Gaming the game.......

[humble]

Since we're seeing so many changes how about revisiting the collision model. While I completely agree with the underlying logic behind the current collision system the bottom line is pretty simple. More and more its being used to game the game. I'm seeing more and more instances with neg G manuevers in close fights followed with a "pop up" designed to force the con to either totally give up position (if you can even avoid the bogie) or dive under. In fact I've noticed more folks actually PRACTICING this move trying to learn it. Your also seeing more and more collisions with bombers brought on by the bombers "warping" during manuevering to keep station...bad enough the bird dissappears right as you adjust to its new position.....but then to run into the other drone that "beams" right in front of you is comical.

Collisions happen in air combat....simply part of the reality. Since the current system generates so many complaints how about enabling damage regardless of orientation.

At this point the system penalizes the player with positional advantage and is being used more and more as an "offensive weapon" by some pilots on defense. I've got no problem absorbing damage if I cant avoid a manuevering bogie....I'm simply asking that the bogie is no longer immune from damage.

This continues to be a major issue in 200 and is getting worse. As far as I'm concerned its because the damage model is being used in ways unintended by the design team.

[Clifra Jones]

My 1st impression was, NOT AGAIN! But you make some valid points.

Yes, there are some who try to game the collision model, how successful they are remains in doubt. I really do not think it is something anyone can actually get good at. It is purely chance that a move actually works. Most times in the last few days that a collision has occurred with me it has been the other guy who got the collision. I would say my ration is about 5 to 1.

No, collision regardless of orientation would not work. You would not want to go down in flames because a plane flew 20 feet off you left wing. That is what would happen.

As far as the "offensive maneuver" if you do not make the real close pass then it's not an issue. In a tight scissor I doubt that anyone can really use it as a weapon.  

Most times it is because there is no fear of dieing. They will come in at you firing and not be able to or are unwilling to pull away. Hoping you will explode before they hit you.

The issue on 200 is because the majority of player do not have a clue how it works. That goes for noobs as well as veterans.

On the issue of bombers. I do agree that the collision model has a deficiency when it comes to bombers. Bombers cannot evade a bogey screaming up their but. I also thing that the planes should not warp into position when one plane is killed. Let them reform naturally. I sure HT would need to COAD that.

The real issue is that any change to the collision model either penalizes the good pilot or rewards the bad one. Both of which are not desirable. If it is too forgiving people will just fly right at you and worry less about colliding, If it's too restrictive then people die without actually colliding on their computer.

Yes it's not perfect but the current system is the best it can get. At least until the Internet travels art war speed.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by humble
At this point the system penalizes the player with positional advantage and is being used more and more as an "offensive weapon" by some pilots on defense.

The only positions that will result in your being penalized are the ones inside the other guy's plane. As it stands, no one is immune to damage. If your FE doesn't see a collision, you won't get damage.

[MOIL]

I guess I need to change my FE, I'm thinking of using one off of a 73' Ford pickup or a 83' Buick Skylark

[humble]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
The only positions that will result in your being penalized are the ones inside the other guy's plane. As it stands, no one is immune to damage. If your FE doesn't see a collision, you won't get damage.

Actually your wrong, only the plane that detects a collision is going to get damage. So the plane on the defensive is immune...which really isnt historically a problem....but I flat out gaurantee you its being used as a tactic. It took me less then 20 minutes to duplicate it and auger someone on purpose. Just lucky....probably....but I'll just go with the flow......

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by humble
Actually your wrong, only the plane that detects a collision is going to get damage. So the plane on the defensive is immune...which really isnt historically a problem....but I flat out gaurantee you its being used as a tactic. It took me less then 20 minutes to duplicate it and auger someone on purpose. Just lucky....probably....but I'll just go with the flow......

No, that's what I'm saying. You fly into him on your end, you take damage. I disagree that it's easily manipulated is all.

[B@tfinkV]

im not sure if im getting what you mean snap, people are forcing rams when you are behind them?


i will say though, when i get rammed from behind i usually live, but head on or be hitting them from behind i usually die so i think you have a point.

[humble]

I've noticed a pretty significant change in tactics over the last 6 months by alot of good pilots. Changes that aren't really consistant with "proper" ACM in a close quarters fight. I've also picked up a fair number of kills where you scratch your head and go Huh??? What could he possibly be thinking.....

I'll use the IL-2 as a similiar example. About 6 months or so ago the IL-2 started to seriously pop up as a "dog fighter"....1st it was just 1 or 2 guys....now you have a pretty large number of guys proficient in gaming the IL-2 (wouldnt you love to be able to toggle to F3 view and back). So a game feature designed for use in large multicrew bombers is now being used in an unintended way to game the game. Seperate from the views the IL-2 is flown in a way similiar to that needed to create "issues" for an attacker.

Again I flew 1 hop this morning, eneded up low on the deck by A4 after a real nice 1 on 1 (in a -1 hog). I was low reasonably slow with a la-7, nikki and P-38 behind. Using the "new tactics" I easily got the lala to break off on 3 seperate occasions with out even a ping....he literally had to abandon the attack...the nikki and the 38 both broke off as well....I then reengaged the la-7 (he was a pretty good stick it turned out)....which was a stalemate till a friendly showed up.

Realistically your dealing with the same general principles that lead to an overshoot or scissors fight. However those dont inherently cost you anything....where a collision does. Basically you can create the threat of a collision...or even potentially the reality in such a way that it creates a better offensive posture for the defender then an actual scissors or similiar defense will.

[B@tfinkV]

im still confused here.    


forcing someone to break off the attack or ram you, thats a rash tactic but a fair one. how is that gaming the game?  its not in my view.


if they hit you its because they flew into you on thier FE, you you dont take damage, then you missed them on your FE. simple as that.


forcing an enemy to overshoot or collide would only be gamey if you did it with that express purpose and you never took damage yourself, in my view.

[hubsonfire]

I think he's saying that the guy on the defensive can easily and at-will force the attacker to ram, and therefore either die or be damaged, and that this is a new and popular tactic that's being abused.

The Il2 has the meanest cannons in the game, takes a beating, flies pretty well, and is available without ordnance when the FH are down. I don't think it has much to do with the external view or being able to "force" rams.

[Clifra Jones]

Sorry Humble but forcing an attacker to break because he is fearful of a collision is a valid tactic. Many a time I have slammed on the breaks in a plane that bleeds E fast and seen the attacker collide on his FE. I have no sympathy for him. I have been on the other end of this and don't expect any from him either. It is up to the pilot to control his plane. Managing your closure IS part of good ACM.

Again, I am sure there are players out there who think they can game the collision model. I just don't believe they can be very successfull at it.

[stantond]

This is nothing new.  The "ace" players when on the deck, and know they have no other alternative, will try to force a collision.  I view it as part of the game.

It is sounding like more "non-ace", i.e. my category, players have figured this tactic out.  Do I like it?  No.  Does it happen more than I want to see?  Yes.  Have I used it? Yes.

Don't plan on this changing.  There are alternatives to this tactic, but you need to recognize that the other player is trying to force a collision.  I prefer to call this a "game feature".

Throttle control, barrel rolls, yo-yo's,  "better" gunnery, using cannons, along with slow speed control are all tactics against this "game feature".   Of course, getting low and slow then gives you the opportunity to use the collision model offensively.    Enjoy.


Regards,

Malta

[BugsBunny]

OK, here is how it is done. Put your plane in a colison course (and it does not have to be head on) with the bad guy.  Last possible moment (needs some practice) pull out of the way.  Your FE sees NO colision since you evaded.  Guess happens to the other guy   Yeah, sounds like a fair system, lol

[Overlag]

hmm yeah... i was flying in some bombers a few weeks ago, and some guy in a 109, without the extra guns was gunning at me untill he run out of ammo.... he still kept flying around me, really close, and once i managed to shoot him down, he 'ed and said he was trying to "get me to collide" ie he knew that if he flew close enough he might miss me, but get MY FE to see a collision and kill me...

that is the problem with this system. collisions should happend for BOTH planes....

[FLS]

It sounds like you're describing a vertical scissors. There may be more chance of a collision because of view issues but I don't think that has to mean collisions are intended.