Causing catastrophic loss of flight control should be the main determiner of who gets the kill.
Originally posted by Ecliptik
There is a huge grey area in what you are proposing. It's not going to happen. This isn't sports. There is no analog to the rule, "If the puck crosses the goal line, it's a goal."
Yes, there is an analogy. I am not responsible for yours, or anyone elses, failure to see it. Any plane that still has flight control is a threat (even when missing ailerons, leaking fuel, engine on fire, whatever). When a plane is no longer flyable (missing tail, missing whole wing, missing vertical stabilizer(s), etc), then it it effectively dead.
Your whole arguement is based on the premise that there is some clear-cut, black and white point where an aircraft crosses from being a threat to being downed, and that if we base kills on crossing this point, then it would improve gameplay and improve clarity on who got what kill and why.
It does not. There is no clear cut line, and implementing this system would vastly exacerbate the problem of people going "What the heck? Why didn't I get that kill?"
You're making an assertion, speculating and presenting an end that you have no imperical data to support it. There is a point at which an aircraft stops being a threat...the moment it has a catastrophic loss of flight control.
Whether or not some particular damage destroys a plane is largely dependant on the pilot.
This is not really a consideration either way. It plays a part whether the kill system stays as it is or changes, so this really does not help make your point.
Of course there are clear cases, the plane is destroyed if the pilot dies, if the tail is completely shot off, if a wing is completely shot off, etc.
My point exactly. Thank you for helping me make my case. I am not talking about grey areas. I am talking about exactly what you have just describe. Glad to see we agree.
I love these examples, by the way. I can answer them all
1) Someone rakes me with bullets and my engine bursts into flames. This is fatal damage. In 20 seconds a wing will fall off and I'm done. But until that time I can still fly around and fire, which I do. I engage an enemy and start firing. Before I break apart, someone else swoops in and destroys my plane. Who gets the kill?
The pilot that destroyed you get's the kill. Yes, you were on fire, but you were still a threat and still capable of bringing down other aircraft in a controlled manner until the point that you wer destroyed. Besides, you might explode in 20 seconds, but you might also ditch, shoot down three people, bail out or land. All depend on you and the pilot should not be a factor.
2) Someone shoots up my cockpit and wounds me. I stay in the engagement and force the guy to break off. Someone else comes in and destroys me while I'm fully blacked out from the wounds, never saw him coming. Who gets the kill?
Once again, the pilot that brought you down gets the kill. I have flown home wounded. I have been on the way home wounded and got into another fight (in which I have shot down the other guy). I can still control my flight and therefore I am still a threat. The moment I can no longer recover flight control (catastrophic failure) I am no longer a threat and the kill award should be set.
3) I'm in my P38 and am hit badly, losing most of my right wing. For pilots who don't know how to deal with this, this is fatal, resulting in a spin and crash. But I use trim, flaps, and differential engine power to keep fairly stable, and return home. Someone else shoots me as I'm limping back, who gets that kill? Conversely, in the case of someone who can't deal with the damage and is spiralling to the earth, if they get clipped by someone on the way down, who gets the kill then?
Pilot skill is not a factor in determining who get's the kill under my proposal or the current system.
As far as who get's the kill in this example? You guessed it: the pilot that caused the catastrophic loss of control. You have already shown that the plane can be flown when it looses part of a wing, so that demonstrates that the is still the potential threat. So, I would not classify that as catastrophic. If you recover and make it home, no kill at all is awarded.
A complex kill crediting system would just force people, in many cases, to ponder exactly why they did or did not get the kill. At least with the present system, you know exactly why: You dealt the most damage to the airframe, or you did not. End of discussion.
I am not presenting a complex kill crediting system, but a much more simplified. In the system I am discussing it is much clearer the point of the kill. No percentages or damage amounts. All you have to know is did I cause the catastrophic damage to that aircraft.
Let me just point out, it does not matter how much damage you do to an airframe if the target is still capable of controlled flight, then it is still a threat and not a kill.
I am really surprised that in all the examples no one has pointed out the scenario of a 50/50 split in the damage in the current system. If the current kill award system works off of percentage of damage, then it is possible for two people (or more) to do equal amounts of damage to the airframe. Who gets the kill then? If that can be determined under the current model, then it could be determined under the model I am suggesting as well.
Causing catastrophic loss of flight control should be the main determiner of who gets the kill.
