Author Topic: In Flight Collisions  (Read 1537 times)

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2001, 03:24:00 PM »
Hmmmm, yes- I said exactly what you said Whels. You just reversed it and went on to disagree with me about it being the best the way it is.

Last I checked, you can manuever against the guy trying to kill you to deny him a shot.

Them bullets are lil' small things. Them planes, OTOH, are big ol' whoppers.

It's easier to simply let your plane hit a target than to let your bullets hit your target.

As it is now, and yes this is the way it is, if you get into a collision it's your fault. It happened on your end, you should of manuevered away earlier- but you didn't.

And, yes again, it is the best we can get right now.
-SW

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2001, 03:50:00 PM »
You play to what you see... as does everyone else.  Its just that everyone does not see the exact same thing.  Once that does occur, this argument is a moot point.

Until then, you try to hit or avoid hitting things on your FE while hoping like hell the guy isn't seeing you on his sights in his FE.  Responsibility for your own actions.

AKDejaVu

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2001, 04:06:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SWulfe:


As it is now, and yes this is the way it is, if you get into a collision it's your fault. It happened on your end, you should of manuevered away earlier- but you didn't.

-SW

That's not true. See my example above. That Lanc had no way to see me zooming up towards his belly.  On my FE I climbed in front of him by 100ft. On his FE I went up through his fuselage and killed him. It's exploitable.

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2001, 04:18:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Raubvogel:


That's not true. See my example above. That Lanc had no way to see me zooming up towards his belly.  On my FE I climbed in front of him by 100ft. On his FE I went up through his fuselage and killed him. It's exploitable.

another example, me and another 51 fighting 1 on 1, no HO shots fired, i see him pass me to lmy left, we visually miss each other.
do i lose my left wing in collision? no, i lose the right wing, total opposite side from
where he passed me, i die, he flies on. yet on my FE we didnt hit visually.

whels

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2001, 04:20:00 PM »
Until we run the internet in true real time, anything and everything is exploitable.

Fw-190- Most potent warp roller in the game, followed very closely by the F4U.

HOs- I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Lets just say it's an old secret from WB, using internet lag to get a guaranteed kill.

Cross vector approach (what you did above, but using it against fighters) can easily produce multiple kill sorties.

Fact of the matter is, every type of manuever has the potential to produce a collision.

Same way as if both people died from the collision except now you just reverse it.

Instead of both people dying to HOs (atleast both were participants in aiming their aircraft at each other).

Lets take a classic 6 O' clock approach and apply the "both die" formula.

There you are, merrily flying along looking for an easy vulch kill. Little did you know, there's a dweeb tracking you 1.2K above you. He dives down, you begin to manuever. His lag isn't the best, but yours is within ~10ms. You manage to force him to overshoot and undershoot through several scissors. Now, he breaks off in the opposite direction as you- except on his end your plane freezes in mid-air. Not a shot hit on yours or on his FE, but he got a temporary net freeze and hit you. His ISP resends packets and tries to re-establish it's connection (we're talking 200ms max). You saw him freeze, and immediately assumed he discoed. Then he moves again- instantly flying past you and resituating himself about 600yds behind you facing the other way...

Then the packets get to you- you see him on fire and going down. Next thing you know- BOOM! You die now.

Sounds just as, if not less, fair than the system we're using right now.
-SW

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2001, 04:23:00 PM »
nope, i say its not the best way. a collision is a collision weather it be
plane to plane or bullet to plane.

if i hit u with my bullets u go down, if i hit u with my plane we both should go down.

if u programmed collisions the same way
i might see my bullets hit u on my FE, but u coulda turned on ur FE and i miss, result,
u fly off un hit by my bullets.

but as it is right now with the double standard, bullet hit what i see and it goes BOOM, but plane to plane, if i hit what i see
i go boom, the other doesnt. pure n simple
double standard.
 
Quote
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Hmmmm, yes- I said exactly what you said Whels. You just reversed it and went on to disagree with me about it being the best the way it is.

Last I checked, you can manuever against the guy trying to kill you to deny him a shot.

Them bullets are lil' small things. Them planes, OTOH, are big ol' whoppers.

It's easier to simply let your plane hit a target than to let your bullets hit your target.

As it is now, and yes this is the way it is, if you get into a collision it's your fault. It happened on your end, you should of manuevered away earlier- but you didn't.

And, yes again, it is the best we can get right now.
-SW

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2001, 04:32:00 PM »
Of course your way is the best way Whels, what was I ever thinking?

I mean, a proven to work and produce less whines system is inevitably not the right way to do it on an internet that does not run in real time.

This isn't about double standards, get that outta here. Double standards would be a viewpoint you go back on later but still re-state your original viewpoint which you went back on.

This is about gameplay concessions because of internet lag.

Much like the ground vehicles, or the bombers, or the bombs, or... well damn near half the game. It ain't fun dying to something you can't avoid because of lag.
-SW

Offline Blue Mako

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1295
      • http://www.brauncomustangs.org/BLUEmako.htm
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2001, 04:32:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by whels:
but as it is right now with the double standard, bullet hit what i see and it goes BOOM, but plane to plane, if i hit what i see
i go boom, the other doesnt. pure n simple
double standard.

I agree it is a double standard.

I don't know if we should change it though, when I'm on the bad end of a collision (usually happens that way) I want it changed.

However, last night I had someone else collide with me on his FE (first time I've seen that) fighter vs fighter.  We went for a merge and I maneuvered out of his way after I decide I couldn't get enough angle for a shot.  He pressed in and ended up ramming me on his FE.  I sw him flying past and then boom! no more P47, even though I hadn't fired on him in that merge...  I bet he wasn't happy that I wasn't damaged, I was just glad that the collision wasn't sent to me as damage packets because I was clear on my FE...  Guess your perspective changes as to the circumstances of the ramming.

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2001, 04:47:00 PM »
Quote
nope, i say its not the best way. a collision is a collision weather it be
plane to plane or bullet to plane.
if i hit u with my bullets u go down, if i hit u with my plane we both should go down.

if u programmed collisions the same way
i might see my bullets hit u on my FE, but u coulda turned on ur FE and i miss, result,
u fly off un hit by my bullets.

but as it is right now with the double standard, bullet hit what i see and it goes BOOM, but plane to plane, if i hit what i see
i go boom, the other doesnt. pure n simple
double standard.

 

Does anyone else see that this argument is just trying to justify getting mad about your own screwup by crashing into the other guy?

What the current system amouts to is the least frustations.

Gunnery is as it is because is much more frustrating watching your bullets fly threw someone and not hit them VS watching bullets miss you and still getting hit.

Collisions are as they are because it's much less frustrating as it is now VS colliding with someone 200 yards away.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13280
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2001, 05:04:00 PM »
Just an observation. When I'm invloved in a head on merge and resultant collision it is almost always because I tried to get that last shot off. It isn't because I manuvered and the enemy manuvered into me.

My point is that the interpolation or whatever method AH uses to counter net lag usually results in planes flying very straight when engaged in an HO. If your FE sees (and I don't mean your eyes, some seem to confuse the FE seeing with their visual ability to see the enemy) a collision then there was a collision for you.

I think everyone has a chance to easily avoid this most of the time due to the reason I mentioned previously. Therefore, why punish the person that avoids the collision.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2001, 08:56:00 PM »
My $.02 on the collision idea. If there is a collision between two planes BOTH should take damage. Either the collision happened or it didn't. That is real life, that feature could be, should be simulated here as well. Blaming it on net lag is a copout, the same as the debate on where you were on the other guys FE when he shot at you. If his FE said you were in line to take hits but yours doesn't you still take damage.

Collisions are NOT a one sided package like they are currently modeled. When two planes try to occupy the same piece of sky at the same sky they BOTH suffer the consequences irregardless who was looking where or how good their depth perception is.

 
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Steven

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 681
      • http://members.cox.net/barking.pig/puke.htm
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2001, 10:00:00 PM »
Hitech,

<<Does anyone else see that this argument is just trying to justify getting mad about your own screwup by crashing into the other guy?>>
Like a bomber can realy get out of the way of a diving fighter.  I remember one particular instance where I was low and slow in an F4U in a very steep nose up attitude...I could make barely any movements yet someone comes in and buzzes me and what appears safe to him is unsafe to me and he dives down onto and through me.

Whether someone rams me and I can't see it and take damage isn't any worse than someone making a HO on you and you look clear and out of the way and never seeing him shoot and watching him fly safely past to your six you hear the pings and blow up.  I really do not see a difference here.  Only little objects can blow you up even if you don't see them hit you on your end.  It does seem a double standard and that was all my point was in the beginning.  As to an answer?...I dunno.  I do know people adapt and they probably would stop pushing the range in the merge after a while.  There were really pilots who used their planes as a weapon but luckily this is only a game so it's no big deal.

Maybe only make a collision and damage occur *only* if detected by both FEs.  If not detected by both, it never happened.  It's a game.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Steven ]

Offline wolf37

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 151
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2001, 10:31:00 PM »
Hitech:

sorry, but I disagree, I have had a plane collide with me from behind, he came down fast and I still end up as the plane falling apart because he screwed up his attack. so when you say that the person that screws up is the one to die, why would I have been the one on that ocation, this is the reason I posted in the first place, I died when somebody dove down on me and ended in collision and he flies away.

I have been in a lot of collisions well trying to take the HO shot then turning to avoid, or turning in on somebody as they are turning in on me and end in collision, and never posted as I heard  (read) once that who ever is at fault kinda thing is the one to die. But when somebody zooms down on me and screws his approach and collides with me, why do I end up as the one at fault and to end up dead. Now I know he did not die as with in mins he had another kill. so he is still flying and fighting. well I am upping in another plane.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2001, 01:57:00 AM »
There are only four ways of modeling damaging collisions in online games, all of which have been tried at some point by HiTech. The possibilities are: both are damaged, neither are damaged, the aircraft on the FE that detects the collision is damaged and the aircraft on the FE that does not detect the collision is damaged.

I will give a breif overview of the pros and cons of each system and a breif look a gunnery modeling as well.

Both Are Damaged:
Pros: This most accurately simulates the resulting damage of a collision between two real aircraft. This system can be seen as egalitarian because both suffer the damage.

Cons: It can be seen as unegalitarian because players suffer collisions that they were not responsible for. Ramming becomes a major combat tactic in the simulation. It creates and environment in which ramming targets that can't dodge is rewarded, e.g you take off to defend a field and ram an enemy aircraft knowing that he can't dodge and it'll cost him 5 minutes of flight time against your 30 seconds of flight time. It increases the "gameyness" of the game. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal.

Neither Are Damaged:
Pros: It can be seen as egalitarian because both suffer the same fate.

Cons: This is the least realistic solution. There is no longer any reason to even attempt to avoid collisions. HOs would be even more common. Hitting a target, say a B-17G, is easy when you just dive through him while firing your guns, the shells fired from 10 feet will hit. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal.

The Aircraft On The FE That Detects The Collision Is Damaged:
Pros: Each party has an independant chance to avoid the collision and is rewarded for their success. It can be seen as egalitarian because only the responsible party suffers. Realistic behavior is encouraged.

Cons: It does not generate an accurate simulation of the damage that occurs in a real collision. It can be seen as unegalitarian because only one party suffers.

The Aircraft On The FE That Does Not Detect The Collision Is Damaged:
Pros: None.

Cons: It does not generate an accurate simulation of the damage that occurs in a real collision. It removes the reward for avoiding collisions. There is no longer any reason to even attempt to avoid collisions. It creates and environment in which ramming targets that can't dodge is rewarded, e.g you take off to defend a field and ram an enemy aircraft knowing that he can't dodge. Hitting a target, say a B-17G, is easy when you just dive through him while firing your guns, the shells fired from 10 feet will hit and if that doesn't kill him your aircraft certainly will. HOs would be even more common. It increases the "gameyness" of the game. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal. It can be seen as unegalitarian because only one party suffers.

Bullet Hits

The Target Is Damaged If Bullet Hits Occur On Either FE:
Pros: All bullet hits anywhere cause damage, e.g. if it looks like he hit you, to you or him, he hits.

Cons: Sometimes the shooter is rewarded even though he missed his intended target. Effectively doubles the target's size for the purpose of "Spray and Pray" shooting.

The Target Is Damaged Only If the Bullet Hit Occurs On Both FEs:
Pros: Bullets only hit if the target absolutely did not dodge.

Cons: Aircraft would be insanely hard to hit, hitting being more a matter of luck than of skill. Massively frusterating for the shooter.

Only The Shooter's FE Calcultes And Applies Damage When A Bullet Hit Occurs On It:
Pros: The shooter is only rewarded for his hitting intended target.

Cons: The target has a slightly reduced SA and slightly reduced ability to dodge.

Only The Target's FE Calcultes And Applies Damage When A Bullet Hit Occurs On It:
Pros: Maximizes the benefits of the target's SA and the target's ability to dodge.

Cons: The shooter must guess where the target is on the target's FE and is thus shooting a ghosts. Only dead 6 o'clock and dead 12 o'clock shots have a good chance of hitting, if the target hasn't changes course on the target's FE.


When you think about these things, try not to think about how it has affected you personally in the game, rather think about it in the terms of its effects from a theoretical player A's and player B's perspective and from the overall effect it would have on gameplay.  Some of you have commented that the current system is exploitable and suggested a different system in its place.  It doesn't seem that you tried to think of exploits in your proposed system.  Think of those and compare the exploits of each system. Which is worse?  Once you've done all of that, then present your arguments.

Until we get 10ms or faster ping times for everyone the system used in AH generates the most realistic, least frusterating, least exploitable results of the available systems.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
In Flight Collisions
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2001, 01:59:00 AM »
wolf37,

How did he screw up his attack?

Look at it from his perspective.  He never collided with anything.  He didn't screw up his attack.

The only person that had a chance to avoid that collision was you because you are the only person that could see that collision.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-