Computer controlled 5" puffy should not damage friendly aircraft

[Pand]

To sum it up. The CV actually works against the defending pilot and to the advantage of the higher damage receiving Buffs. Its funny that the friendly fire will clear the enemies 6. 

This

[lmxar]

If you decided not to reactivate because of a 2 month old thread, obviously you were looking for a reason not to reactivate. It is called burnout.

HiTech

If I hated AH and never wanted to reactivate, then why would I be on the forum?  I made a reply, and just checked it.  I am going to stick with IL-2 single player.  Any person that owns a business in this economy that is this abrasive towards players will get absolutely none of my money.  I loved AH.  Too bad the coder can't even follow his own forum rules.

If you would have responded with a non-flaming, and coherent response, I would have re-subscribed.  To be honest, I was never shot down by puffy ack.  But the fact that you responded to a loyal customer this way made me reconsider my options.  Rule #4, and enjoy -$15/month

[The Fugitive]

See rule #4.

[hitech]

lmxar:Where in my response to you is there even a hint of a flame.

My guess would be, is that you feel you wish you could come back and find the excitement you used to have when you first began.

But every time you try you just can't get yourself started. And soon you find something that prevents you from flying.

lmxar: I really have seen your behavior a lot of times. The symptoms are always the same.

They normally have the following characteristics stated by the player.

1. I used to have a lot of fun playing AH, almost to the point of addiction.
2. I no longer feel the excitement and drive to play like I used to,or I quit and wish I could feel that excitement again.
3. It must be HTC's (or some other group or play style) fault that I no longer have fun like I used to, because I have not changed since I started, hence I will go vent my frustrations.

So lets take a real look at the beginning of this thread in a wish list forum.

Another instance---

Diving on B26's attacking friendly carrier --- Kill all 3, but the computer doesn't realize the last B26 is missing half it's wing and continues to fire, blowing me out of the air.

Never seen computer controlled puffy actually kill an enemy bomber flying straight and level before, but it sure is good at killing maneuvering fighters, enemy or friendly!  Sweet!

This post could very easily have been moderated, it breaks many rules. It is not even a wish, posted in the wish list forum. It is not respectful. What would you like to call it? A completely over stated complaint in stead of a "whine"? How am I supposed to respond to some one complaining that they got shot down by friendly ack when they were flying in friendly ack, when  I designed the game to have a possibility of shooting down friendly's?

So Instead of moderating it, I respond with the humor I found in the post.

As to my response to you, what would you have preferred me to do? Instead of responding to you with what I believe?

HiTech

[Pand]

It is not even a wish, posted in the wish list forum.

Correction:
The wish was in the topic subject: "Computer controlled 5" puffy should not damage friendly aircraft"
The rest of the post was my reasons for wanting the wish

[tunnelrat]

When the friendly ack hit Pand, the friendly ack should have blown up.

Just like the friendly 80hd blows up when he hits friendlies =(

[Babalonian]

This

Correction:
The wish was in the topic subject: "Computer controlled 5" puffy should not damage friendly aircraft"
The rest of the post was my reasons for wanting the wish

You sure it isn't something as mortal as flawed logic?  Getting to less than 300 meters from your target's 6 has it's own logic to it and for it's own very valid reasons.  Those get thrown out the window when you also plug in the logic that friendly 5" auto-puffy DOESNT differentiate between friend or foe - if it connects, something is gonna feel some boom.

I know of some players I'd classify as "professional" CV defenders, the most successful I've observed have adopted (for the most-part) very long-distance convergences and they utilise those convergenes at relatively far and (coincidence?) safe distances from friendly 5" auto-puffy surrounding the target.  

[Pand]

You sure it isn't something as mortal as flawed logic?

Where is my logic flawed?

Simple points:

1.  Auto CV Puffy is ineffective against bombers.   Why have it even fire at them if it's not going to get the job done?

2.  Auto CV Puffy is more effective at killing fighters defending the CV than killing the bombers attacking it.  The CV group is hurting itself by shooting down friendlies that actually have an opportunity to destroy the threat.  

3.  Everything that is considered friendly fire in the game does not hurt other friendlies, except for computer controlled anti-aircraft.

Possible options:
To point #1 and #2:
   if [[ $planetype = "fighter" ]]; then
      autopuffy = "on"
   else
      autopuffy = "off"
   fi

To point #3
   Keep everything consistent and friendly fire does not kill friendlies (review topic subject).

[hitech]

2.  Auto CV Puffy is more effective at killing fighters defending the CV than killing the bombers attacking it.  The CV group is hurting itself by shooting down friendlies that actually have an opportunity to destroy the threat.  

Your error in logic is that it appears you did not use any. Logic constitutes a series of facts that then using the (if a implies b, and if b implies c, then A implies c rule) to support a conclusion.

You start by stating a conclusions with zero facts.

" Auto CV Puffy is more effective at killing fighters defending the CV than killing the bombers attacking it." Is not a fact, this would be a conclusion. So what exact fact do you have to use logic to support your conclusion.

This is just plane silly, for you to be hit by friendly ack, you must be close enough to an enemy to be with in side the "Ack Box". ( A fact) 

Hence you can fly all day in range of friendly ack , and never even have the possibility of being hit.
(a conclusions because  you are not inside the box, implies B there is no ack with in range to hit you.)
(and b if no flack is in range to hit you , you will C never be hit)

The enemy on the other hand, is inside the flack box when ever he is in range of the box unless another enemy is closer to the flack. (A Fact)

Once you are inside the flack box , your chances of being  hit are the same as the enemy.  So on a normal attack the bomber would be inside the flack box for  for how many minutes? Maybe 5 minutes? And how long is the attacking fighter inside the box? Maybe 15 secs? So that alone would make a difference in chances of getting hit by flack 20 to 1.

2nd it completely ignores that there also are enemy fighters that get shot at by ack.

HiTech

[ImADot]

2.  Auto CV Puffy is more effective at killing fighters defending the CV than killing the bombers attacking it.

Aren't fighters less massive than bombers, and thus easier to damage? A "near miss" would (and should) do more damage to a fighter than a bomber and chances are greater for a fighter "insta-death".

[Pand]

Statement:  Auto CV ack will likely never take down a bomber formation before or after it drops its ordnance to kill a CV.  
Logical Conclusion:  Shooting Auto CV at a bomber formation is useless.  

Statment: Friendly fighters actually have a chance to kill the bomber formation before or after it drops its ordnance to kill a CV.
Logical Conclusion: Don't risk shooting at enemy bombers with Auto CV ack since you can't kill it anyway, and put friendly fighters that could kill the bombers in harms way.

2nd it completely ignores that there also are enemy fighters that get shot at by ack.

HiTech

I included an if/then statement that references enemy fighters specifically in my previous post... keep shooting at them because it almost never misses; however, don't bother shooting at enemy bombers because it's not going to take them down.

Possible options:
To point #1 and #2:
   if [[ $planetype = "fighter" ]]; then
      autopuffy = "on"
   else
      autopuffy = "off"
   fi

[hitech]

Again Not 1 fact in your posts. You start with conclusions.

HiTech

[Pand]

You're right, I don't have back end data--- just my experience.  

How many videos of buffs would we need flying over CVs taking auto puffy and surviving to make it a fact?  

I ask that question in the most respectable way possible. 

[hitech]

Videos would do absolutely nothing. A video would only show that a bomber can live. Has nothing to do with the % of times it is killed vs not.


Simply doing some real testing, I.E. make multiple passes, log altitude, time in ack, times hit, times died, times lived.


Btw all this is a moot point as far as your request goes, because I will not be changing the fact that ack will kill friendlies. But right now you are asking for ack to be made more accurate is that correct? Because you are claiming it never kills bombers.

[Pand]

Btw all this is a moot point as far as your request goes, because I will not be changing the fact that ack will kill friendlies. But right now you are asking for ack to be made more accurate is that correct? Because you are claiming it never kills bombers.

I'm saying that I've personally died more times to friendly auto CV ack shooting at enemy bombers, than I've seen auto CV ack down enemy bombers.   I think that auto CV ack should be more accurate for straight and level bombers not deviating course or altitude, or don't bother firing at all.