Collisions

[tunnelrat]

Soviet pilots regularly employed ramming and used their props to chop up enemy control surfaces.... because that's how Russians roll.

[grizz441]

I would penalise that player for participating in, and possibly CAUSING (intentionally or not) -A- collision ... He put himself INTO that position and accepted the known risk ... a collision occurs ... he goes down too.

If you want to postulate he was BEING rammed, maybe trying to avoid, and NOT making a CHOICE to participate ... it's also really simple ... He FAILED.

SOMEBODY is always going to complain ... I can't eliminate that ... But MY WAY does eliminate the GAMEY use of this factor as a weapon and DISCOURAGES any behavior that LEADS to collisions. It's also (IMHO) more realistic.

Skuzzy, Hitech... permission to post Tec's Collision flowchart.

[hitech]

I would penalise that player for participating in, and possibly CAUSING (intentionally or not) -A- collision ... He put himself INTO that position and accepted the known risk ... a collision occurs ... he goes down too.

If you want to postulate he was BEING rammed, maybe trying to avoid, and NOT making a CHOICE to participate ... it's also really simple ... He FAILED.

SOMEBODY is always going to complain ... I can't eliminate that ... But MY WAY does eliminate the GAMEY use of this factor as a weapon and DISCOURAGES any behavior that LEADS to collisions. It's also (IMHO) more realistic.

To paraphrase, you wish to fly past another plane, intentionally miss that plane by 100 ft, and then explode do to a collision?

HiTech

[EVZ]

To paraphrase, you wish to fly past another plane, intentionally miss that plane by 100 ft, and then explode do to a collision?
HiTech

That's at least pretty close to what takes place when causing an intentional collision, that the perpetrator NOW survives ... I don't think they should.
Do you ?

[Ack-Ack]

Why would you want to penalize a player for not colliding?  Doesn't make for very good game mechanics and game play.

ack-ack

[Zodiac]

I would penalise that player for participating in, and possibly CAUSING (intentionally or not) -A- collision ... He put himself INTO that position and accepted the known risk ... a collision occurs ... he goes down too.

If you want to postulate he was BEING rammed, maybe trying to avoid, and NOT making a CHOICE to participate ... it's also really simple ... He FAILED.

SOMEBODY is always going to complain ... I can't eliminate that ... But MY WAY does eliminate the GAMEY use of this factor as a weapon and DISCOURAGES any behavior that LEADS to collisions. It's also (IMHO) more realistic.

  The model you are proposing is infinitely more 'gamey' than what we have now. If everyone is getting towered due to collisions that never happened on their end, how long do you think they are going to keep subscribing? Is what we have perfect? No. Will any collision model ever be perfect? Not until someone figures a way to eliminate latency from the internet. Is the flight model we have the best model possible at this time for playability? Absolutely, I don't want to explode because you saw a collision on your computer that I avoided by 100 feet on mine. Scientific Method:Form a theory, and then do everything you can to find holes in your theory and to prove that it will not work. If it holds up to your scrutiny, then propose it to others for them to try and find holes in it.

[hitech]

That's at least pretty close to what takes place when causing an intentional collision, that the perpetrator NOW survives ... I don't think they should.
Do you ?

To again be clear , YOU want YOUR plane to NOT touch another plane, and then blow up even though YOU intentionally maneuvered so that you would not hit the other plane?

This is not a pretty close question, this is a YES or NO , that is how you wish the game to work in the future.

HiTech

[ImADot]

He's asking for the game to determine the INTENT of every player and penalize someone who INTENTIONALLY causes someone else's front-end to detect a collision while they themselves avoided it and fly away with no damage. In that case, the perpetrator (who didn't actually collide) would blow up.

The question is: how does the game determine INTENT?
The other question is: why not fly to avoid collisions?

I myself have never collided and taken damage where it wasn't partly my fault.

[EVZ]

This is not a pretty close question, this is a YES or NO , that is how you wish the game to work in the future.
HiTech

I think I made it pretty clear ... Not sure why you need to make it a YES or NO? ... Yes ... If my participation results in a collision that causes someone else to crash, I should crash too. I may have avoided the actual contact but I was as much a part of the process that created the collision as the other guy ... and in the future I'd better make sure it doesn't happen if I don't want to crash again. Apply that collision model to EVERYONE playing the game and collisions will become a LOT less frequent.

[RTHolmes]

if I go to the trouble of successfully avoiding a collision, I dont think its fair that I should take damage as you suggest.

I prefer it how it is now, where if I go to the trouble of successfully avoiding a collision, I dont take damage.

[EVZ]

He's asking for the game to determine the INTENT

No... I'm asking for the game to ignore intent completely and operate strictly on the basis of results ... A collision occurs, YOU do NOT escape and survive ...

I myself have never collided and taken damage where it wasn't partly my fault.

And it's unlikely anyone ELSE has ever collided with you and taken damage when it wasn't "partly your fault." You participated in the event, you pay the price for the result ... REGARDLESS of your intent.

[RTHolmes]

I'm asking for the game to ignore intent completely and operate strictly on the basis of results ... A collision occurs, YOU do NOT escape and survive ...

thats how it works now.

do you understand that in a 1v1 theres 4 aircraft?

[VonMessa]

thats how it works now.

do you understand that in a 1v1 theres 4 aircraft?

Easy, Holmes.

You will make his head explode.

[Wiley]

Guys, I think you're missing the point.  EVZ is one of those guys that (I think) understands how it works, he would just be happier having his plane blow up when the other guy hits him, even though on his end, he's yards away from a collision.

I don't understand the mentality, but I had a squaddie who felt the same way.

Wiley.

[EVZ]

if I go to the trouble of successfully avoiding a collision, I dont think its fair that I should take damage as you suggest.

But you see you DIDN'T avoid a collision, you participated in one, YOUR plane WAS collided with, just not on YOUR front end. You quite possibly CAUSED it to occur (even if unintentionally) ... you just got away with it ...