Collision: how is / should this scenario be scored?

[NCLawman]

I have been reading about collision attacks since I hve been playing. There is a simple solution to end the complaints. If there is a collision both planes go down no one gets the kill. Sounds simple to me

With a statement that bright .... you have been playing now for how long?  about 3 days???  Sounds about right.  Please refer back to above posts explaining THAT TWO PLANES DON'T ALWAYS COLLIDE!!!!!!!!


Holy thick-heads, Batman.  These fledglings just WON'T get it.

[hitech]

Lusche: Read him again carefully. He has come up with something no one asked for before. He didn't say they don't take damage. Only that no one is awarded the kill.

This really would not change things much.

It would only change things if the plane was undamaged and exploded do to crash awarding a maneuver kill. Most of the time on the head on both would be damaged already by guns and hence a kill would still be awarded.

But as I think threw it, it penalizes the guy who missed and rewards the guy who screwed up by not awarding his kill.

HiTech

[Lusche]

Lusche: Read him again carefully. He has come up with something no one asked for before. He didn't say they don't take damage.

I'm not that sure... "If there is a collision both planes go down no one gets the kill." To me, the "no kills" is just on top of that. 

[hitech]

You could be correct. In which case same ow sane ow.

[Ghosth]

I always felt that to take away the potential for the other guy to get a kill in that situation. Would in fact promote more people to joust and collide that way. Without that possibility of death, and the other guy gets a kill to discourage that behavior. The potential is there for it to be abused much more often.


Bearing in mind of course that it is your sandbox HT. But I feel that would negatively impact game play in the long run.

[Ghastly]

Simpler solution: Don't crash into the plane flying at you and you won't go down.

I think HTC needs to implement collision stats for each player, so the newbs that whine can see that the vets don't collide that much and maybe there's a reason for that hmmm?

Grizz - at first blush, I liked this idea - but as I thought about a bit more I realized something.

All that it would "prove" to the players that want to argue the collision modeling is that the veteran players know "how to game collisions".  And as further proof, since the vets who understand it argue against changing it, you "just know" they must benefit from it.   (Which is actually true, although not in the way they think-  more in the same way that having killshooter on benefits everyone sane.)

It all depends on your preconceptions. And while you can bring the donkey to water, you can't stop him from braying.

<S>

[grizz441]

Grizz - at first blush, I liked this idea - but as I thought about a bit more I realized something.

All that it would "prove" to the players that want to argue the collision modeling is that the veteran players know "how to game collisions".  And as further proof, since the vets who understand it argue against changing it, you "just know" they must benefit from it.   (Which is actually true, although not in the way they think-  more in the same way that having killshooter on benefits everyone sane.)

It all depends on your preconceptions. And while you can bring the donkey to water, you can't stop him from braying.

<S>

You're probably right, you can't fix stupid.

My personal favorite way to game the collision model is by trying to avoid the aircraft flying towards me.  It works like a charm most of the time.  The stats would still be nice though just to try and make flying improvements.  There's definitely a correlation between ramming frequently and being a member of Teh Suk Klub.

[Wiley]

There's definitely a correlation between ramming frequently and being a member of Teh Suk Klub.

Bah, I rarely collide, and I'm a card carrying member.

I don't see how it can be explained more clearly than it has been.  Has someone with the knowhow ever done, or could they do a 'split screen' video showing the pony and jug from Lusche's screenshot there moving in realtime, so they could see 'This is what the pony sees.'  'This is what the jug sees.'  'Do you still want both planes to die in a collision if you are in the jug?'  Perhaps running through the 5 seconds before impact maybe 3 or 4 times, asking the same question.

It could be uploaded to Youtube, and then we would have a handy clear as day video example of why it's a bad idea.  I'd do it but I have no idea how to go about doing such things.

Wiley.

[Lusche]

Bah, I rarely collide, and I'm a card carrying member.

I don't see how it can be explained more clearly than it has been.  Has someone with the knowhow ever done, or could they do a 'split screen' video showing the pony and jug from Lusche's screenshot there moving in realtime, so they could see 'This is what the pony sees.'  'This is what the jug sees.'  'Do you still want both planes to die in a collision if you are in the jug?'  Perhaps running through the 5 seconds before impact maybe 3 or 4 times, asking the same question.

See this message http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,294224.msg3751571.html#msg3751571 in this thread. Both views are superimposed on each other, centered on the jug. You can see the pony twice, one representing the position in the pony pilot's universe, one representing it's potion in the Jug pilot's universe.

But I can't recount how often the film and various screenshots have been posted and the players STILL stomped their feet, yelling "but both should die". They just ignored the screenshots & films. There is a reason I almost never get an answer on my standard "should the Jug die?" question

[grizz441]

Bah, I rarely collide, and I'm a card carrying member.

I don't see how it can be explained more clearly than it has been.  Has someone with the knowhow ever done, or could they do a 'split screen' video showing the pony and jug from Lusche's screenshot there moving in realtime, so they could see 'This is what the pony sees.'  'This is what the jug sees.'  'Do you still want both planes to die in a collision if you are in the jug?'  Perhaps running through the 5 seconds before impact maybe 3 or 4 times, asking the same question.

It could be uploaded to Youtube, and then we would have a handy clear as day video example of why it's a bad idea.  I'd do it but I have no idea how to go about doing such things.

Wiley.

It has been done to no avail.  I think the limiting factor is a brain incapable of understanding how space/time vary in the internet world.  It's just something some people can't wrap their minds around.  Like walking and chewing gum at the same time.  It's just tough for some.

[Digr1]

With a statement that bright .... you have been playing now for how long?  about 3 days???  Sounds about right.  Please refer back to above posts explaining THAT TWO PLANES DON'T ALWAYS COLLIDE!!!!!!!!


Holy thick-heads, Batman.  These fledglings just WON'T get it.

if two objects hit there is a collision ergo you collide, but you say nothing to improve your point except insults. as for how long have I been playing, lets just say LONGER THAN YOU, so that would make you the fledgling.
Now back to the point.
1 this is a game
2 the internet has one thing I have only seen addressed once or twice LAG so different points of view will show different things
3 I'm tired of hearing ones like you who complain when anything happens to you ( no matter how good you might be there will always be someone better)that's why the simple solution is the better.
if you  cant say anything that is not advise and want to try to insult someone DONT POST
and take an English course if you going to use insults at least spell it correctly

[Wiley]

Heh.  My apologies for missing the post with the GIF in this very thread.  Egg on my face.

With that being there, how can ANYBODY argue the point?  Really.  No, seriously.  The 51 sees itself colliding at the front, the jug sees the pony where it shows further back, 6 plane lengths behind it when the collision occurs.  Who wants to be in that jug when it goes down and believes that is fair?  Really?  This animated gif here:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,294224.msg3751571.html#msg3751571

Who wants to be in that jug if they say both planes should die when one of them sees a collision?

Wiley.

[grizz441]

if two objects hit there is a collision ergo you collide, but you say nothing to improve your point except insults. as for how long have I been playing, lets just say LONGER THAN YOU, so that would make you the fledgling.
Now back to the point.
1 this is a game
2 the internet has one thing I have only seen addressed once or twice LAG so different points of view will show different things
3 I'm tired of hearing ones like you who complain when anything happens to you ( no matter how good you might be there will always be someone better)that's why the simple solution is the better.
if you  cant say anything that is not advise and want to try to insult someone DONT POST
and take an English course if you going to use insults at least spell it correctly

Please refer to Tec's flowchart on page one.  If you do not know how to read a flowchart, perhaps another flowchart can be made explaining how to read one.  Wait, that wouldn't work... 

[maus92]

From the Jug scenario used earlier:

The overtaking Pony FE's detects a collision and dies, yet the Jug flys on because it never collided from its perspective...

Consider this: what is the difference when a shooter's FE detects hits on the target, and damages/kills it- even if from the target pilot's perspective, the shot was impossible (assuming that lag caused the difference in perspective?)

Why in one instance is the target left unscathed, yet in the other, destroyed?  In the second example, the target pilot could deny that the was hit - yet dies because it was a valid solution from the shooter's perspective.  In the Pony/Jug example, the Jug (target) survives, yet should have been damaged from the Pony's perspective.  In both instances, the Jug wouldn't perceive a cause for his demise.  The argument / justification of "how would the Jug feel" in the collision scenario doesn't jive with how the a target might feel if he was killed from a seemly impossible shot.

(Retreating to my corner, dunce cap on)

[Lusche]

Consider this: what is the difference when a shooter's FE detects hits on the target, and damages/kills it- even if from the target pilot's perspective, the shot was impossible (assuming that lag caused the difference in perspective?)

Why in one instance is the target left unscathed, yet in the other, destroyed?  In the second example, the target pilot could deny that the was hit - yet dies because it was a valid solution from the shooter's perspective.

Because it's the only way a game like this could ever work.

The "multiple realities" (one for each player) is given and unchangeable. It creates several problems, each has to be approached individually to enable a working air combat game.


Feel free to ponder about what would happen if you would really happen if you would change the current solutions.