Collisions

[FLS]

Post what you want & I will do the same. Who went and made you the expert on what to post or not? The point I'm trying to make is that no (ONE) player should die because another player rammed their plane into them. Make the game a more fair & level playing field so that at least both go down. This would cause less mouthing off when it does occur. (MAYBE)  


(Edited by me for miss closing quote)

You say you want the player who rammed you to get damaged. This already happens. You are asking for the player who missed you to also get damaged and you think this would be more fair. This is likely why people think you don't understand the collision model.

[MK-84]

The people that voice their displeasure...

Either do not understand how collisions work in the game, or refuse to believe in any reality other then their own even is reality is smacking them repeatedly in the head over and over.

In the case of the latter, this are probably the same people that would have no idea on a subjects matter, other then something they briefly thought up...then walk up to a doctorate in that field and tell him he's doing it wrong.

...Or overclock say...a GPU...

...or MK-84 when he's drunk...  

[Wiley]

Make the game a more fair & level playing field so that at least both go down. This would cause less mouthing off when it does occur. (MAYBE)  


(Edited by me for miss closing quote)

I just want you to fully understand what you are saying, Edit: (as this is the part that most of us are disagreeing with and have trouble understanding how someone could think otherwise).  The above quote means you are saying that an online gamer who gets hit by an invisible aircraft will mouth off and get frustrated less than one who watches the other plane fly away after hitting him?

The guy flying the P47 in this picture would experience a collision and fall out of the sky...



And he would complain less (edit: than the P51 driver who collided at this instant and watched the P47 fly away).  You truly believe that?

If that's the case, that's 'agree to disagree' territory right there.  No more can be said on either side.

Wiley.

[EVZ]

The people that voice their displeasure... Either do not understand how collisions work in the game, or refuse to believe in any reality other then their own - In the case of the latter, this are probably the same people that would have no idea on a subjects matter, other then something they briefly thought up...then walk up to a doctorate in that field and tell him he's doing it wrong.

Yeah!  The kind of idiots that sit down in a bath tub, watch the water rise, and ... BINGO ... Think they've discovered a universal truth !!!

...or MK-84 when he's drunk...

ewwwww ... you drink in the BATHTUB ??? !!!

[FLS]

Yeah!  The kind of idiots that sit down in a bath tub, watch the water rise, and ... BINGO ... Think they've discovered a universal truth !!!

Like Archemedis. And Aristotle was the source of my "no logos" comment.  It's all Greek to me.

[EVZ]

The point I'm trying to make is that no (ONE) player should die because another player rammed their plane into them. Make the game a more fair & level playing field so that at least both go down.

An excellent example of a popular sentiment.

You say you want the player who rammed you to get damaged. This already happens. You are asking for the player who missed you to also get damaged and you think this would be more fair. This is likely why people think you don't understand the collision model.

For many players, it's NOT ABOUT understanding the collision model ... They don't WANT to understand technicalities, they want to immerse themselves in a simulated environment and ESCAPE from technicalities for a while ... Mid Air collisions that 1 party flys away from, only to do it again to someone else 5 minutes later, make it a bit hard to remain immersed ... the game fails to provide what they are looking for ... they move on ... AH loses another customer. I'm pretty sure if you did a survey you'd find that 90% or more of the players here DO NOT understand the collision model and VERY FEW of them like it.

Had a collision event last night, an experienced player trying to zoom off the deck in an a-20 (I think) for a suprise HO. I instinctively pinged him at long range then pulled up and cut power as he zoomed and bled E. Sure enough ... He hit it ... I got the kill, he got to cuss ... Am I supposed to be PROUD of that? The GAMEY aspects become instinctive ... I wasn't flying a 190, I was flying a Pentium ... Not sure that's what -I- want to do.

[FLS]

EVZ making up percentages doesn't win arguments. It's not good rhetoric, it's just BS. You don't like the collision model, I get that. What you quoted wasn't directed at you. I still have hope for some of the other posters but not you. You will continue to dislike the collision model and I'm OK with that.

[grizz441]

See rule #4

[RTHolmes]

Had a collision event last night, an experienced player trying to zoom off the deck in an a-20 (I think) for a suprise HO. I instinctively pinged him at long range then pulled up and cut power as he zoomed and bled E. Sure enough ... He hit it ... I got the kill, he got to cuss

so you didnt see a collision on your end?

and you would have been happier if you had been sent straight to the tower?

[EVZ]

See rule #4

[EVZ]

so you didnt see a collision on your end?

No ... I saw the text that HE COLLIDED ... as I expected him to.

and you would have been happier if you had been sent straight to the tower?

I doubt I'd have done it to him if I'd known in advance that I would die too ...

[RTHolmes]

No ... I saw the text that HE COLLIDED ... as I expected him to.

so you didnt see a collision on your end?

[EVZ]

so you didnt see a collision on your end?

It's a 2 letter word ... what part of NO is it that you don't understand?

[Karnak]

No ... I saw the text that HE COLLIDED ... as I expected him to.

Then he ought to have avoided colliding with you.  It happened on his end, he had every opportunity to avoid it, yet he ran into you.

My heart bleeds for him.  No, wait, it doesn't.

Maybe he whined, but had that been me, I would have shrugged, mentally reprimanded myself and upped another aircraft.


EVZ, you think that the collisions would be less common and the whining less common if both went down.  That you are so far divorced from reality makes it impossible to have a discussion with you on the subject.  You don't even acknowledge the shortcomings of "They both go down".

[VonMessa]

so you didnt see a collision on your end?

Apparently you missed his invisible "No".

Yet he wants to die, anyhow?

Can it be coded that i works that way just for him?

That way, he will be happy and status quo shall remain unchanged for the rest of us...