Poll: Scoring Difference on Flugpark Between Player and AI Controlled Planes?

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Vaal has kindly responsive to my consistent nudges and he created a beta version for evaluation purposes that allows us to score player controlled planes shot down differently from AI bot controlled planes. 

I am waiting to activate this on the Flugpark server at the end of March and beginning of the next three-month tour in order to obtain input from the FC community on their thoughts of what that should look like.    This is for parser scoring not in-game scoring.  Recall that in-game and parser scoring are different. 

It will apply to any object that is player controlled, which currently are planes but could be a AAA truck or tank if that ever happens in FC down the road.  Please vote in the poll and then offer your comments in the thread below, after voting.

Edited March 22, 2021 by J5_Baeumer

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Interesting idea. The AI is certainly worth something, but clearly not quite the challenge of hunting a live player. You never know quite who you're chasing. Sometimes it's a new-ish pilot, sometimes it's 1PL and you realize you just grabbed a tiger by the tail.

I'd love to see human gunners for two-seaters get a page. Kotori's been a gunner a lot recently, and is starting to get the hang of how to light up an attacker. I'd also love to see a marking for engine damage or control damage similar to the pilot getting wounded. I don't know if either of these are possible, or how to get the suggestions to the creator of the parser, though.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Some pilots do avoid shooting AI seeing it as waist of time and bullets or no challenge . So this ratio could help them move up in the table but I doubt they care or it will be significant to see any effect do to relative low numbers of players during the week. If they care for  statistics or glory we  know that true  important are medals given only for players vs players kills or numbers of ground objects destroyed. Anyway it's good thing to try but only in high ratio Imho. 

Edited March 21, 2021 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Yeah I went for a high ratio, though it's quite difficult to put a value on it I think

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Is it possible to differentiate between bot scouts and 2 seaters ?  eg  2vs 4 pts

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

@J5_KlugermannYes, currently the two seaters are worth more than single seaters and this adds the dimension of AI vs player controlled for any type of AI or player controlled objects.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

I wasn't sure if that differentiation got borked once you separated human from Ai.

 

On second thought since I got PK'd by a camel last night at 300m  make the Ai scouts 1000 pts

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

@J5_KlugermannAI level are random in the dogfight area.   Entering the dogfight area is a bit like playing roulette.  Unlike your local casino you lose here occasionally instead of winning only occasionally.

[US13_Ford]

There should be no difference in scoring between the two.

• A participant pilot can be brought down by an AI, flack, collision and that risk value counted against the participant pilot is still the same. 

The assumption is the AI as a skilled pilot is less valuable than the skilled participant pilot thus the value is less. So to equalize the risk value of the participant pilot, all pilots would need to ranked by a skill value. A novice pilot is less skilled than an ace pilot and is easier to shot down. 

• If Ace Wolf is shot down 10 points should be credited, Novice Sheep should be 5 points, AI should be 2 points credited for the kill etc.

I believe that the thought of this stems from skilled pilots feasting on the lowly AI pilots to run up their score in the rankings. The would increase the "value" of the higher skilled pilots in the rankings and prevent that value from diluted by the "feasting" pilots moving up in the ranks. Then if the shot down participant pilot is shot down by multiple pilots the risk value should be adjusted

• Divide that value or decrease the total value of the kill to the pilot credited with the kill. The assist for the kill should be taken from the pilot credited for the kill 

 

Statistics and rankings are a nice tool to gauge the progress of a participant pilots skill against himself and other pilots. However, if it is used to make decisions in the value of gameplay to support the value of the higher ranked it will adversely effect (or is it affect) game play for the lesser skilled pilots. It will move a participant pilot further from making a realistic risk assessment (death value) to a less realistic statistic assessment (reward value). 

 

Already decisions have been made based from how it effects rankings i.e. aircraft handling and reliability. This moves gameplay from simulating realistic play to statistic based simulated play. Aircraft performance, damage model change bias is skewing the game play away from a realistic simulation to less realistic in favor supporting statistic value.

 

  

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

18 hours ago, ST_Zilch56 said:

A participant pilot can be brought down by an AI, flack, collision and that risk value counted against the participant pilot is still the same. 

 

You mention three risks, but two of them, flak and collision, aren't part of the discussion.  The topic is about relative risk / reward for AI vs. live players.  You bring up some interesting considerations below.

 

18 hours ago, ST_Zilch56 said:

The assumption is the AI as a skilled pilot is less valuable than the skilled participant pilot thus the value is less. So to equalize the risk value of the participant pilot, all pilots would need to ranked by a skill value. A novice pilot is less skilled than an ace pilot and is easier to shot down. 

 

This is what is now possible, although crudely, to the extent it is possible.  Unfortunately a pilots ranking isn't able to affect the reward (points) and we are only now able to differentiate between bots and people.  You are correct, an assumption seems to be made that on balance most people are more difficult opponents than pretty much any bot, at least that's how I interpret the current survey results to date.

 

18 hours ago, ST_Zilch56 said:

However, if it is used to make decisions in the value of gameplay to support the value of the higher ranked it will adversely effect (or is it affect) game play for the lesser skilled pilots. It will move a participant pilot further from making a realistic risk assessment (death value) to a less realistic statistic assessment (reward value). 

 

You bring up interesting points.  I wonder if the incentive created is to seek out live players vs.bots.  However I think it is important to note that for the purposes of the current Hall of Fame listings, that currently include the sum of both AI and player victories, a players ranking there is unaffected since the HoF does not take into consideration a pilots total points ranking on the parser.

@ST_Zilch56
thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking response.

[US13_Ford]

I appreciate your trying to advance gameplay and it's interest. Thank you for listening and thoughtful response.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

On 3/28/2021 at 11:46 PM, J5_Baeumer said:

 

You mention three risks, but two of them, flak and collision, aren't part of the discussion.  The topic is about relative risk / reward for AI vs. live players.  You bring up some interesting considerations below.

 

 

This is what is now possible, although crudely, to the extent it is possible.  Unfortunately a pilots ranking isn't able to affect the reward (points) and we are only now able to differentiate between bots and people.  You are correct, an assumption seems to be made that on balance most people are more difficult opponents than pretty much any bot, at least that's how I interpret the current survey results to date.

 

 

You bring up interesting points.  I wonder if the incentive created is to seek out live players vs.bots.  However I think it is important to note that for the purposes of the current Hall of Fame listings, that currently include the sum of both AI and player victories, a players ranking there is unaffected since the HoF does not take into consideration a pilots total points ranking on the parser.

@ST_Zilch56
thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking response.

 

Parser says you have a great big Jasta.  May I see it ?   I can't wait to see you in action.

 

 

Why thank you Baeumer.

Edited March 30, 2021 by J5_Klugermann

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

8 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Why thank you Baeumer.

Edited 6 hours ago by J5_Kl

 

I hope I look that good, when I get that old, Klugermann!  I'm working on the silver hair which doesn't bother as much as the continually receding hairline.  I just need the shades.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

[J5_Gamecock]

6 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 LOL... I think this was from "Goodfellas", but I remember those commercials as a kid. 

[US103_Baer]

How about zero points for AI?

 

Thought their purpose was to help seed the map and provide some practise for novice flyers.  When 10 or so humans join the server the ai go away and its pvp from then on. 

 

By awarding decent points to AI kills the rewards are skewed to those flying when,

a) few ppl are on and

b) against very poor ai by ww1 sim standards (WoFF and even RoF ai were way better).

 

That seems inverse of what it should be. 

 

If zero isn't an option,  then 10% of pvp might still be ok.

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by US28_Baer