How about a common-sense scoring system

[Karnak]

banana,

Maybe my proposed system would improve things if it simply ended the damage count once the first fatal damage had occured.

As soon as an entire wing, tail or elevators are gone, then no damage done from that time forward counts towards who killed it.

[Wanker]

Sounds reasonable to me, Karnak. But then again, I'm not the one who has to program it.

[Nifty]

"that's not how it was in WWII"

do you use the clipboard radar?  If so, that's not how it was done in WWII.

do you fly the plane you want, when you want, for the country you want, doing the mission you want?  If so, that's not how it was done in WWII.

Selective realism is rearing it's ugly head again.  This is a game, a line has to be drawn somewhere in relation to gameplay/realism for each and every aspect of the simulation.  In terms of the flight models, the line is as close to realism as they can get it.  In terms of radar information to the pilots, it's much closer to gameplay than it is to realism.  Same with the icons and range finders.

Awarding of kills as it is now slides the bar towards gameplay more than realism but also towards logic and more importanly ease of programming.

[Wanker]

Nifty, are you suggesting that people stop giving constructive criticism?

I don't see anything whiney about Widewing's thread. He found one aspect of the game that doesn't feel right and he suggested a fix. What's wrong with that?

[Mathman]

Originally posted by Widewing


Besides, you still miss the point: The current system is illogical and does not reflect how kills were credited historically. It cannot be defended logically, only emotionally. During WWII, did they count the holes to determine who did the most damage? How did they assign credit? Credit was given to the person responsible for destroying the enemy aircraft. Should more than 1 pilot have been shooting at the enemy, the kill was divided, or a determination was made by reviewing gun camera film. Well, we don't have gun cameras, nor anyone to make rulings, so divide the kill.

Your idea would work if we were recreating history in the MA.  We aren't.  This is a sim with planes from World War II.  This is not a sim of World War II with planes.

I understand your frustration, but I must agree with Deja in that your solution would create more problems in terms of kill stealing than it would solve in terms of giving kills to those who deserve it.  There would be more problems created than solved I think.  This game and its scoring system are not perfect.  You just have to adapt to the system in order to survive sometimes.

Anyways, just wanted to add my two cents.

-math

[Widewing]

Originally posted by lazs2
soo.... you believe that the person who cripples, or, does the most damage does not deserve the kill?  I don't agree withj that.  The cherry pickers shouldn't be rewarded.   The guy wh tags him the most usually does the most work.

I have shot down a smoking plane that managed to kill a friendly or two before he died and I got the assist but I thought that was fair.

As for you feeling that "not finishing the job" is a bad thing... It seems that you feel that the cannon birds and cherry pickers should have an even greater advantage?    It appears that you want to reward waiting till a con is tied up and pretty much defensles before you attack it.   one has to wonder at such motives.

I would actually like to give more percentage of damage award to the first shooter... the agressor.   The one who stuck his neck out to fight.   finishing him off shouldn;t count for much.   I actually think I get awarded too many "finish off" kills as it is and I fly MG planes for the most part.
lazs

Lazs, it isn't about work, it's about effectiveness. Developing the skills to finish an enemy is part of the learning process. In WWII, pilots were not awarded kills for aircraft they failed to finish off. These were classified as a "probable" or "damaged".

Now, if you have any questions about my personal tactics or methods, you're are invited to wing up with the =Ghosts= anytime and see for yourself how we fly, fight, train and plan missions. Indeed, the vast majority of our squad is made up of former AW pilots (=Ghosts= was originally an AW squad). So, there's lots of sim experienced hands in our squad. However, many are new to AH, so they're still learning the flight modeling. Designated fighter for May is the Spitfire, in its many models. Next month will either be the F6F-5 or P-38L. The requirement to fly the designated fighter applies only to squad night missions. We have some good sticks, and some who are new to the game. The new members will get much better because we train alot. Even our missions are designed to hone skills. One of our newest members, VX, was an Air Warrior trainer. Our more experienced members (experienced in AH), Hammer (CO), SNO, BGS, BOAT and didebite are all very good pilots. The rest are learning fast and show great promise. What they lack in experience, they make up for in boldness. The =Ghosts=, greatly respected in AW, are well on their way to that same status here in AH. As I said before, you (or anyone else) are always welcome to wing up with us. I promise you, there will be no milk runs. Last night we pulled off a nap-of-the-earth sneak attack on A60 (taking off from A63 with 3 mossies, 6 Spitfires, 2 goons and a Buff). The resulting furball was tremendous, with many Bish going down, while we had just one survivor RTB (me ), escaping the pursuing horde. It was a hoot, albeit a long flight home dodging trees and sheep.

For the record, I fly a mix of cannon and MG aircraft, including the F6F-5 and undergunned Yak-9U. I tend to get a lot of assists flying the Yak due to rather low lethality of the guns. During one sortie last evening, I accumulated 7 assists (aginst only 5 kills, reloading twice). Most of those assists were from snapshots in a furball over or near A5. You know as well as I that you live and die by the snapshot in a furball. Unfortunately, the Yak lacks the hitting power to get frequent snapshot kills. If it had the guns of the La-7, it could well be the best fighter in the game. Kills were mostly 1 on 1 fights southeast of 63 with lone intruders trying to sneak in under the dar. I got a B-26 vulching at A5, but no cherry picking.

My regards,

Widewing

[Lephturn]

Do what I do.  ".squelch 6"



Then use whatever "scoring" system you feel is right.  Just put a sticky on your monitor and put a mark on it every time you feel you "got a kill" by whatever rules you think are right.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Nifty
"that's not how it was in WWII"

do you use the clipboard radar?  If so, that's not how it was done in WWII.

do you fly the plane you want, when you want, for the country you want, doing the mission you want?  If so, that's not how it was done in WWII.

Selective realism is rearing it's ugly head again.  This is a game, a line has to be drawn somewhere in relation to gameplay/realism for each and every aspect of the simulation.  In terms of the flight models, the line is as close to realism as they can get it.  In terms of radar information to the pilots, it's much closer to gameplay than it is to realism.  Same with the icons and range finders.

Awarding of kills as it is now slides the bar towards gameplay more than realism but also towards logic and more importanly ease of programming.

For the record, I'm not crazy about the radar either, but at least those concerns were partially met with the 500 ft. AGL dar hard deck. Which, by the way, has added greatly to playability.

Earlier in this thread I wrote the following:

"I can also accept that my suggestions are not easy to program, and hence the current system is the best for the current technology. Sometimes concessions in realism must be made to facilitate game play. However, I cannot ever accept the statement that "it's good enough". In this industry, good enough is never good enough for long. Obviously HTC knows this because they, more than any other like provider, constantly strive to improve their product. I only ask, that as they improve Aces High, that they consider changes and improvements to the scoring system. And gentlemen, it's not just I who have concerns about various aspects of the system, it's a commonly expressed complaint."

So, if HiTech says to me, "he biggest problem with your ideas is that they are not practical to program", I can accept that.

However, I will never accept the "it's good enough" argument. I'm not being unreasonable.

My regards,

Widewing

[FDutchmn]

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

After giving a little more thought, let me add another two cents here...

we are getting side tracked with all this "what happened in WW2" type stuff...

The real issue has already been addressed by Badboy... which is how to reward assists more than it is now.  Isn't it so?

A simple revision on the perk point system will suffice IMHO.  Currently,

perk point awarded = ENY value of Victor / ENY value of Victim * 1.25 (if you land)

and this only goes to the player awarded for the kill.

Revise this to...

perk point awarded = ENY value of Victor / ENY value of Victim * % of damage inflicted on the Victim * 1.25 (if you land)

for all kills and assists awarded.

Simple solution isn't it?  It awards kills and assists similarly.  And I think all the values in this formula is already considered in the present system.  Just need to revise the formula.

[Mino]

Originally posted by Karnak
banana,

Maybe my proposed system would improve things if it simply ended the damage count once the first fatal damage had occured.

As soon as an entire wing, tail or elevators are gone, then no damage done from that time forward counts towards who killed it.

I thought about this also Karnak, but then I thought about WideWimgs example.  Say that I notice a plane limping home, I make an attack, shoot it down and get no kill message at all?  Or say this plane was a bomber and crippled me or ended up shooting me down also.  How would I know when not to waste my E on a pointless attack?

Personally I am not really into getting kills awarded to me just for the sake of it.  I will say that shooting other planes down is about 99.5% of the game for me.  I get the same satisfaction knowing that I "Splashed One", whether I get the kill message or not.  It is just nicer to get the kill message.

This is really what this all about isn't it?  Who gets the kill message?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Widewing, you fly for Rooks don't you?

How in the world are you having people stealing your kills if they are always outnumbered? (seriously, they are whenever I'm online)

I fly for Bishops and for tour 27 I had kills/hour over twice that of yours while my hit percentage is barely 1% over yours. You also had 4.5x as many kills... nevertheless I've maintained about 6 1/2- 8.3 kills/hour for the past 4 tours on the Bishops side.

I think the point is to kill 'em good so that those guys who wanna steal your kills from right in front of you (who also have horrid aim) can pump as much ammo into them as they want and they still won't get the kill.

I use a wide variety of weapons, I rarely have kills stolen from me... it happens, but on average I'd reckon only about 1 kill/week is stolen from me.

Get closer and make sure you give them a good pelting, no one can steal those kills.
-SW

The reason my kills/hour was so low was due to my frequent trips deep into Bish and Knit territory, hunting bombers. I killed a lot of them, but time between kills is usually quite long. I prefer to tackle Buffs and Lancs at 5k rather than 25k. Add to this the likelihood that I will find them not paying much attention, (feeling secure deep in their rear areas) is greater than over Rook territory. Adding to this, I always climbout to a minimum of 17k before heading to a fight. Sometimes, I'll go as high a 28k, depending upon what I expect to encounter. There is no easier way to gain the tactical advantage than having the edge in altitude. I rarely arrive at a fight without first securing every advantage possible. Base defense is another issue, but even there I try to get above the attackers. Anyway, climbing to altitude absorbs a lot of online time.

My K/H is better this tour because I'm not hunting Buffs as much. However, I have flown some very long escort missions as part of RJOs.

So far this tour my K/D rankings are much better as well, and are as follows:
Fighter: 76
Attack: 46
Vehicle: 52

The best pilots get high K/D ratios through skill. Well, I don't have their level of skill, so I try to compensate via tactics, aggression and careful planning. Generally, that works as long as my planning isn't faulty and I find myself alone in a crowd of enemy. So far, so good, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?

By the way, I rarely have kills stolen. Usually, if I see a plane going down, either one I hit or someone else's, I'll scold anyone who dives in for a steal via voice com. That failing, he gets enough "check 6" calls to make the point crystal clear. I've seen one guy deliberately killshooter a thief by intentionally flying through his bullet stream. Pretty neat if you can pull it off. It sure pushed the thief's button... he was very unhappy. Too bad, eh?

My regards,

Widewing

[Tac]

I've said for a long time that the way the kills are scored is nuts.

HTC says its the one that does more damage... yet I can pump 1200 rounds of .30 cal from my spit1 into a lancaster and not even damage it, then comes a cannon bird, hits it with a 4-5 shells, blows the wing off.. and I get the kill. HUH?

IMO, it would be better if the planes had "fatal damage" markers in the damage model.

Each plane has wing root, tail, tail stabs, fuel (or whatever it is where you hit and the plane shows a fire, then explodes 11 seconds later) and cockpit (pilot) as the places where damage is applied (damage that can bring you down for sure that is, you can still glide and land engineless planes, planes with control surfaces shot to hell, wingtip-less planes can still glide and land, etc,etc).

So, in my opinion, the instant YOU hit an enemy plane and cause the wing root, tail or fuel to snap out, the kill should be instantly awarded to the player that did that damage (or save the info until said enemy plane bails or augers or explodes, then give kill credit). That way if you shoot the wing off a bomber with a short burst in your Ta152 at 33k and the buff falls down and at 5k some moron in a (insert plane here) shoots the buff and makes it explode, he wont steal the kill.

For any other kind of damage, like wingtip, control surfaces or pilot wounds, i'd say the game should assign priority to these and award the kill to the person that did the most serious damage (either by component or by # of components he took out).

for example, if each one had a priority, or had a "point value"...:

Elevators: High priority (5 pnts each elev)
Wingtips: High priority (4 pnts each)
Aleirons: High Priority (3 pnts each)
Pilot Wound: Med. Priority (2 pnts)
Tail Stabilizer (for planes that have more than 1): Med. Priority (1.5 pnts each)
Flaps : Low Priority (1 pnt each)
Gears : Very Low Priority (.5 pnts each)
Rudder: Low priority (1 pnt)

so if several people are shooting at a plane and it augers from damaged surfaces, it wont be the one that pinged it the most but did no damage, OR the one that was closest to the augering plane that gets the kill, but the one that racked up the most "points" from the above list.

And as always, I think perk points should ONLY be awarded if the pilot returns home (aka, lands in friendly field, ditches in friendly territory or bails in friendly territory). Dying or being captured should yield no perks at all.

[SlapShot]

Here are my thoughts ... they are just that ... I spent a couple of hours thinking on this, so it probably is full of holes, but it is an idea for a solution. I do not present myself as an expert in the field of Flight Sims nor am I trying to tell HiTech that he has it "all wrong" and I am right. Remember, its just an idea.

Each critical flight component must be assigned a total damage value per plane. Total damage values would take into consideration the modeled "ruggedness" of the component for each plane.

Destroying any one of these components does not necessarily cripple the plane to the point of making it un-flyable. The only exception that I can think of is the P-38. Once the elevator stab is destroyed, the plane is not flyable. I know that there are more components, such as landing gear, leaking fuel, radiator, engine oil, etc., but as far as I am concerned, they have nothing to do with the ability of the plane to continue to fly and still be lethal (at least for some period of time), so they would not be consider in the calculations. I have scored many a kill with leaking fuel and the like.

pilot

rudder
elevator(s)

wing tips
ailerons

Some critical components make up larger critical components and they must be assigned a total damage value per plane. Total damage values would take into consideration the modeled "ruggedness" of the component for each plane.

Without these components the plane is not flyable nor should it be considered dangerous beyond the scope of wildly shooting rounds as it floats/plummets to the ground. A complete failure of these components would halt any damage methods from scoring hits by other planes that are trying to "steal" the kill. This would eliminate a portion of "Kill Stealing". The list below is just from my observations and no way implies that these are the only scenarios that would fall into this category. HiTech and "Crew" would have a better insight as to what the complete list would be.

cockpit - shooting the pilot to cause death (I think that this is already covered with an explosion and complete destruction of the plane)

tail section - shooting the tail section off a plane or total destruction of rudder(s) and elevator(s) and pieces of the tail fuselage causing separation due to stress.

wing section - shooting the wing root causing the wing to separate or shooting enough of the wing structure to cause failure, resulting in the wing separating from the plane due to
stress.

Damage to these components is caused by different ballistics and they need to be assigned a damage values.

For the sake of argument, I will assign my own values. These numbers and the ones that are assigned to each plane are for EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY !!! I do not profess to be an expert in the area of assigning these numbers, but I do know something about logic. These numbers are meant to demonstrate the logic. They are not ABSOLUTE.


Ballistics
--------------------------
.50cal  = 10
.20mm   = 20
.30mm   = 50
rockets = 200


P51 (numbers signify complete failure - all variables start at 0)
--------------------------
pilot = 10

rudder = 70
elevator1 = 70
elevator2 = 70
tail structure = 40
tail fuselage = 250
complete failure of tail section = 250

wing tip1 = 100
aileron1 = 100
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
wing root1 = 250
complete failure of wing section1 = 250

wing tip2 = 100
aileron2 = 100
wing structure2 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
wing root2 = 250
complete failure of wing section2 = 250


P38 (numbers signify complete failure - all variables start at 0)
--------------------------
pilot = 20

rudder1 = 100
tail structure1 = 50
tail fuselage1 = 150

rudder2 = 100
tail structure2 = 50
tail fuselage2 = 150

elevator1 = 150

complete failure of tail section1 = 150
complete failure of tail section2 = 150

wing tip1 = 100
aileron1 = 100
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
wing root1 = 250
complete failure of wing section1 = 250

wing tip2 = 100
aileron2 = 100
wing root2 = 250
wing structure2 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
complete failure of wing section2 = 250


Lancaster (numbers signify complete failure - all variables start at 0)
--------------------------
pilot = 30

rudder1 = 150
elevator1 = 140
elevator2 = 140
tail fuselage = 300
complete failure of tail section = 300

wing tip1 = 200
aileron1 = 200
wing root1 = 450
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
complete failure of wing section1 = 450

wing tip2 = 200
aileron2 = 200
wing root2 = 450
wing structure2 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
complete failure of wing section2 = 450

Once a complete failure has occurred, that causes the plane to become unflyable, we would have to establish who participated in the failure and score accordingly. Note, the P38, the tail section and its components will cause a complete failure quicker than a wing failure. Therefore, if you are working the wings and someone fly's in and causes a complete tail failure, your hits (score) on the wings are not even considered. My thoughts are you should know the weak points of the aircraft and attack that.

Lets clarify the pilot variable first. This value is determined by what is surrounding the pilot (windscreen - seat plating - etc), so in some planes, it might take more hits to the cockpit area, and the angle of the hit would have to be taken into consideration, before the pilot is actually killed.

Lets look at attacking the wings ...

Now if I attack the P51 and I take out the aileron and wing tip, and some guy fly's over the top of me and score hits on the wing structure to cause the wing to fly off. This combination causes a total failure of the wing and the plane is now a lawn dart. Any shooting at this plane will now be ignored. In this scenario, I get the kill.

my total = 200 (kill awarded)
---------------
wing tip1 = 100
aileron1 = 100

other total = 50 (assist)
---------------
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)

Now if I attack the P51 and I take out the aileron and wing structure (not a complete failure yet), and some guy fly's over the top of me takes out the wing tip causing the wing to fly off. This combination causes a total failure of the wing and the plane is now a lawn dart. Any shooting at this plane will now be ignored. In this scenario, I get the kill.

my total = 150 (kill awarded)
---------------
aileron1 = 100
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)

other total = 100 (assist)
---------------
wing tip1 = 100

Now if I attack the P51 and I damage the wing structure (not a complete failure yet), and some guy fly's over the top of me takes out the wing root causing the wing to fly off. This combination causes a total failure of the wing and the plane is now a lawn dart. Any shooting at this plane will now be ignored. In this scenario, He gets the kill. No way stop this type of "stealing".

my total = 50 (assist)
---------------
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)

other total = 250 (kill awarded)
---------------
wing root1 = 250

Now if I attack the P51 and I take out the right aileron and wing tip, and some guy fly's over the top of me and takes out the left aileron and wing tip, and a third guy fly's in and damages the left wing structure causing a total failure of the left wing. Any shooting at this plane will now be ignored. In this scenario, I will NOT get the kill. The structure that I did damage on was not the failing component so my score is discarded. Oh well ... next time I will concentrate on the wing root.

my total = 200 (assist)
---------------
wing tip1 = 100
aileron1 = 100

2nd guy  = 200 (kill awarded)
---------------
wing tip2 = 100
aileron2 = 100

3rd guy  = 50 (assit)
---------------
wing structure2 = 50 (not tip/aileron)

I won't continue, you can apply the numbers yourself, but the key component to this schema is what was the failing component. Anything scoring outside of the failing component would only be considered an assist. Any programming solution, would not need a "gun camera", HiTech has a "program camera". He can keep track of every bullet that hit the plane and what component it hit, and what total damage it did to the component.

I can present this solution/viewpoint and 10 other people could propose sound solutions also, and no matter which way you slice it, not all will be satisfied. I have been in development long enough to speak from authority on this point. I put this in a post before and have told anybody that works for me ... don't come to me with a problem without also proposing a valid and solid solution.

Widewing ... you have some valid points ... its your delivery that needs work.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by SlapShot
Widewing ... you have some valid points ... its your delivery that needs work.

Er, yeah, you are most certainly correct. I have little tact, and less patience. Forgive my blunt approach... Geez, if you could see what I deleted...... Never mind...

My regards,

Widewing

[Ogun]

I get alot of assists zipping around in my zero when I believe I should be getting kills, but I'm more worried about what's for lunch...

One thing that has me very concerned is the mental approach people are taking on this.  Example; I was upping in my zero doing the defense furball thing and there was an nme close; think it was a p47; doesn't matter.
One of the AK guys (don't remember who but I would if I saw the roster) said something like "Stay away Ogun; if I need your help I'll ask."

What?  Last time I checked, approaching a countryman in a 1-on-1 situation would be patriotic...I wasn't looking for his kill, I was interested in defending the field first and then getting back into the furball that was a few k off the field.  

This "kill stealing" thinking is creating a bunch of individuals; the teamwork is suffering.  I played for the rooks, then the knights to get into a squad, and the whole squad came back to rooks for various reasons including ma numbers balance and rumors of rook teamwork and friendliness.

I used to think people followed me around in my zero to wait til I crippled somebody so they could finish them off with less risk; ha, talk about paranoid.  These maps are big

And whoever you were AK guy, I'm coming after the first nme I see nearest the field every time I up, like it or not.  That's how I play, and I'm not changing the approach.  You want to fight alone then you go follow Widewing somewhere into deep nme territory; I got a zero w/25% and I don't have time for you to serve your ego.


Other than that, just wanted to mention that "delivery" can be important; Widewing, you jumped my squadie bigtime for taking control of the cv one day; not cool.  He know's what he's doing and the cv was just hanging out by the port without an nme closer than 50miles and that's why he told you to take it if you wanted it (he had you outranked by about 500 positions  but if you'd asked nicely he'd have given you the cv)

Two cents and a nickel