Who should die in a collision

[BaldEagl]

Evidently me.

[hammer]

...<> has collided with you, usually you take no damage, but sometimes will take minimal damage.

If you took damage but did not receive a "you collided with" message, the damage was not the result of the collision.

Regards,

Hammer

[hitech]

That is precisely why Kesmai gave collisions a good, long, hard look and decided the variablity of global internet connection fidelity made them impractical for implimentation in such a fast paced real-time environment. Far better for you to warp thru someone, both unscathed, than for you to warp through someone, they take damage and you fly on unscathed.

No one gets pissed if they think it was a collision and don't take damage themselves. People get pissed when it was a collision and the other dumb bastard who warped giggles and flies off unscathed while your useless husk that was once the proud receptacle of your pelt pouch full of scalps floats lazily to the ground, broken and fluttering like a fall leaf.

We're talking the lesser of evils here. If we must have collissions make them by consensus and unilateral.

And how well did that decision work out for Kesmai?
.
.
.
.
Seems to me they no longer exist.

[Bronk]

The system as it stands is the best solution.  If you don't want to suffer collision damage, then maintain a safe distance from the other aircraft.  It could not be simpler.

Give that man a cigar.

[Shane]

Being an european player with a comparatively high ping, I suddenly have a genuine advantage - I know I have high latency, I know then I will survive most "collisions" because of that high total lag, it's very improbable a collision egisters on both FE's. An American player with a low ping would be at a disadvantage, cause if his enemy is another low-ping user too, the danger of registering a collision on both FE's is much higher. Result: Not only connection stability plays a role - suddenly ping time does matter tremendously. Players with high ping times (yet stable conections) will have a notably higher chance of getting away with suicidal attack tactics.


The current collision model is a very clever and elegant compromise for the internet related lag problem. Every other proposed "solution" is actually much worse for gameplay.

This sums it up quite nicely.

[Shane]

And how well did that decision work out for Kesmai?
.
.
.
.
Seems to me they no longer exist.

Well at least kesmai, or rather AW(?) was good for *something.*  They produced/refined/motivated you, in a sense, no?   

You've done well. Very well. 

[FireDrgn]

Pleaaaasse read about the subject first... It has been explained in lenght why "both should get damage" will result in exact the opposite what you are looking for.

If both get damage, ramming would suddenly really work, and would be almost impossible to dodge for the one being rammed.

How would that be any differant than them getting guns on and shooting someone  down.....   If they are that bloody good to get that close to ram there going to shoot the other guy down  anyways. If they want to take their plane down let them.

[Bronk]

How would that be any differant than them getting guns on and shooting someone  down.....   If they are that bloody good to get that close to ram there going to shoot the other guy down  anyways. If they want to take their plane down let them.

Because on your front end you are in a different point in space. You would die to a collision with an ac 100' away.  Do you want that?

See Lusche's pics.

[Dawger]

Back in Warbirds I wrote a script that randomly turned collisions on and off (its an arena setting) with collisions being off 90% of the time. This ran in the Main Arena over there for over a year and no one ever noticed and complaints about collision code reduced dramatically.

Personally, I think collisions in online games are impossible to implement with any sort of fairness or realism and should be off completely. Random collisions on or off is a good compromise between managing the behavior induced by no collisions and the vagaries of collision coding.

[Bronk]

Back in Warbirds I wrote a script that randomly turned collisions on and off (its an arena setting) with collisions being off 90% of the time. This ran in the Main Arena over there for over a year and no one ever noticed and complaints about collision code reduced dramatically.

Personally, I think collisions in online games are impossible to implement with any sort of fairness or realism and should be off completely. Random collisions on or off is a good compromise between managing the behavior induced by no collisions and the vagaries of collision coding.

Sure turn it off.. Now I'll be able to drive through buffs guns ablaze. Taking no damage from running into em.

[BaldEagl]

And how well did that decision work out for Kesmai?
.
.
.
.
Seems to me they no longer exist.

I find it hard to fathom that that single decision was responsible for the demise of Kesmai as you seem to imply.

[CAP1]

Tools from my experience...if it says:

You have collided, usually you take 100% damage, opponent takes none or minimal.
<> has collided with you, usually you take no damage, but sometimes will take minimal damage.
Or if both messages come up, both players are going to receive significant damage.

As for how the system decides who crashed into who, well, that's already been explained and is variable at times.

i think the shortcomming can be in each persons machine too.

in a collision i had with a zeek, i got the white ""XXX has collided with you" i look back, see him going down trailing smoke...as i almost enter a spin. i get control, and get shot down attempting to rtb.
 watched the film....although i never got the orange""you have collided"" message, my film clearly showed the collision. so, although i only got the white message, both of our machines saw it, thus we both suffered. he wasn't shooting either, nor was i.

[Bronk]

i think the shortcomming can be in each persons machine too.

in a collision i had with a zeek, i got the white ""XXX has collided with you" i look back, see him going down trailing smoke...as i almost enter a spin. i get control, and get shot down attempting to rtb.
 watched the film....although i never got the orange""you have collided"" message, my film clearly showed the collision. so, although i only got the white message, both of our machines saw it, thus we both suffered. he wasn't shooting either, nor was i.

You missed the message and the "You have collided." doesn't show in film.

Lusche's pic do not show this so i'll post mine.

[CAP1]

Yep, you run into the back of someone...YOU get a collision message and take damage. They can fly away and never even know you were there. Think of it as rear-ending another driver on the city streets...who is gonna get the ticket?

back when i still flew EW with the HG, i was in ju88;s. had a 109(i think) dive on me....and collided with me. 0 damage for me, he went boom. he re-ups, comes back for me......same thing. 3rd time 'round, he comes in on me with much more control.......flys right up my tailpipes.....and hits my right wing....again, 0 damage for me, and this time he only lost a couple parts...and spun into the cartoon ground.  was friggin  

he apologized too...he said he was learning the plane. i said no problem, and thanks for the free kills.  

[CAP1]

You missed the message and the "You have collided." doesn't show in film.

i saw the white one....wouldn't the orange one have been right with it?