Gaming the game.......

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by 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

That should probably read "Guess what happens to the other guy who either lost his SA or simply didn't take any evasives." Sure, you can induce a collision in this manner, or he could just as easily do the same thing to you. Yeah, it's not perfect, but until copper is done away with completely, we really don't have any better options.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by 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.

nope, he was flying in from the side and "aiming" for just under my wing tips in a aim to get MY FE to see collision... he said it himself.

I dont blame the guy at all, and he will not be named.

[icemaw]

[SIZE=10]OMFG NOT ANOTHER COLLISION THREAD AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

[hubsonfire]

Is there any soup to be had, ice?

[Kev367th]

Not too hard to 'force' a collision on the other guys FE if he is in buffs.

Discovered it accidently when two of us went to the DA to do some collision tests some time back.

It may actually be a combination of lag and the smoothing code, but it can be done, and is repeatable.

[FLS]

Originally posted by humble
...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. ..

Sorry I was unclear Overlag, there was nothing in your post that sounded like a vertical scissors. I was referrng to Humble's post above.

[jaxxo]

trying to force a collision is dam near impossible..minus the head on..ive tried many times and it almost never works...the Il2 is a monster that you should be vary wary of. It takes enormous damage turns like crazy and has uber cannon...the Il2 "gaming" tactic you describe is nonsense. Most that cry about it are vulchers and bnz' ers lookin for an easy kill while going way to fast..an uber turning plane going 200 mph is gonna lag roll you or otherwise force an overshoot and light you up with 23mm...also the external view, IMO, is legit because of the mannable gun ( or spotter) in the rear.  In other words one overshoot with a competent pilot and your gonna get plugged..as they say it only takes one cannon

[BugsBunny]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
That should probably read "Guess what happens to the other guy who either lost his SA or simply didn't take any evasives." Sure, you can induce a collision in this manner, or he could just as easily do the same thing to you. Yeah, it's not perfect, but until copper is done away with completely, we really don't have any better options.

1) B17s cannot evade very well.  SA = bla bla bla. You don't always see everyone, right? The fact that you did not see them does not mean they should be able to cause a colision if they want to.

2) Yes, the other guy can do that to you to.  Who said he can't. Its hard to do, but it can be done with some practice.

3) We agree, its not perfect.  But everyone claims it is the best we can do.  You ve been arouns for a while right?  Do you remember any threads about colisions lets say 2 or 3 years ago?  Maybe the better option is the one people dont complain about or can't take advantage of?

It seems that people are complaining about things that were not even mentioned in the past as being an issue.  Those things have been changed for our own good.  Now, I could not care less about any of the changes and I actually like most of them, but I did not have an issue with any of them before either.

Just saing, does anyone remember what happened when coca cola changed the original formula because they knew better than their customers?

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by BugsBunny
1) B17s cannot evade very well.  SA = bla bla bla. You don't always see everyone, right? The fact that you did not see them does not mean they should be able to cause a colision if they want to.

2) Yes, the other guy can do that to you to.  Who said he can't. Its hard to do, but it can be done with some practice.

3) We agree, its not perfect.  But everyone claims it is the best we can do.  You ve been arouns for a while right?  Do you remember any threads about colisions lets say 2 or 3 years ago?  Maybe the better option is the one people dont complain about or can't take advantage of?

It seems that people are complaining about things that were not even mentioned in the past as being an issue.  Those things have been changed for our own good.  Now, I could not care less about any of the changes and I actually like most of them, but I did not have an issue with any of them before either.

Just saing, does anyone remember what happened when coca cola changed the original formula because they knew better than their customers?

1) Yeah, too much SA is practically impossible. FWIW, most of the guys that collide with me, I never saw coming either, while I have seen nearly everyone I've collided with, except some drones. Agreed on the B17 not being much good when it comes to panic maneuvers.

2)My point on that one being, getting out of the way is the best way to not plow into someone. If you're not too close, you can't collide. If you don't see one coming, and you do get a collision... well, that sucks, but that probably mimics real life to some extent. At least I look at it that way, and that makes it easier to tolerate.

3)2 or 3 years ago, I honestly didn't give it much thought , other than despising the fact that someone could fly right through me guns blazing. I had 0 concept of latency and packets and all that geeky coad stuff. I would guess that the same was true for a lot of us.

I kind of liked new coke. I'm still a classic guy, but I like variety, as long as it's not diet.

[Clifra Jones]

What changed in the collision model was the text buffer messages. This was done to bring some understanding to the community regarding collisions. That failed. It only made the whining worse.

[BugsBunny]

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
What changed in the collision model was the text buffer messages. This was done to bring some understanding to the community regarding collisions. That failed. It only made the whining worse.

Nop, that was the change after a change

[BugsBunny]

Originally posted by hubsonfire

3)2 or 3 years ago, I honestly didn't give it much thought , other than despising the fact that someone could fly right through me guns blazing

Agreed, I am just trying to say that something has changed that some people dont like.  Its not a whine if it has been going on for a year.

Point 3 above.  If anyone ever does/did that they will be better off taking the collision damage than what actually is going to happen to them. If you shoot anyone from this close, the uber damage model will kill you first (kill shooter effect) before it does any damage to the bad guy.  So really, even if no one is trying intentionaly to game the colision model, when you get really close in a fight you have two things to wory about if the guy starts doing the floping fish uber ACMz (tm) move.
You have to worry about colliding and killshooting yourself. You do have the option to try and get out of the way but at slow speeds he will end up on your 6 at D200.
What I am saing is that your focus should be on fighting the other guy, not having to worry about these things. 2 or 3 years ago you did not have to wory about any of this and focus on the guy you are fighting and SHawk or Zazen trying to pick you off (sorry, I could not resist ) So, we have choice 1) things as they were in the past with no complains and choice 2) keep the change that generates all this crying on the BBS.  Lets go with #2, lol

[B@tfinkV]

I stll dont buy all this no matter how many people say it.  If i have someone on my tail there is only one way i want to shake them, by making them overshoot in some dimension or another. If during this move they ram be in the arse, and by a further stroke of luck i live and they die, then that hardly constitutes as 'intentionaly causing a ram'. wtf would i be causing a ram for, if they hit me that means they are overshooting, and if i dont collide with them they will be infront of me in seconds.

the very last thing i would want to happen in an overshoot in horizontal or vertical, is collide. to me this event would suggest that i had waited for my guns solution too long, flown too close and not been able to fire, and then even more so kept flying untill i collided. 3 mistakes, i deserve to die. who cares if the other guy flies on or not.

As to little children who might actually intend to make me ram them, and somehow they know how to survive, more power to them. anyone who cheats is so far down the acm levels compared to most of us here that they will die anyhow. they cant cause a collision if you kill them right.

[Iceman24]

"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. "

if the player on defense tries to do this all the attacker has to do is squeeze the trigger until the plane in front goes poof....

[BugsBunny]

Deleted