 

1 kill no death +1 point

2nd kill still no death +2

3rd kill still no death +3 etc.

 

Also figure in the quality of A2A kill

ie. kill a pilot with k/d ratio of <1 = 1point , <2 = 2 point , <3 = 3point etc.

[X-man]

If you want to complicate things to get a better pilot scoring system then scoring points could be multiplied until death in both A/A and A/G ie.

 

1 kill no death +1 point

2nd kill still no death +2

3rd kill still no death +3 etc.

 

Also figure in the quality of A2A kill

ie. kill a pilot with k/d ratio of <1 = 1point , <2 = 2 point , <3 = 3point etc.

Can you complicate it more, please? :P

[Frostie]

Can you complicate it more, please? :P

X+Q= Y ???:D

[GoldStar]

Personally I dont think thats a good idea .

I have an big experience dealing with stats in a different flight sim and I’m tell you guys this will be crazy .

A common stats page for sure will create a big run toward to the top and a lot ego freaks will always try get the shortest and easier way flying only in the easier maps , in servers with open settings etc etc … decreasing a lot the tactics and creating an arcade air battle .Probably servers with easier settings and maps will keep with the bigger number of pilots while all others servers just freeze empty .

A common stats page for dedicated servers only could be possible at least if the server use all the same settings and same kind of maps … so before a server add an map first they should send for all others squad leaders for they test and approve it.

Just my 2 cents.

:joystick:

[Pilotasso]

Wow excellent idea!

 

I also like the idea of TUAF's point system, including survival by ejections and return to base. Its better that that discourage landing at neutral airfileds with mines and let the pilot just die senselss because your tool lazy to punch eject.

[TorwaK]

I also like the idea of TUAF's point system

 

Originally it's not our idea. We inspired by 169th squadron stats and just we have been developed it.

[VMFA117_Poko]

Share credit ;)

[Pilotasso]

Originally it's not our idea. We inspired by 169th squadron stats and just we have been developed it.

 

I stand corrected though theres credit for you for implementing it.

[Grimes]

Its a unique idea and unified stat servers have proven successful in the past with other games. (read bf2s.com)

[Mugatu]

Yep it's a great idea, the 3sqn stats were designed to take many inputs from different servers as well but I don't have the time to really maintain it as much as I would like. Would love to see a page where all the stats from different servers contribute to the totals as well as seperate stats for each server.

 

I also plea to ED to enable exporting of world data from the server only in BS and improve the detail of the information, ie parent of a missile, object killed by what object, etc etc, we really are missing PK data...

 

Let me know if you need any help, the TUAF stats are great just a tad slow on loading still.

[S77th-konkussion]

BY the way- would y'all PLEASE consider removing the mission messages? Seriously- I don't want to see who landed where. Seems like the people who just maddog at every beep they hear must LOVE having them on.

 

I realize that cheaters are almost immediately exposed, and the discovery delay is a bugger, but IMO it's better to not have them.

[monotwix]

Hi

Well here is an idea for the ranking system.

1st Making a calculator that would calculate some thing like this:

Rank= ((score+1) / (1+friendly kills) x (kills+1) / (losses+1)) / (over time played x times played)

 

As I’m not a mathematician and perhaps some one can do a better job out of this but the idea of this is that, not only it counts the score and kills etc but the time spent and times played, so if one keeps changing the servers back and forth or not making enough score or kills over the time played than the ranking score wouldn’t go up.

 

For scoring example: if one A2G kills a 1 ship and gets 2000 points, than in A2A score it could be-score 200=4 kills and multiplied by 4 which is 800 points instead of 200 points and that‘s that for this example.

 

Well than ranks 2 and 3 and 4 could be made with more or less complexity by dividing the original rank into groups…

 

Now the missions: As I remember things back in time, some missions were made so that it you’d fly to the front line in the 1st 30 min whack all the ships and live the game because can’t be asked for the BTR-70s not that it’s my strategy as I only play for my experience purpose but it’s just a point in general that should be there to make good.