Author Topic: In Flight Collisions (Read 1536 times)

Smut · « **Reply #45 on:** December 03, 2001, 09:46:00 AM »

What exactly is not "lagite"

about HT's post?

Seems you got an answer you don't agree with, so you want to read it as a personal attack.

FWIW, I happen to agree with HT (big shock, I'm sure).

Is the current sytem perfect? No. However, the alternatives are worse IMHO (Been there, done that). It's also probably the best that can be done given things like net latency.

-Smut

Quote

Originally posted by wolf37:
Smut:

why dont you read the title for this forum. If they dont want questons on gameplay feedback, then remove the forum. I asked a lagite queston, Hitech's answer was not lagite. It was nothing more then an insult. No matter how small an insult, it is not the way to answer a queston.

Maverick · « **Reply #46 on:** December 03, 2001, 11:37:00 AM »

My take on the most recent posts here. Let me restate my position so there is no doubt.

I am for collisions damaging BOTH aircraft irregardless of who's FE "saw" it. That is based on "reality". Either a collision happened for BOTH planes or it was a miss.

I understand about net lag. I also understand that net lag tends to "award" the slowest connection the kill. This isn't particularly fair or accurate. IMO it "invites" this type of attack as much as a suicide bomber killing a cv in the game.

I doubt that there is going to be an increase in A2A collisions if it kills both players. Why? becuse there will be an increased emphasis on BOTH players to avoid the close pass (inside 100 meteres / yards) since they both will lose a kill otherwise. It WILL require heightened SA on both players as well as faster responses to the attack. Perhaps if players have to remain farther apart there will be fewer collisions?

As to stats, if BOTH players die then NO kill is awarded at all. That way there is really NO reason to take out someone in a kamikaze strike, at least any more than there is now. (can we say carbombing or cv bombing?) Perhaps a perk penalty could be awarded as well. You die in a collision and you lose 5 perks, each. More impetus to avoid the impact and rely on the guns instead.

Karnak · « **Reply #47 on:** December 03, 2001, 06:40:00 PM »

Maverick,

You have much too much faith in people.

If person A took off and flew for 5 - 10 minutes to get to the base he was attacking and person B took of and flew for 30 seconds to intercept person A, who has more to lose?

That's right, person A does. Person B now has a sound tactical reason to kamikaze person A, something that he cannot intentionally do under the current system but which would become staggeringly easy under the "both die" system.

Another point is that making sure you never get withing D200 or D300 of an enemy is highly unrealistic behavior for WWII air-to-air combat.

It is a myth that a slower connection gives an advantage in a collision. Due to the latency involved even in fast connections it is extremely rare for moving aircraft in AH to not be dispalced by more than D50 on the two FEs. The person who dies is the person who collides with the other aircraft on his FE. Connection speed has nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, in the "both die" model the guy with the lower connection speed who wants to kamikaze another aircraft has a huge advantage. Are you going to try to dodge the guy who is diving past you, D500 to the rear? Oops, to bad. He just killed you.

K West · « **Reply #48 on:** December 03, 2001, 07:47:00 PM »

"I am for collisions damaging BOTH aircraft irregardless of who's FE "saw" it. That is based on "reality"."

I don't happen to agree due to the legions of ill intending denizens of the net and the win at all costs mentality. It would be sorely abused just as suicidal bombing and the spate of HO is. But I am curious. What's your take on the AH "AWACS" radar?

Westy

Maverick · « **Reply #49 on:** December 03, 2001, 08:35:00 PM »

Westy and Karnak,

My position is that you then must have sufficient SA to AVOID the collision just like avoiding a HO.

As to the "myth" about faster connections vs slower ones. I have DSL. I seem to lose the collision contest almost every time. I say almost as there is only one time I can recall when someone collided with me and I didn't die. I do not ram planes and make sure I don't get too close so I don't have a problem with collisions that I can see. I just lose all the ones where players collide with me and I am not looking. They then get the kill. If both die and no kill is awarded then no points.

wolf37 · « **Reply #50 on:** December 03, 2001, 10:44:00 PM »

Karnak:

Thank you for the time you put in to give me an answer as to why or why not the collisions are set up the way they are. I atleast now have a better understanding of the set up.

wolf37 · « **Reply #51 on:** December 03, 2001, 11:15:00 PM »

Smut:

how do you see Hitech's answer as lagite, he gives no explanation as to why only one plane die's, that was Karnak who put the time in for that. And Hitech stats it as gee, I am mad because I screwed up and want it changed. One, I am and have not been mad about this post. two, I don't see where as I screwed up on this one time for what I placed the post for.

Hitech's respounce gave no reason as to why, just a remark about whining for screwing up and posting here. But yet the forum is called

game feedback/issues

I posted on an issue I am not sure about how it works and yes, would like to see it changed. But as Karnak points out it would be very hard to do. But I was kinda expecting a repounce from HTC's that would give me a better idea as to why it is set up the way it is, instead I got nothing more then crap from Hitech.

Smut · « **Reply #52 on:** December 04, 2001, 07:22:00 AM »

Did you even read the rest of HT's post?

Here, do it now:

Quote

Originally posted by hitech:
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.

Feel foolish yet? No?

Then re-read what you just posted:

Quote

Originally posted by wolf37:
Smut:

how do you see Hitech's answer as lagite, he gives no explanation as to why only one plane die's, that was Karnak who put the time in for that. And Hitech stats it as gee, I am mad because I screwed up and want it changed. One, I am and have not been mad about this post. two, I don't see where as I screwed up on this one time for what I placed the post for.

Hitech's respounce gave no reason as to why, just a remark about whining for screwing up and posting here. But yet the forum is called

game feedback/issues

I posted on an issue I am not sure about how it works and yes, would like to see it changed. But as Karnak points out it would be very hard to do. But I was kinda expecting a repounce from HTC's that would give me a better idea as to why it is set up the way it is, instead I got nothing more then crap from Hitech.

Let's look at this line again:

Quote

Originally posted by wolf37:
Hitech's respounce gave no reason as to why, just a remark about whining for screwing up and posting here.

Seems like you might be distorting the facts a bit here, huh?

Why?

-Smut

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Smut ]

K West · « **Reply #53 on:** December 04, 2001, 08:13:00 AM »

"My position is that you then must have sufficient SA to AVOID the collision just like avoiding a HO."

I agree 100%. But no amount of SA is going to help you prevent a collision due to a net induced warp or some jerk who has decided he's out of bullets, gas and options and is going to ram you when you come at him on the next pass. After all it just helps him replane faster anyway.

As for me? I have a really good cable ISP and I typically lose every collision. Either against debri, a HOing opponant or in a close scissors. However I also admit that *every* collision I'm in I could have avoided. Perhaps the lack of chance for death hasn't made me do much with that at all. I simply just re-up and head for the fray again.

Westy

p.s. what about radar?

Raubvogel · « **Reply #54 on:** December 04, 2001, 10:20:00 AM »

Last night I'm in a vertical scissors with a La7 on my 6. I can see he's about to overshoot. I look back in time to see him fly thru my right wing and shear it off. He flies away unscratched. Could I have avoided it? Only if I had eyes in the back of my head. I hate the collision modeling.

Maverick · « **Reply #55 on:** December 04, 2001, 11:52:00 AM »

Westy,

You just made my point about the connection speed mandating who loses the collision contest.

As to dar, there are enough posts in appropriate threads already to understand my position.

wolf37 · « **Reply #56 on:** December 04, 2001, 05:37:00 PM »

Smut:

you had best hope Hitech never comes to a fast stop, as if he does, your head will go so far up his bellybutton you will never see the light of day again.

Smut · « **Reply #57 on:** December 05, 2001, 05:41:00 AM »

???

I guess the truth hurts, huh?

Can't stand your own words?

LOL...

-Smut

Quote

Originally posted by wolf37:
Smut:

you had best hope Hitech never comes to a fast stop, as if he does, your head will go so far up his bellybutton you will never see the light of day again.

wolf37 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 05, 2001, 10:02:00 PM »

Smut:

its kinda funny how you only repeat what ever somebody else say's, you have yet to make an opion of your own in regrads to this post. you have shown how much you are a Hitech bellybutton kisser, and thats about all you have done. You have not made one good point in this post, just repeat what ever somebody else has said. Now you can respond to this any way you would like to, I have no intentions of reading any thing more here. Karnak did a great job of explaining to me why it is set up the way it is, you have just worked on kissing Hitech's ass. maybe you should consider trying to get your own opion.

Smut · « **Reply #59 on:** December 06, 2001, 05:57:00 AM »

Dude, the reason I have to keep repeating posts is because you obviously have a short term memory problem. You also seem to be unable to read more than the first line of any post not written by you.

You say I didn't give my own opinion? Just to prove you wrong, again, all I need to do is scroll up and copy this:

Quote

FWIW, I happen to agree with HT (big shock, I'm sure).

Is the current sytem perfect? No. However, the alternatives are worse IMHO (Been there, done that). It's also probably the best that can be done given things like net latency.

You can't or won't stand behind your own words, even when proven wrong. Why don't you try to grow a spine? FYI, calling someone an "ass-kisser" simply because they don't agree with you and you don't want to answer their questions is pretty lame.

Oh, and Bite Me.

-Smut