collisions

[hitech]

alright, fair enough.

So, If due to internet lag, collisions cannot be applied equitably, why have them? make them the same as flying through a friendly.

No one said collisions can not be applied equitably. Right now is the most equitable way I can think of. If YOU collide with an enemy plane, YOU take damage. If ANYONE collides with an enemy  plane they take damage. 100% equitable, everyone has the same rules regardless of lag.

HiTech

[Vinkman]

Yes, there would be. Unlike the current model, players with a higher lag would profit from it as they would have a much lower probability to be in a collision at all.

To illustrate (with numbers made up on the fly, just to show the principle)

Player A: Ping/Lag 30
Player B: Ping/Lag 30
Player C: Ping/Lag 300

Player A and Player B are about to collide. Total lag is very small, so collision is seen on both FE's - CRASH
Player A and Player C are about to collide. Total lag is quite high, so collision is NOT seen on both FE's - wuuush, no crash

Player A and B have a high chance of being part in collisions, player C does not. This is unfair and has a big impact on flying tactics - player C can fly through enemy planes guns blazing with low risk, 'great' for killing bombers.

Are you making this point backwards? What you discribe in all cases is the way it is now. Player C yanks the stick into me and collides with me and my plane comes apart. I get a collision meassage saying "I hit so and so" and he flies off with no damage.  I realize player C missed me on his screen. The complaint is that Player A did not initiate a move that caused a colision, nor could he avoid it. Same for a bandit zooming your 6 oclock and crashing through you, you get a collide and crash and he flies off with no damage.

I think the OP, would like it changed to where if the front end recognizes a collision, both planes get a collide. You computer knows what two parts of the planes collided on your front end, so that info could be sent through the server to the other plane and he could be damaged too. Of course the down side of that would be the guy who didn't hit someone on his screen got an "unfair" collision message.

So both situatiions are "unfair".  Those in support of the current system feel that it's more "unfair" to give a collision message to a plane that never saw a collision, than it is to give one to a plane that did see a collision, but the collision ends up one sided.

I've only played long enough to play under the current system. I accept it as good compromise.

[The Fugitive]

No one said collisions can not be applied equitably. Right now is the most equitable way I can think of. If YOU collide with an enemy plane, YOU take damage. If ANYONE collides with an enemy  plane they take damage. 100% equitable, everyone has the same rules regardless of lag.

HiTech

What he is saying, it's all up to you! If you AVOID the collision YOU won't take damage. It is that simple. Don't worry about the other guy, which you have no control over, just worry about YOU.

[Lusche]

Are you making this point backwards? What you discribe in all cases is the way it is now.

Absolutely not. What I described is "either both have collision, or none at all". The current model is entirely different, one can have a collision while the other player does not. What you see is what you get.

[Vinkman]

What he is saying, it's all up to you! If you AVOID the collision YOU won't take damage. It is that simple. Don't worry about the other guy, which you have no control over, just worry about YOU.

But it's not all up to you, that's his complaint. Players are frustrated because they want a model that determines "fault".  In frustration they want Both, like no fault car insurance.  

[The Fugitive]

But it's not all up to you, that's his complaint. Players are frustrated because they want a model that determines "fault".  In frustration they want Both, like no fault car insurance.  

Explain how it is NOT all up to you. If you don't collide you don't take damage. Thats it.

[Vinkman]

Absolutely not. What I described is "either both have collision, or none at all". The current model is entirely different, one can have a collision while the other player does not. What you see is what you get.

You are correct. I read it wrong. I thought he was asking for both sides to get a collision when anyone gets a collision. Then I miss read your description as describing that same thing. Youand the OP  describe A vs C as Player C passes through Player A. Which would only happen when there wsa lag diferential. And would not happen when there wasn't.

I agree that would be worse.  

[Vinkman]

Explain how it is NOT all up to you. If you don't collide you don't take damage. Thats it.

Because you are defining "up to you" meaning "your computer sees a collision." Others define "up to you" as fault. If yo are flying along in a buff and a 262 makes a 600mph pass at you and rams you, and your buff's wing breaks off and down you go, and the 262 flies off unscathed. Was it "up to you"?

[Karnak]

 Vinkman,

Players don't yank themselves into you.  They make a move that looks safe on their FE that causes a dangerous situation on your FE.  You are responsible for not putting yourself in a position where you cannot avoid being hit if the con makes certain maneuvers.  There is no practical reason in AH to try to maneuver for a collision with an enemy aircraft with unknowable lag separation when you can just shoot him eith your guns.

[Vinkman]

Vinkman,

Players don't yank themselves into you.  They make a move that looks safe on their FE that causes a dangerous situation on your FE.  You are responsible for not putting yourself in a position where you cannot avoid being hit if the con makes certain maneuvers.  There is no practical reason in AH to try to maneuver for a collision with an enemy aircraft with unknowable lag separation when you can just shoot him eith your guns.

I know. I didn't say players are purposely trying to hit you. See above post about 262 ramming a bomber. 

[Torquila]

The current implementation certainly is genious in its sense of elegence; but like mentioned, at this time it doesn't properly convey circumstances which would lead to an appropriate outcome in certain aircraft (like accidentally ramming a bomber with a 163 or a 262).

Maybe greater position resolution is required for aircraft within 1k?

[Karnak]

I know. I didn't say players are purposely trying to hit you. See above post about 262 ramming a bomber. 

Unfortunately there isn't really a fix for that.

[Charge]

"Really want a collision model that kills both and no one gets a kill."

 

-C+

[shotgunneeley]

             "You have collided"     "Handle has collided with you"
Player- Player was in the enemy's grill                  Player missed the enemy by 20 yards

Enemy- Enemy was in the player's grill                 Enemy missed the player by 20 yards

Of course, what really throws a monkey wrench into things and gets people angry, is when the damage seems to be awarded to the player not at fault. (i.e. I got the "player has collided with you message", but I'm the one who is missing a wing?!?!). This could possibly be explained as the two involved in the collision were firing at one another and though the player felt the enemy plane missed the ram, the bullets didn't.

[The Fugitive]

Because you are defining "up to you" meaning "your computer sees a collision." Others define "up to you" as fault. If yo are flying along in a buff and a 262 makes a 600mph pass at you and rams you, and your buff's wing breaks off and down you go, and the 262 flies off unscathed. Was it "up to you"?

Sure it was, you could have maneuvered, or shot him down. You fail at both, you SHOULD lose a wing at the least.