Thoughts on Damage Model

[Plawranc]

Im also sick of being helpless when Ive only got my BB's.

I would love this because instead of running from a beautiful dogfight I can turn and rengage.

[ToeTag]

O.K. you guys must be thick.  My main rant is for m3's.  Also what are you saying that this guy is a liar?  .50 ammo does alot of kenetic damage. To say that it can't happen is just silly.  My point is that if everything in this game were accuratley modeled for damage it would hinder people from paying to play.  If you can't wrap your brain around that then......................... .make a better game

While you may not get an explosion you may get a mobility kill. Same darn thing IMO.  Wanna risk getting out while being straffed to fix a track.  Then im 100% IN on this.  .50cal straff and come back in on 2nd pass for kill.

[Lusche]

 

[OOZ662]

If a regular (read:common) gun could pierce the armor on a tank, there'd be no need to antiarmor/antimaterial rifles, antiarmor rockets, high-caliber antiarmor weapons (Il-2), or tank destroyers. M8s would be considered a Main Battle Tank.

[grizz441]

HiTech, the only thing that bothers me about the damage model is how for example, a 50 cal plane can spray an enemy plane and hit every single plane part but cause absolutely no damage and then someone else, say, Grizz, comes in and taters off the left wing and gets an assist.  It doesn't seem fair that the player who incapacitated the aircraft in no shape or form gets credit for the kill and the player who dislodges the left wing for the kill shot gets an assist.  So my question is one of principle, do you think kills are rewarded fairly in this situation?

[OOZ662]

Currently, no, because in the situation you describe, the "sprayer" didn't do anything to incapacitate the enemy (hence the wish in this thread) while the tater disabled the aircraft.

[rabbidrabbit]

Ya, obviously everyone else is messed up and you're right.   

O.K. you guys must be thick.  My main rant is for m3's.  Also what are you saying that this guy is a liar?  .50 ammo does alot of kenetic damage. To say that it can't happen is just silly.  My point is that if everything in this game were accuratley modeled for damage it would hinder people from paying to play.  If you can't wrap your brain around that then......................... .make a better game

While you may not get an explosion you may get a mobility kill. Same darn thing IMO.  Wanna risk getting out while being straffed to fix a track.  Then im 100% IN on this.  .50cal straff and come back in on 2nd pass for kill.

[bravoa8]

yup
 

[hitech]

HiTech, the only thing that bothers me about the damage model is how for example, a 50 cal plane can spray an enemy plane and hit every single plane part but cause absolutely no damage and then someone else, say, Grizz, comes in and taters off the left wing and gets an assist.  It doesn't seem fair that the player who incapacitated the aircraft in no shape or form gets credit for the kill and the player who dislodges the left wing for the kill shot gets an assist.  So my question is one of principle, do you think kills are rewarded fairly in this situation?

Yes . Your choice to fly a cannon plane or a MG plane just like every other person, so it is 100% with out a doubt fair.

If you pepper a plane with MG's and do not strike anything critical, the plane would not fly a lot differently.

But under your premis is it fair that an MG kills a pilot with 1 bullet , and a cannon completely removes 1/2 the pilots body , but still only gets 1 kill?

HiTech
 

[grizz441]

.

[grizz441]

Your choice to fly a cannon plane or a MG plane just like every other person, so it is 100% with out a doubt fair.

If you pepper a plane with MG's and do not strike anything critical, the plane would not fly a lot differently.

But under your premis is it fair that an MG kills a pilot with 1 bullet , and a cannon completely removes 1/2 the pilots body , but still only gets 1 kill?

HiTech
 

Well yeah, you can only kill a plane once, doesn't matter how much you mutilate the plane, it's 0 or 1, killed or not.

This is a programming assumption on my part but let me know if I am incorrect.  Every single plane part has, say 100 damage points.  When each part is reduced to zero, the plane part fails.  Maybe 1 beebee reduces a plane part by 2 hit points where as a 30 mm tater will reduce that plane part by 100 hit points.  I don't believe it is fair that a 50 cal plane can say, reduce 15 plane components by 15 damage points for a total of 225 hit points causing no actual damage to the plane under the current damage modeling system.  Another plane can then come in and actually kill the air plane by shooting off the left wing for a total of the 125 remaining hit points but since the the sprayer acrued 225 hit points, he gets credit.  (Please don't pay too much attention to my numbers as they are all hypothetical, and obviously inaccurate but only used to illustrate my point)

I'm not saying a pilot should get credit 100% of the time for simply shooting off the critical component but imo there should be some balance.  Perhaps a bonus should be credited to the pilot that gets the kill shot and that bonus is added to his total damage points.  I might be off base here as I am making an assumption as how the damage model works, but this seems a little more fair to me.

 Say you had Pilot A shoot off an elevator, an aileron, oil leak, pilot wound, and then Pilot B shoots off the left wing.  I don't think Pilot B should get the kill just because he landed the fatal shot, but should get a small damage bonus for doing so.  I'm assuming it could be coded to where Pilot A would still get the credit for inflicting so much damage prior.  Balance would be key.

[rabbidrabbit]

Would you agree that while you may get the short end of the stick one time you might get the long end another?  In the long run would you not have your balance even if it wasn't as equitable as you would like each time?

If you want to fix something it would be helpful to understand how it works.  Beyond Hitech I don't think any of us really understands how the damage system currently works beyond observations.

[grizz441]

Would you agree that while you may get the short end of the stick one time you might get the long end another?  In the long run would you not have your balance even if it wasn't as equitable as you would like each time?

I was flying an F4F the other day and completely sprayed up a spitfire, shot his left wing up, then shot his tail section up, and then his right wing up, no damage, was terrible aiming.  I ended up getting the kill.  I did nothing to deserve the kill and would have been completely satisfied with the player who actually killed the guy being rewarded the victory.

[rabbidrabbit]

I would think turning his plane into a sieve would be doing something.  Why did the other guy necessarily deserve it more than you?

[grizz441]

I would think turning his plane into a sieve would be doing something.  Why did the other guy necessarily deserve it more than you?

Because I didn't cause any plane part to fail.  He was just as much of a threat after I shot him as he was before.  Now, if I had taken out an elevator and caused a radiator leak, then I might deserve the kill.  The act of ending an enemy threat i.e. kill shot should be worth something.