The new kill system

[Spikes]

I know HTC introduced the new awarding system so you must take off vital parts...but can I ask what parts are vital? I'd assume Vert Stab, wings, pilot, engine...

Does taking off one horizontal stab count as well?

Just wondering because I think it is a bit buggy...a few weeks ago I was awarded two assists for killing two untouched (from what I saw) planes in a 262...and I've gotten plenty more assists for knocking wings off of a near-perfect plane that may have had an elevator missing. On the flip side, I've been awarded kills after I made a pass on someone but did not kill said plane. Some I never even knocked parts off of.

I think the new system is generally good, just some questionable accounts of kills...just looking for a clarification! 

[kvuo75]

the way I understand it, the kill still goes to whoever put the most damage into the plane, just that after a vital part has been damaged, no more damage is awarded -- so people cant steal a kill like old days, shooting a falling leaf plane with missing tail, etc.


but, someone can lite a plane up with 303's, or 50's, no apparent damage, and someone else come thru and knock off a wing, the guy knockin off the wing can still just get an assist..


ahh.. found the other part in the news archives:

Changed plane damage scoring so that any further damage that is done after a critical component is destroyed is not counted towards the scoring of the kill and assists. Critical components are as follows: complete (not partial) wing loss on one side, loss of all horizontal stabilizers, loss of all vertical stabilizers, loss of rear fuselage, and fuel fires.

[Jayhawk]

So what if this happens,

You put a single bullet into the cockpit causing a PW (single bullet unlikely but just making a point).

Another guy comes along and puts two bullets into the wing causing no damage.

Pilot dies as a result of PW.

Second guy gets the kill?

[Spikes]

Thanks kvuo...I must have just thought of it wrong...so how much damage is 10-20 taters into a plane vs 10-20 50 cals.

[Tigger29]

So what if this happens,

You put a single bullet into the cockpit causing a PW (single bullet unlikely but just making a point).

Another guy comes along and puts two bullets into the wing causing no damage.

Pilot dies as a result of PW.

Second guy gets the kill?

Based on what I've been told, yes the second guy would get the kill.

Keep in mind there is nothing new about this system... the only thing that is new is once a critical part is damaged, the plane will then cease to have any further damage applied to it because it's going to crash (or asplode) anyway...

Likewise, the first guy could throw 2 MG rounds in the fuselage and not cause any damage, and the second guy could come along and hit the cockpit with 1 MG round causing a pilot kill... and the first guy would be awarded the kill and the second an assist...

It's not who breaks the most stuff, it's who put the most amount of lead into the plane.

There is nothing new about this at all though.  The only thing new is that once the plane is critically damaged, it will cease to take any further damage, as it is going to crash (or asplode) anyway.

[Motherland]

Thanks kvuo...I must have just thought of it wrong...so how much damage is 10-20 taters into a plane vs 10-20 50 cals.

Consider this scenario...

Some guy peppers an aircraft, causing significant damage to all parts, but no visible (on your end) damage.
You come along and shower him with taters. First one finishes off the wing, and then the rest of them (split seconds afterward) massacre the rest of the aircraft.
Now, originally, the damage you inflicted after the wing came off would have been calculated in, and then you would have got the kill.
However, now, the game just sees that you placed the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak, and the guy who peppered him beforehand got the kill.

[Spikes]

Yeah I get it...just a misunderstanding on my end.

On the contrary...how would such a system of taking the vital part off/getting the kill be? I think it'd work pretty good...after all the one who takes a guy's wing off is the one who 'killed' him.

[Tigger29]

Well Spikes, there's a sort of 'fairness' they are trying to incorporate into the whole kill thing, which is why the new rule was enacted in the first place.

It may not seem fair that the person who actually destroyed the plane may not get the kill,  but put yourself on the other side of the fence.  If you had unloaded all of your ammo into an enemy plane - knocking off one aileron, rudder, one stabilizer, half a wing, engine, and caused a pilot wound... how would you feel if you were only awarded an assist because another friendly came up and 'pinged' the plane with one MG round, breaking off the rest of its wing?  I'd be pretty ticked.

Now in real life, is that how kills were awarded?  Obviously no because these things were reported due to eyewitness accounts - but also in real life, I think people were more concerned about not dying more so than getting awarded a kill...

[Knite]

Yeah I get it...just a misunderstanding on my end.

On the contrary...how would such a system of taking the vital part off/getting the kill be? I think it'd work pretty good...after all the one who takes a guy's wing off is the one who 'killed' him.

The problem with that scenario is our current "binary" damage system (either destroyed or not).
For instance :

Pilot A fires into a P-38J at a high deflection angle. Quite a lot of .50 cal hit. The hits take out 2 of the 38's MGs, pilot wound, left engine, left flap, left Aerilon, nose gear, left gear, puncture fuel tanks, and left rudder and elevator. The P-38 bugs out and tries to head for home. Obviously this plane isn't going to be the easiest to fly, and quite unable to perform much in the way of combat maneuvering.
On landing approach, Pilot B comes along, sees an "easy kill", and lands a 30mm tater into the already heavily damaged left wing, and the P-38 crashes into the ground destroyed.
In the current system, Pilot A gets the kill. If the rule applies of only "vital part = kill", then Pilot B would get the kill. Which pilot deserves it more?

Another example :
Pilot A lands a couple of 13mm and a 30mm tater on the backside of a F6F, appearing to only damage the aft fuel tanks (but in truth, heavily damages the aft fuselage, vert and horiz stabilizers). Pilot B comes by and hits the F6F with a snapshot of .303s and the entire tail of the F6F comes off.
In the current system, Pilot A would get the kill for the heavy damaged caused by their strike. In the "Vital part = kill" system, Pilot B gets the kill. Which pilot deserves it more?


Just a couple of scenarios to think about.

[Spikes]

Those are situations I didn't think of, thanks guys!

[jay]

ive hit off many items example: fuel tanks,elevator,oil,pilot wound and some basterd flies by with a plane full of 20MM's and 30MM's and i get an assist!

[Knite]

Those are situations I didn't think of, thanks guys!

 
Anytime. =)


jay : It completely depends on how many of your bullets hit vs. how many of their cannon shells hit, and how much damage done by each. Even if they did 1 point of damage more than you (such as 251 vs. 250), they'd get the kill.

[THRASH99]

ive hit off many items example: fuel tanks,elevator,oil,pilot wound and some basterd flies by with a plane full of 20MM's and 30MM's and i get an assist!

Yea, had the same problem a few days ago with that. I hit a guy with 3 20mm about 10 times(short burst), it gives him an oil leak and radiator damage, some guy flies behind him and shoots him with a few 50 cal rounds and I'll get the assist even though I did more damage then he did and hit him more. Something has to be wrong there for kills on 20mm vs 50 cal, and it happens all the time. Oh well, someone will look at it sooner or later

[warhed]

I can't see how much more fair it could be if whoever destroyed a vital first, got the kill.  Whoever stops controlled flight first, is awarded the kill in other words.  If you dump all your ammo into a plane and it maintains controlled flight, you didn't kill him, you wounded him.  However, if someone comes along and puts a single round into him, and finally his vert stab falls off, then he, not you, are the one who ended controlled flight for your enemy.  Is that fair?  Yes.  I have yet to see how it isn't.  I  don't understand why it cannot be as black and white as that.