Author Topic: Two pilots merge head on, both lose a wing, first one that hits the ground loses  (Read 491 times)

Offline Don

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
>>Which, In Your Opinion (IYO), is a more fair scenario?

A) Both pilots lost a wing, therefore both are dead or have to bail, both should be awarded a kill of one another.

B) Both pilots are dead, but only one should get the kill(aka; Tough luck if you have more E or a heavier plane) <<


Ripsnort:
It seems to me the pilot that augers last ought to get the kill awarded, even though he will soon be burger meat him/herself.
Btw, I have bailed after my plane was no longer functioning; the kill was awarded to my opponent and he then dies, and I didnt get the kill. Even though he died due to my bullets, he still got the kill on me and I lived. Very strange IMO but, a little different scenario than what you describe.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
You know how some people here react to complaints about killshooter? You know... they think it's fine, they don't see a problem... quit complaining... i can't hear you... lalalalala... talk to the hand... the face ain't listening...

I'm kind like that on this issue...


:D
sand

Offline Feenyx

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
Therefore, I support no kills awarded when both opponents fatally damage each other. Maybe that will actually urge people who rely only on HOs, to learn some other way to achieve kills. [/B]


I don't have a problem with that rule for fighter vs. fighter encounters.  But what about fighter vs. bomber?  If a fighter gets fatally shot while ripping a buff's wings off, I'm inclined to think that both pilots deserve a kill, since it's far more likely to happen under "acceptable" circumstances.

Does this issue warrant having seperate scoring rules for fighter vs. fighter and fighter vs. bomber?  And what about (gasp) bomber vs. bomber?

Offline Halo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3222
Dead is dead, no matter what the cause.  People get credit for what they did after they die too.  If each pilot caused the other to die, each pilot should get credit for a kill.  Whenever a pilot causes another to conk, he/she should get the kill, posthumously or not.
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. (Seneca, 1st century AD, et al)
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty. (Anne Herbert, 1982, Sausalito, CA)
Paramedic to Perkaholics Anonymous

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
The whole "dead is dead" argument is quite funny.

You can't compare what happened in a real life collision to what happens in AH.  In real life, people didn't op for the the collision to bost their score.  Total deaths weren't tracked for individual pilots.

If both get credit for a kill then you know that if you collide HO with someone that you'll get a kill.

If neither get credit... then you know that if you collide HO with someone, you'll not receive a death on the stats page.

If only one lives, then there is some additional risk involved.  You see.. death itself does not count here.

AKDejaVu

Offline tgnr2001

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Quote
Originally posted by AKDejaVu




If neither get credit... then you know that if you collide HO with someone, you'll not receive a death on the stats page.



AKDejaVu


Why not?  When you crash with no one around, you get a death but no one gets a kill.  Why not when you collide, both get a death but no one gets a kill?  Kinda closer to real world.

tgnr

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
No.. not closer.  Different.

When you crash... you crash.  There didn't have to be a kill assigned.

You guys are trying to aply real world "rules" to situations that simply did not occur in the real world.  Unless you can sit here and tell me that when two planes collided in combat, both pilots were always awarded a kill or neither pilot was awarded a kill... then the argument support is minimal at best.

Now... what supports better gameplay?  A system where the outcome is more predictable or one where it is less predictable?

Anyone here actually try to avoid HOs most of the time?

If you don't think that both/neither pilot being awarded a kill would result in more HO situations... you haven't really thought this one through.

AKDejaVu

Offline tgnr2001

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Quote
Originally posted by AKDejaVu


If you don't think that both/neither pilot being awarded a kill would result in more HO situations... you haven't really thought this one through.

AKDejaVu



I may have come to the wrong conclusion, but I have thought it through  ;)

If they both get a "death" but neither get a "kill"...  I think HOs will be avoided unless one plane is out of ammo, sees a goon headed for the town and sacrifices his/her "life" for the country  (not that I would ever do that :D )

tgnr

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
I would headon more in that situation.  The opportunity to kill someone, no chance of that someone getting a kill?  I'm on it!