Originally posted by Mr No Name
...If a collision occurs that implies one object striking another object. if 2 aircraft strike each other, both should be damaged as this would be the case. You cant have a 1 airplane collision, unless, of course that would be with a tree, building, etc. There are numerous accounts of GVs getting a "You have collided" message with aircraft!
...
Facts:
1. 2 aircraft collide, both take damage.
2. It is difficult (but not impossible, I admit) for a lead plane to cause a collision.
3. There are people using this system (See Larrys post above) to 'game the game' using the current collision model to force the collision.
There are three parts to this. The first is that there are 2 versions or reality for the planes involved. Essentially the 4 plane analogy that has been used. I think everyone can grasp and agree to that. The next part is admitting that, because there are two realities, a collision can occur in one reality (Player 1's front-end) and not in the other reality (Player 2's front end). Again, I think everyone can grasp and agree to that. The final part is understanding that how these two realities are reconciled is a decision made by HTC.
I see 3 basic options for reconciling a collision:
[list=1]
- Neither plane takes damage unless the collision occurs on both front ends.
- Both planes take damage if a collision occurs on either front end.
- Damage occurs only to the plane on whose front end (version of reality) a collision occurs.
[/list=1]
Let's examine how each of these would affect game play.
Neither plane takes damage unless the collision occurs on both front ends. I haven't seen this option bandied about as "the way it should be" and I'm glad. It wouldn't take long for people to realize they can fly into someone (on their front-end) and probably survive. Diving directly through people with guns blazing would replace head-ons as the tactic of choice.
Both planes take damage if a collision occurs on either front end. The champion of the "how it should be" crowd. This crowd is always upset because they suffer damage and watch the other guy fly away with no damage. The kicker, though, is that if it were this way, they will complain even louder because they take damage when they clearly avoided a collision on their front end.
Try to imagine what it would be like to pull off a brilliant maneuver, coming up underneath a target, blowing its tail off, and climbing past 50 or 100 ft behind the dead-but-doesn't-know-it-yet bird. Then your left wing falls off as you see the message "PlayerX has collided with you".
In the milliseconds difference in realities, a collision occurred on PlayerX's front end but not on yours. You avoided the collision, you got a clean kill and avoided even the debris, but you are spinning to the ground because that is not the case on PlayerX's front-end. I can't imagine that you would accept this as a satisfactory outcome.
Damage occurs only to the plane on whose front end (version of reality) a collision occurs. This is the way HTC has chosen to model collisions. Note that if a collision occurs on both front-ends, both planes take damage. Here, you get credit for your brilliant flying and your skill in avoiding the collision. The player who did not avoid the collision, even if he didn't see it coming, is the one penalized. There is really no other option.
Can this be gamed? Maybe. You would have to have information on both connections to be sure it would work. The risk of having someone game this way is less troublesome than doing everything right, avoiding the collision on your own front end, and then tumbling to the ground because a collision occurred on somebody else's computer.
Regards,
Hammer
