Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Blammo on May 31, 2004, 12:37:20 AM
-
I am not completely sure what the current system is, but something has got to change. In AH1 you can blow the wing (or tail) off of a plane that doesn't exhibit any other signs of damage, (you can blow him up for that matter) and still only get an assist.
The way I see it, and I am sure others do, is it doesn't matter how much someone pings a target, what matters is did they do the damage that brought it down?
For example: I just shot down a 110 in the MA. He was not smoking, he was not leaking, he had all his parts, and from the way he was flying I would say he did not have a pilot wound (which would not matter to me because he was still able to fly and therefore still a viable target). I saddle up on him, fire into his right wing on the outboard of the right engine. Thick black smoke rolls out, along with white fuel vapor followed by the wing snapping off, immediately followed by the engine falling off which was fairly quickly followed with him kissing the ground. Did I get the kill? No! I got a stinkin assist. Remember, he showed absolutely no signs of damage at all before I fired on him. He just made a pass over a friendly field (which was de-acked). No one got a ping on him and he headed straight outbound (which is when i dropped on him).
Please, change the way kills are scored. Maybe it is to difficult to change the code or whatever, but, if possible, change this. I am tired of fighting with someone for 5 minutes (or even 5 seconds) till I finally get the shot on him and the see the kill go to someone else that isn't even there anymore. Once again, I am not talking about a damaged aircraft. I am talking about one that displays no signs of damage at all (until, of course, I shoot him/her down).
-
I agree. Stop the manuver kills too. If a pilot is stupid and crashes then ding his score. Don't give some other guy credit that was just flying by or happenend to be in the air nearby.
If your guns kill him you get credit. If you collide, crash, killshoot, or whatever else it is NOT counted as a victory.
Just my 2 cents.
Crumpp
-
I agree with both statements. Either that, and/or fix how assists are scored too. Tired of getting 10 assists and ZERO credit for it.
-
while you get the "credit" for proxie kills, you do not get any perk point rewards for them
-
The system now awards the kill to the person who does the most damage, not how many pings. There is damage done even if the plane is still flying. If you got an assist, it meens that some one else did more damage to the plane than you did, you just happen to put in the last bullet.
-
Originally posted by Flit
while you get the "credit" for proxie kills, you do not get any perk point rewards for them
But do you still gets Points. Hit% ect?
-
Originally posted by hitech
The system now awards the kill to the person who does the most damage, not how many pings. There is damage done even if the plane is still flying. If you got an assist, it meens that some one else did more damage to the plane than you did, you just happen to put in the last bullet.
So this means that although we may see a plane flying along appearing undamaged when in fact it is shot to rags and one more bullet will cause it to fall apart in little pieces? Even in AH II?
I noticed yesterday that I shot an apparently undamaged P-51 to pieces and it kept flying despite a large fire and no right wing. Or did all this damage just appear visible to me but the plane had less damage than I thought?
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
But do you still gets Points. Hit% ect?
I landed 5 proxie kills in a yak once
never fired a shot
got the "landed 5 kills in a yak" message,some congrats, and 0 points.
-
Originally posted by hitech
The system now awards the kill to the person who does the most damage, not how many pings. There is damage done even if the plane is still flying. If you got an assist, it meens that some one else did more damage to the plane than you did, you just happen to put in the last bullet.
True, and therein lies the rub. The program is tracking the damage to an aircraft and awarding the kill based on who did <50% damage, not who actually shot the aircraft down.
Since there is no (at least in AH I) degradation in the performance of, say, the outer left half of the wing at <50% damage, I am still faced with engaging a fully functional, maneuvering target. I put a few .50 rounds into the wing tip, half the wing falls off, and I have an assist.
Seems to me in this circumstance the award for kill versus assist should be reversed.
-
Originally posted by Flit
I landed 5 proxie kills in a yak once
never fired a shot
got the "landed 5 kills in a yak" message,some congrats, and 0 points.
Are you refering to "Perk Points" or ?
-
Originally posted by hitech
The system now awards the kill to the person who does the most damage, not how many pings. There is damage done even if the plane is still flying. If you got an assist, it meens that some one else did more damage to the plane than you did, you just happen to put in the last bullet.
You really need to look into this a little more. I certainly do agree with the theory but it stinks. I on the other hand see it a different way.
1. When I am the first to hit a con I can blow the stinking crap out of him and him have no visable damage. Not just a few pings but light him up like a wild fire. Then I loose what advantage I have and have to move on. 30 minutes later I get credit for him. I hit him enough to get credeit but not enough to kill him or render him a non-threat!
2. Then I see it the way these guys do. I come in a target that has no apperent damage, light him up with a few pings and then he goes down.....stinking assists.
Sure the 50% thing seams ok but but its not. The guy getting the 50% deserves credit but its the way the first 50% doesnt cause any unairworthy damage that can get you killed. :(
-
perk points
-
A solution would be to award the kill not solely based on "hitpoints" but on loss of structure. The first to shoot off an entire wing, tail section or engine gets the kill. This will put an end to the "kill stealing" as well.
-
lol
who cares?
go stuff your ego elsewhere and let the programmers worry about slightly more important things as in stopping the studdering/getting AH2 to run as smooth and bugfree as AH1
-
It isn't about ego. What I'm looking for is confirmation of whether or not I'm actually hitting what I'm aiming at and whether I'm doing damage when I see hits.
When you shoot a plane and it lights up like a pinball machine but keeps flying it makes you wonder what is happening.
-
Originally posted by CurtissP-6EHawk
You really need to look into this a little more. I certainly do agree with the theory but it stinks. I on the other hand see it a different way.
1. When I am the first to hit a con I can blow the stinking crap out of him and him have no visable damage. Not just a few pings but light him up like a wild fire. Then I loose what advantage I have and have to move on. 30 minutes later I get credit for him. I hit him enough to get credeit but not enough to kill him or render him a non-threat!
2. Then I see it the way these guys do. I come in a target that has no apperent damage, light him up with a few pings and then he goes down.....stinking assists.
Sure the 50% thing seams ok but but its not. The guy getting the 50% deserves credit but its the way the first 50% doesnt cause any unairworthy damage that can get you killed. :(
I had my physics hat on over my first cup of coffee and came to the same conclusion as you did. Over my second cup I put on my programmers hat and came to a different conclusion:-)
For we players it is fairly intuitive to determine who shot who down. Problem is, computers are notoriously non intuitive. Take, for example, a situation where you pound the wing tip to 90% damage with 20MM. I come along and knock it off with a few .50 hits. The plane continues flying, albeit in an unstable condition. Along comes a Spit I and puts a few .303 hits on the planes tail. The pilot maneuvers, stalls, spins, and augers in.
If this situation occurred within the span of a few seconds during a furball, I would probably have a good claim to the kill, since I took off a big, visible, part of the plane. Of course, my snapshot would not have taken off the wing tip at all, if you had not hammered on it first. Then too, the plane may have been able to sneak off on the deck, if the Spit had not forced it to maneuver.
If this occurs over the span of many minutes, with you and I having flown off in another direction, the Spit would have the claim to the kill, since his shots caused the plane to crash.
There are a lot of conditions attached to this one kill, and these conditions must all be tracked over time. Each series of hits would require more subroutines, numerous loops within the subroutines, many explicit conditional statements within the loops, and a whole lot more variables to track the many hits per minute occurring in the MA.
If I were doing the programming, I would explain to HiTech that this is a non trivial code change to correct a problem that, statistically, will all average out in the wash:-)
-
Originally posted by hitech
The system now awards the kill to the person who does the most damage, not how many pings. There is damage done even if the plane is still flying. If you got an assist, it meens that some one else did more damage to the plane than you did, you just happen to put in the last bullet.
Thanks for the explanation HiTech. However, this leads me to another example from recent history. One where I know that no prior damage was done.
We are hitting a field and sort of have a cap. I spot a F6F taking off, swoop on him and fire. His wing comes off and he starts to fall into the ground. When I break off a fellow countryman comes if and fires on the wreckage. It explodes before hitting the ground. Guess who got the kill? Not me. The other guy got it.
Was the F6F viable after I blew its wing off? Was there any chance they would land safely? Would my countryman have ever even gotten the shot unless I blew the guys wing off? The answer to all three is "No".
I understand what you are saying and I understand how it works. However, it still doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't seem right when it works against me OR when it works for me.
So, if we are going to consider percentage of damage, let's consider the whole percentage. In otherwords, if you don't get an out-and-out kill, and only did a portion of the damage, then you should only get a portion of the kill. Of course, that would probably be more difficult.
Probably a better alternative is a catostrophic damage trigger. If a part of a plane is destroyed that makes it no longer viable (loss of tail, vertical stabilier, wing, etc.) then the kill is awarded no matter what happens after that point. If a certain amount is done, but not catostrophic, and then the injured plane crashes, the kill would be awarded like normal. Since this is basically an "if,then,else" type test, it would keep the overhead down. Of course, that would depend on how streamlined the current code for kill awarding is.
Anyway, thanks again, HiTech.
-
*cough* score potatos *cough*
-
Originally posted by Dogsta04
*cough* score potatos *cough*
LOL...actually, no. While I want to get credit for what I shoot down, I also want others to get that same credit. I don't feel it is very accurrate right now. Truth is, my own score might suffer if it is changed, but so what. I would rather know what I can really do and not be deluded into what I think I can do.
-
Agreed,
You only should get credit for what you kill not what flys off and someone else shoots down, crashes, or collides with you.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Blammo
LOL...actually, no. While I want to get credit for what I shoot down, I also want others to get that same credit. I don't feel it is very accurrate right now. Truth is, my own score might suffer if it is changed, but so what. I would rather know what I can really do and not be deluded into what I think I can do.
A reasonable statement that everyone would agree with, and on 1v1 engagements in the H2H arena, this is exactly what happens. The problem in the MA is that we have hits from multiple sources on the same target, occurring over various periods of time. By the time the aircraft finally crashes or explodes, we may have two, three, or more pilots, each with gun camera footage showing hits on the target ... so, who gets the kill?
HiTech (who must have been an engineer in his former life) solves this problem in a very practical way. He places dataloggers on each aircraft to monitor it's structural integrity. These dataloggers record pilot x, hitting component y, with z amount of energy, over a polling cycle. When the aircraft is finally destroyed, it is trivial to determine which pilot inflicted the most damage. While this may not be perfect, or in some cases intuitive, the result is highly objective.
Another way would be to bring the gun camera footage to the 'O Club, and let the pilots quibble over who really shot down the plane. A bit more subjective perhaps, but certainly more amusing:-)
-
The only thing that I would like to see is a termination of damage tracking after fatal damage has been inflicted. Fatal damage would be the loss of the tail, or either wing.
I've made kills while I was engineless and I've brought aircraft home without ailerons in one case and without elevators in a couple of other cases. I've flown away missing half a wing. So only the major losses I listed should count, but that should stop the people who shoot at burning, falling wrecks to get the kill.
So, whoever does the greatest percentage of damage up until the aircraft loses a whole wing or the tail. After that additional damage doesn't count.
-
Don't delete proxies, just shorten the distance. Because you never made maneuver kills doesn't mean no one else did.
-
As a 190 pilot i soemtimes rely heavily on getting an enemy to auger, God knows i cant out turn him or out run him, the best option sometimes is to ride the stall until he loses it. Keep the proxies.
-
If you remove manuever kills, folks will just auger when they get in trouble.
-
Indeed keep proxies. I love it when banking in a zeke against the wall with a zooming la7 800 on my six, if he's stupid enough, he will make the flat turn with me and collide with the wall =). But there is an issue about the damage percentage. Is it scored in the way that the kill goes to the one who did the most damage in the aspect of how "flyable" the plane is?, or how many hit points you have put into it to create significant damage when the next shot is fired into it then tears off a wing? The issue comes down to putting alot of shots all over the plane, only an elevator and an aileron comes off....But then someone comes along and rips off a wing and the tail in a few shots with mg's or cannons...who gets the kill? I guess it could go either way, however the kill should really go to the one who tore the plane apart.
-
Nobody mentioned this scenario ...
Just the other night I was having a nice 1 v 1 stall fight. Getting very sparse snapshots, but still hitting. Nothing really falling of until I get one nice snapshot and an aileron falls of. At this point, he is mine, just a couple more seconds to come around on him and finish him off ....
in swoops an N1K and blows his wing off and he plummets to the ground. Who gets the kill ?
Damn right ... I do ... not the guy who blew his wing off. For every scenario you can describe to try to change what we alreadly have, there is a converse scenario that negates it.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Nobody mentioned this scenario ...
Just the other night I was having a nice 1 v 1 stall fight. Getting very sparse snapshots, but still hitting. Nothing really falling of until I get one nice snapshot and an aileron falls of. At this point, he is mine, just a couple more seconds to come around on him and finish him off ....
in swoops an N1K and blows his wing off and he plummets to the ground. Who gets the kill ?
Damn right ... I do ... not the guy who blew his wing off. For every scenario you can describe to try to change what we alreadly have, there is a converse scenario that negates it.
Yes, but that is reality (sorta), you must think in terms of programming and how computers work here. In that case there is really nothing that can be done to address your issue. AH is simply too dynamic and computers cannot reasonably judge those sorts of things.
To that end, any improvements must be thought of from a programming feasibility standpoint. Things like changing the range of proximity kills and ending damage tracking with regards to awarding a kill when a definate action, losing an entire wing or tail, has happened are examples of feasible modifications.
-Karnak
-
See in my opinion the Niki should get the kill in your scenario.
Crumpp
-
In the interest of justice in gameplay, Slapshot rightfully got the kill, having done all the work. I've read all the arguements and examples and counter-examples and counter-counter-examples and basically concluded that the current most-damage-gets-kill model would be perfectly great if HTC added progressive performance degradation as your wings and control surfaces get shot up.
-
Or hey!!!!!!!!!!
Heres a nobel thought, quit making getting points, perks and or credit for kills such a big deal. It should just be {as I've always stated} fight with & for a country for a common goal.......PERIOD!
You shot down two enemy fighters, great job:aok
Why does there have to be some kinda of brownie points or ego #'s or rank this or that...........rubbish IMO
If you make it a game of WWII combat, then keep it that. Not a game of "I got a better rank" "He got more perks" "I got three assist's" WHO FRECKIN CARES:mad:
How about teamwork, comaraderie, achieving a common goal, bragging rights for getting the reset.
My 2cents
-
Originally posted by MOIL
Or hey!!!!!!!!!!
Heres a nobel thought, quit making getting points, perks and or credit for kills such a big deal. It should just be {as I've always stated} fight with & for a country for a common goal.......PERIOD!
You shot down two enemy fighters, great job:aok
Why does there have to be some kinda of brownie points or ego #'s or rank this or that...........rubbish IMO
If you make it a game of WWII combat, then keep it that. Not a game of "I got a better rank" "He got more perks" "I got three assist's" WHO FRECKIN CARES:mad:
How about teamwork, comaraderie, achieving a common goal, bragging rights for getting the reset.
My 2cents
An awful lot of us have completely burned out on the "war" and only remain for the fights. Those of us in this state don't give a dang about the outcome of the war, unless it prevents us from being able to fight.
I don't need the kill confirmations, but they mean a whole lot more to me than does the war.
-
Keep maneuver the kills, one of the most satisfying things you can do is make the enemy pilot(s) hit the ground while fighting.
-
I fly hurri1's a lot (AKA Assist machines) I would like to see a little more of a bonus for assists.
-
In WW II pilots would get kills and "probables". Were these determined both by camerage footage and wingman observations ? or radio chatter ? How did they ever determine that 1/2 kill should be awarded to a pilot ? again, wing camera evidence from all planes involved in downing the AC ? Were tallies ever modified if war records showed that the "probable" awarded actually safely landed back at his field after the fight (again based on both allied and enemy camera footage) ?
Just curious how realistic we could ever expect it to be. Maybe our scoring should be accurately recorded only if the system detects we are running film on the engagement....LOL !
-
This same issue was discussed back in 2002 in this thread: "How about a common-sense scoring system" (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52707)
There I suggested this kind of system:
----------------------------
Suggestions for calculating the "kill points":
-All "kill points" from each plane part go to the pilot who actually spends the last structural point from that plane part scoring the critical hits. Not to those who only contribute to spending the structural points.
-Each plane part has "kill points" according to how important role they have for keeping the plane flyable. Thus scoring lots minor damage which still leaves the plane flyable would not so easily be better than some truly critical damage.
-If a plane explodes or crashes all "kill points" from all remaining plane parts are awarded to that pilot who scored last "kill points" before that (not hits only, but actual critical damage).
Killer would still be the one who got most kill points, but he would have actually scored the decisive hits.
Assists would go to all who got some "kill points" , but not to everyone who chewed some structural points without critical damage.
If a plane crashes without any previously lost plane parts the Proximity kill would be awarded according to present system of chewed structural points. If the plane was 100% fine before crash, then NO kills to anyone.
-------------------
With this system the one who makes the difference would be awarded and the possible kill stealing would still be kept at current level. The kill stealer would actually have to do some serious damage and a heavily damaged plane would not often likely have that many points left in it to help kill stealing.
What would be the flaws of my proposition?
-Less assists maybe?
-What else?
The problem with current system is that someone can spray away 90% of plane's structural points and nothing is actually DAMAGED. Lots of effort, but not competence. Then another comes and hits the pilot but only gets an assist from a complete destruction of a 100% functioning plane.
This is why I think awarding points for making the plane part damage happen instead of just chewing away the structural points makes a HUGE difference.
-
How about teamwork ...
The 13th TAS always flys together.
comaraderie
We have plenty of laughs when together.
achieving a common goal
We try to shoot down as many planes as possible.
bragging rights for getting the reset
That is as silly, and even more sillier that caring about points, rank, or score IMHO. It all depends upon where your enjoyment is dervied from.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Nobody mentioned this scenario ...
Just the other night I was having a nice 1 v 1 stall fight. Getting very sparse snapshots, but still hitting. Nothing really falling of until I get one nice snapshot and an aileron falls of. At this point, he is mine, just a couple more seconds to come around on him and finish him off ....
in swoops an N1K and blows his wing off and he plummets to the ground. Who gets the kill ?
Damn right ... I do ... not the guy who blew his wing off. For every scenario you can describe to try to change what we alreadly have, there is a converse scenario that negates it.
SlapShot , your comment is right on the mark ! IMHO
Regards
CHECKERS
-
I like it just the way it is.
Are you folks really that upset you've just shot down a plane with 2 bullets but someone else who's done more damage to it got the credit?
Most damage should equal the rightfull kill. I occasionaly see someone trying to steal a kill but after a public admonation on VOX they don't do it anymore. Kill stealing is a non-issue these days.
What I see you folks proposing is just silly. If I am blazing away at a bogie and another guy comes along and puts in a couple hits and takes out that final critical component, he should get the kill? Even if I've done 95% of the damage?
Also, why do you folks want to eleminate manuever kills? Many pilots can and will fly their opponents into the ground. A perfectly valid tactic to dispatch an nme. If you remove prox kills than you force folks to kill only with guns. I love fighting in mountains and canyons and getting manuever kills. It's very gratifying.
In short...
Don't fix what ain't broke.
g00b
-
Very well put g00b.
-
Originally posted by Hyrax81st
In WW II pilots would get kills and "probables". Were these determined both by camerage footage and wingman observations ? or radio chatter ? How did they ever determine that 1/2 kill should be awarded to a pilot ? again, wing camera evidence from all planes involved in downing the AC ? Were tallies ever modified if war records showed that the "probable" awarded actually safely landed back at his field after the fight (again based on both allied and enemy camera footage) ?
Just curious how realistic we could ever expect it to be. Maybe our scoring should be accurately recorded only if the system detects we are running film on the engagement....LOL !
It'll be cool if we had a trigger cam option. I know theres a third party tool that simulates that but it'll be easier to have it in the code.
Falcon
-
Hmm.. how does it work in any sports? Who gets the credit for scoring???? The guy who takes the ball or puck all the way from his own end near the goal or the guy who causes the decisive action?
It is not a kill when you get the aileron and you "would kill him in a moment"!
Kill stealing happens.. so does score stealing in sports. One might just touch the ball or puck before the goal line. It would be completely ridiculous to start awarding the goal to someone else.
DECISIVE HITS SHOULD COUNT FOR KILLS!!! All other stuff you can find from hit% etc columns on the score board.
-
Originally posted by g00b
What I see you folks proposing is just silly. If I am blazing away at a bogie and another guy comes along and puts in a couple hits and takes out that final critical component, he should get the kill? Even if I've done 95% of the damage?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Sorry, no argument can change the fact that if you did not kill the nme, you should not get the kill.
1) If you did 95% damage I would expect to see vapor/smoke trails, missing parts, something. However, that is not what I am seeing in the examples I cited. I am talking about nme aircraft with no "visible" signs of damage, that are not trying to land, ditch, or run away, but functioning, in the fight aircraft.
2) If you are on a nme and shooting him up, then have to break off for some reason and the con is still flying around shooting at people, then I bring him down, yes, I should get the kill. You didn't finish the job. Sorry, but that's real life for ya. If you have a job and complete 95% of it before you leave the company, then I come in and finish it, I get the credit for it, not you.
3) In your example, you could spray all over the nme plane, but no where particular. In this way you are scoring a lot of total damage, but nothing crucial. I come along and fire very specifically into the root of his wing. It breaks off, he flips over and dies. Should you get the kill? No! All you did was slap him around. I delivered the knock out.
4) You have created a straw man to say that I am talking about putting two bullets into a nme con so I should get the kill. In any example I could cite, I have put in at least a full burst (6 x .50 cals, 8 x .50 cals, cannons and .50s, all cannons, whatever), if not more. I agree that if I only ping up a con that has been getting spanked, then I should not get a kill. However, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about blowing off critical components that cause the nme con a loss of flight control.
5) Please don't lump us all together. I think maneuver kills should stay too. I have flown people into the ground as well and I believe that counts as much as anything else.
Blauk put it very well. It is the guy that gets the job down that should get the credit. There is no argument that can negate that position. Causing loss of flight control should be the main determiner of who gets the kill.
-
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Sorry, no argument can change the fact that if you did not kill the nme, you should not get the kill.
There is a huge grey area in what you are proposing. It's not going to happen. This isn't sports. There is no analog to the rule, "If the puck crosses the goal line, it's a goal."
Your whole arguement is based on the premise that there is some clear-cut, black and white point where an aircraft crosses from being a threat to being downed, and that if we base kills on crossing this point, then it would improve gameplay and improve clarity on who got what kill and why.
It does not. There is no clear cut line, and implementing this system would vastly exacerbate the problem of people going "What the heck? Why didn't I get that kill?"
Whether or not some particular damage destroys a plane is largely dependant on the pilot. Of course there are clear cases, the plane is destroyed if the pilot dies, if the tail is completely shot off, if a wing is completely shot off, etc. But there is a big fuzzy area around the point where a plane crosses from being flyable to being destroyed.
Examples:
1) Someone rakes me with bullets and my engine bursts into flames. This is fatal damage. In 20 seconds a wing will fall off and I'm done. But until that time I can still fly around and fire, which I do. I engage an enemy and start firing. Before I break apart, someone else swoops in and destroys my plane. Who gets the kill?
2) Someone shoots up my cockpit and wounds me. I stay in the engagement and force the guy to break off. Someone else comes in and destroys me while I'm fully blacked out from the wounds, never saw him coming. Who gets the kill?
3) I'm in my P38 and am hit badly, losing most of my right wing. For pilots who don't know how to deal with this, this is fatal, resulting in a spin and crash. But I use trim, flaps, and differential engine power to keep fairly stable, and return home. Someone else shoots me as I'm limping back, who gets that kill? Conversely, in the case of someone who can't deal with the damage and is spiralling to the earth, if they get clipped by someone on the way down, who gets the kill then?
A complex kill crediting system would just force people, in many cases, to ponder exactly why they did or did not get the kill. At least with the present system, you know exactly why: You dealt the most damage to the airframe, or you did not. End of discussion.
-
Causing catastrophic loss of flight control should be the main determiner of who gets the kill.
Originally posted by Ecliptik
There is a huge grey area in what you are proposing. It's not going to happen. This isn't sports. There is no analog to the rule, "If the puck crosses the goal line, it's a goal."
Yes, there is an analogy. I am not responsible for yours, or anyone elses, failure to see it. Any plane that still has flight control is a threat (even when missing ailerons, leaking fuel, engine on fire, whatever). When a plane is no longer flyable (missing tail, missing whole wing, missing vertical stabilizer(s), etc), then it it effectively dead.
Your whole arguement is based on the premise that there is some clear-cut, black and white point where an aircraft crosses from being a threat to being downed, and that if we base kills on crossing this point, then it would improve gameplay and improve clarity on who got what kill and why.
It does not. There is no clear cut line, and implementing this system would vastly exacerbate the problem of people going "What the heck? Why didn't I get that kill?"
You're making an assertion, speculating and presenting an end that you have no imperical data to support it. There is a point at which an aircraft stops being a threat...the moment it has a catastrophic loss of flight control.
Whether or not some particular damage destroys a plane is largely dependant on the pilot.
This is not really a consideration either way. It plays a part whether the kill system stays as it is or changes, so this really does not help make your point.
Of course there are clear cases, the plane is destroyed if the pilot dies, if the tail is completely shot off, if a wing is completely shot off, etc.
My point exactly. Thank you for helping me make my case. I am not talking about grey areas. I am talking about exactly what you have just describe. Glad to see we agree.
I love these examples, by the way. I can answer them all
1) Someone rakes me with bullets and my engine bursts into flames. This is fatal damage. In 20 seconds a wing will fall off and I'm done. But until that time I can still fly around and fire, which I do. I engage an enemy and start firing. Before I break apart, someone else swoops in and destroys my plane. Who gets the kill?
The pilot that destroyed you get's the kill. Yes, you were on fire, but you were still a threat and still capable of bringing down other aircraft in a controlled manner until the point that you wer destroyed. Besides, you might explode in 20 seconds, but you might also ditch, shoot down three people, bail out or land. All depend on you and the pilot should not be a factor.
2) Someone shoots up my cockpit and wounds me. I stay in the engagement and force the guy to break off. Someone else comes in and destroys me while I'm fully blacked out from the wounds, never saw him coming. Who gets the kill?
Once again, the pilot that brought you down gets the kill. I have flown home wounded. I have been on the way home wounded and got into another fight (in which I have shot down the other guy). I can still control my flight and therefore I am still a threat. The moment I can no longer recover flight control (catastrophic failure) I am no longer a threat and the kill award should be set.
3) I'm in my P38 and am hit badly, losing most of my right wing. For pilots who don't know how to deal with this, this is fatal, resulting in a spin and crash. But I use trim, flaps, and differential engine power to keep fairly stable, and return home. Someone else shoots me as I'm limping back, who gets that kill? Conversely, in the case of someone who can't deal with the damage and is spiralling to the earth, if they get clipped by someone on the way down, who gets the kill then?
Pilot skill is not a factor in determining who get's the kill under my proposal or the current system.
As far as who get's the kill in this example? You guessed it: the pilot that caused the catastrophic loss of control. You have already shown that the plane can be flown when it looses part of a wing, so that demonstrates that the is still the potential threat. So, I would not classify that as catastrophic. If you recover and make it home, no kill at all is awarded.
A complex kill crediting system would just force people, in many cases, to ponder exactly why they did or did not get the kill. At least with the present system, you know exactly why: You dealt the most damage to the airframe, or you did not. End of discussion.
I am not presenting a complex kill crediting system, but a much more simplified. In the system I am discussing it is much clearer the point of the kill. No percentages or damage amounts. All you have to know is did I cause the catastrophic damage to that aircraft.
Let me just point out, it does not matter how much damage you do to an airframe if the target is still capable of controlled flight, then it is still a threat and not a kill.
I am really surprised that in all the examples no one has pointed out the scenario of a 50/50 split in the damage in the current system. If the current kill award system works off of percentage of damage, then it is possible for two people (or more) to do equal amounts of damage to the airframe. Who gets the kill then? If that can be determined under the current model, then it could be determined under the model I am suggesting as well.
Causing catastrophic loss of flight control should be the main determiner of who gets the kill.
-
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Sorry, no argument can change the fact that if you did not kill the nme, you should not get the kill.
We have a fundamental disagreement here, fortunately I believe you are in the minority. The rest of us believe that the person who did the most damage deserves the kill. In fact, I and many others will attempt to NOT steal a kill by shooting a damaged and fleeing aircraft as minimally as possible to remove them as a threat but give credit to the one who probably did most of the work. This is SOP in my squad and an unspoken ettiequitte amongst most of the more experienced players (IMHO). This is called team spirit.
1) If you did 95% damage I would expect to see vapor/smoke trails, missing parts, something. However, that is not what I am seeing in the examples I cited. I am talking about nme aircraft with no "visible" signs of damage, that are not trying to land, ditch, or run away, but functioning, in the fight aircraft.
Since a plane can be 95% damaged with no visible effects, this is a pretty null point.
2) If you are on a nme and shooting him up, then have to break off for some reason and the con is still flying around shooting at people, then I bring him down, yes, I should get the kill. You didn't finish the job. Sorry, but that's real life for ya. If you have a job and complete 95% of it before you leave the company, then I come in and finish it, I get the credit for it, not you.
If I fought some guy down from 20K to the deck and after a good 10-15 minute fight you come along and do some minor damage and finish him you should get the kill? You'll probably say yes, but again, basic disagreement.
3) In your example, you could spray all over the nme plane, but no where particular. In this way you are scoring a lot of total damage, but nothing crucial. I come along and fire very specifically into the root of his wing. It breaks off, he flips over and dies. Should you get the kill? No! All you did was slap him
around. I delivered the knock out.
No... A better analogy would be, I beat the crap out of him, and you came up and gave him a little girly slap and he falls over. Do you think you should be able to say you kicked his arse?
4) You have created a straw man to say that I am talking about putting two bullets into a nme con so I should get the kill. In any example I could cite, I have put in at least a full burst (6 x .50 cals, 8 x .50 cals, cannons and .50s, all cannons, whatever), if not more. I agree that if I only ping up a con that has been getting spanked, then I should not get a kill. However, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about blowing off critical components that cause the nme con a loss of flight control.
This is just silly. Even if you put 100 rds into him the point I was making is still the same. You put in the minority of damage. How do you determine "agree that if I only ping up a con that has been getting spanked, then I should not get a kill. However, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about blowing off critical components that cause the nme con a loss of flight control. " You seem to contradict the very first statement in your post you made. Use math or some sort of logic to determine this. I don't think it would be possible to program.
5) Please don't lump us all together. I think maneuver kills should stay too. I have flown people into the ground as well and I believe that counts as much as anything else.
Well of course I'm gonna lump you all together. Anyone who disagrees with my point of view is always a collective them. I'm not going to single out each perspective while commenting on them.
Blauk put it very well. It is the guy that gets the job down that should get the credit. There is no argument that can negate that position. Causing loss of flight control should be the main determiner of who gets the kill.
Here's another analogy for ya.
Some guy is laying concrete. He spends days pouring, shaping and smoothing (fighting an nme con). His buddy doesn't do a whole lot, but right before the job is finished and the boss is due to check it out he levels and smooths the final part (puts in the final amount of damage). The boss (the AH server) sees this and gives the "buddy" a raise (perk points).
Dude number one did 90% of the work, why does he not deserve the credit for the job?
I see you as dude #2, the lazy buddy.
g00b
-
Goob... the client pays for a the smoothed finished concrete, not for unfinished work. It is all or nothing. Either he pays or does not.
All that work goes in vain unless the other skillful and smart (you say lazy :) ) guy comes in and finishes the job in time.
Just like in sports there is lots of good work and team spirit and effort... but if the lazy forward does not score the goal, there are no scores.... meaning, the enemy escapes and flies back home.
Visible and decisive damage are (again IMO) the best indicators for succesful effort. If you just spray around but the enemy is still 100% functional, why should you get any credit when your countryman comes and puts a bullet between enemy pilots eyes?
If you do visible damage which truly hurts the enemy (makes it hard for him to fly) then you are a candidate for the kill. IMO, the visible damage is the only damage to count towards a kill.
I dont even think that kill stealing would be so easy or common. Just imagine that you have smoked the engine (50% of engine points) and destroyed 1 aileron (100% aileron points) and both elevators (100% of both). It is clear that he is going down... Then some "no-good idiot" comes and shoots a wing off the enemy (gets 100% of wing damage points) and the plane goes all the way down and explodes or the pilot bails. At that final moment all the damage points that were still left in that plane should be awarded to the pilot who has caused most visible damage (not just undecisive points). Therefore you would still getthe kill since you had done most decisive damage.
The idea is simply to award all the points from one part of the plane to that pilot - and only thet one- who causes it to fail. To that guy who really does the damage, makes it real and makes it count.
Imagine a tank with 40mm of armor in the front. One guy shoots at it 10 times to make a hole in it. The tank still functions 100%. Then another hits it once in the same spot , penetrates the armor and the tank explodes.... honestly.. who killed the tank?
The current most damage points is really a very socialistic way of all counting all who contribute to the task. Lets include the mechanicians too. The pilot could not shoot his guns if they had not maintained them. They had worked with the plane much more than the pilot. So why weren't they awarded the kills that the pilot got?
-
I dont even think that kill stealing would be so easy or common.
I disagree. If blammo's idea becomes a reality (which I strongly doubt), kill stealing would run rampant and the whines would be deafening.
-
Well, g00b, you are right. We have a fundamental disagreement. I believe the guy that got the kill should get the kill. You believe that the guy that worked the hardest should get the kill.
Working hard does not equal working smart.
I agree that it would be very frustrating to work and work a con only to have someone else come in a get the actual kill shot, but how is that any different from the way it is now? I drop in on someone and work them (turning, looping, jinking, the works) pinging them up along the way and when I finally get the kill shot (blow his wing or tail off, kill the pilot, blow him up, whatever), the kill is award to someone else that did "the most damage" to him before I got on station. Why is that somehow fairer/better/more logical that I am propsosing?
Also, the argument keeps being made about how difficult this would be to code. I don't see it? Now, granted, I don't know the code for AH or AH2, but, as a previously mention, we are only talking about an IF or IF, THEN or IF, THEN, ELSE statement here. If the game is capable of tracking individual component damage (which it is), then it is possible to say "IF DAMAGE=TAILGONE OR RWINGGONE OR LWINGGONE, THEN AWARDKILL=DAMAGEOWNER" and "IF RWING OR LWING OR TAIL=GONE, THEN STOP ALL DAMAGE TRACKING". After all, the game is tracking who does damage, how much damage and possibly even what damage. If so, then once again, fairly simple change.
I am not saying they will or they have to, but I still think the current system is flawed. I would love to hear the reasons why it is not, but it seems to me that it was a design level decision and that is the model they intend to keep. And concerning the "You shoot the left wing off, but I shoot the right wing off at the exact same moment: who gets the kill?" question: that is when I would revert to the who did the most damage part of the question. Still fairly simple in my estimation (granted, conceptually speaking).
A side note: I don't want someone elses kill. I want mine. To me, if the guy is still in controlled/recoverable flight, you didn't do the job. If I blow a wing completely off, that's a kill. If I shoot an aileron off, get the oil leaking a hit the pilot (but not bad enough to kill him), that is not a kill till he goes down for good. If someone else finishes him off, then they get the kill. What is so difficult to understand about that?
No... A better analogy would be, I beat the crap out of him, and you came up and gave him a little girly slap and he falls over. Do you think you should be able to say you kicked his arse?
Comedic sarcasm is obviously not your forte.
I can turn it around really easy: You are working some thug over. Punching him, kicking him, body slamming...and yet, he is still beating the snot out of your six friends. I come in a cap him...end of story. Yeah, you would have gotten him there, maybe. But I ended it. As I said before, I am not talking about "girly slaps" as you put it. I am talking about putting enough rounds into a con and in a focused enough place to cause catastrophic loss of flight control.
Proposal:
1) Stop damage tracking once catastrophic damage is inflicted.
2) Award the kill to the person that caused the catastrophic damage.
Otherwise, it should be a shared kill or everyone is awarded assists.
Causing catastrophic loss of flight control should be the main determiner of who gets the kill.
-
Of anything discused here the only thing I would consider is ending damage after inner wing, or or horiztonal stab is gone. I.E. prevent kill stealing. But quite frankly kill stealing is not very prevelent so not sure its worth the time.
HiTech
-
I am not saying they will or they have to, but I still think the current system is flawed. I would love to hear the reasons why it is not, but it seems to me that it was a design level decision and that is the model they intend to keep.
I think that it was more a "whine level decision".
Blammo .. all your reasons are very sound, completely logical, and fundementally, I agree with you.
This cut-n-dry schema would work in an arena where pilots repect each other and wouldn't swoop in to kill a enemy that is obviously in serious trouble and only seconds away from death by the fellow countryman. But that is not the norm as we all have been witness to.
Since this type of behaviour is practically impossible to stop, I believe that HTC uses the current format so as to allievate any/most arguments that would result from the "kill steal".
Could you imagine the amount of in-country arguments that would result if your cut-n-dry system were to be implemented ? It wouldn't be a pretty sight IMO.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Of anything discused here the only thing I would consider is ending damage after inner wing, or or horiztonal stab is gone. I.E. prevent kill stealing. But quite frankly kill stealing is not very prevelent so not sure its worth the time.
HiTech
Kill stealing is not all that prevelent because I believe that most know that when serious damage is already done, your just wasting your ammo to only get an assist.
Your considerations would eliminate further, the pilots that insist on following and spraying a one-wing, wingless, or tailess plane to 100 ft AGL trying to cause the plane to blow up and hoping that they steal the kill.
It would be great if you implemented that.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Kill stealing is not all that prevelent because I believe that most know that when serious damage is already done, your just wasting your ammo to only get an assist.
Your considerations would eliminate further, the pilots that insist on following and spraying a one-wing, wingless, or tailess plane to 100 ft AGL trying to cause the plane to blow up and hoping that they steal the kill.
It would be great if you implemented that.
Yeah, I agree with that. Stop tracking the damage to a plane once those critical elements of the aircraft are destroyed.
By the way, SlapShot: Thank you for your reasoned response to my suggestions. It is refreshing. I may be a minority and a may be hoping against hope, but I can dream :)
-
It seems like the agendas here are "the concern of kill stealing" and the "concern for not getting a kill from 100% functioning plane".
I personally would allow all kind of kill stealing any day over the situation where I am ALONE with an enemy who IS 100% FUNCTIONING and whom I kill after a huge duel but only get an assist... because someone else has sprayed more damage which has not caused the enemy any hindrance.
This has happened to me much more often than someone stealing my kills. But it seems that we will keep on finishing kills for others who are not even present anymore.
Sure it is amusing to get kills while I am RTBing after an attack, but at the same time it is a great pity for those who finish the kills some 20 miles away from me.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
It seems like the agendas here are "the concern of kill stealing" and the "concern for not getting a kill from 100% functioning plane".
I personally would allow all kind of kill stealing any day over the situation where I am ALONE with an enemy who IS 100% FUNCTIONING and whom I kill after a huge duel but only get an assist... because someone else has sprayed more damage which has not caused the enemy any hindrance.
This has happened to me much more often than someone stealing my kills. But it seems that we will keep on finishing kills for others who are not even present anymore.
Sure it is amusing to get kills while I am RTBing after an attack, but at the same time it is a great pity for those who finish the kills some 20 miles away from me.
Well put. I couldn't agree more.
-
I believe that some air forces in WWII actually awarded fractional kills rather than assists (e.g. - three a/c combine to bring down an enemy they each get 1/3 of a kill). If you wanted to get real fancy you could award the kills on the percentage damage done but I think that might be overkill. Perhaps this system would eliminate the issue issue of the assit vs kill all together. It still doesn't solve the problem of deliberate kill stealing but I think that it would proportionatly reduce the incentive to attempt the steal in the first place (best you're gonna get is half a kill). You could still award the perks to who does the most damage.
On another note, I think the proxy kill need some work since i got one sitting on the runway in AH2 last night when someone augered d800 away. Never fired a shot nor forced the auger.
Finally, I believe collisions where both a/c go down should not generate a kill for either a/c or both a/c should be awarded kills. Perk points shouldn't be given out for collision kills if they are going to be awarded. It seems way too one sided at this point. (I'll be the first to admit I don't understad the model.)