Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: gatt on April 02, 2000, 03:53:00 PM
-
Sometimes you really cant avoid HO's, especially against cannon armed monsters.
A lot of times I cut in pieces the other guys (yes, I see flashes, pieces, smoke and explosions, my squad mates tell me the foe died) but he gets the kill. I die, he dies, he gets the kill.
So, do I have to loose a kill becouse he dies half a second later? Or becouse he has a better connx? Why the hell cant we both get the kill like in WarBirds? Ahhh, I really hate this thing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Gatt
4^Stormo CT
(http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/gamba.gif)
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-02-2000).]
-
I agree.
I have seen on occasion the wings rip off the other plane before I have even heard a ping on mine, yet he gets the kill, I die. I am one of the few that also often feels that the other guy got gyped when I get the credit and he doesen't, but we both trashed each other and bailed/died.
I vote for more mutual kills.
eskimo
[This message has been edited by eskimo (edited 04-02-2000).]
-
I agree the scoreing needs to be changed.
Even if you die if the other guy goes down you should at least get the kill.
From what I've read however it may not be that easy to change.
As to HO's, they happen. I've been on both ends and it does't take a cannon armed AC to rip you up. Some of the p51 drivers are real good at single pass HO's.
Come to the fight High & if nothing else at least you have more options.
------------------
Maj Ghosth
XO 332nd Flying Mongrels
-
Yep the scoring should change, pronto.
-
Im not sure I agree,
Im from the school of, You go HO, you get what you deserve! Basicaly I dont want it to be encouraged by getting a reward. Its a gamble, as it should be.
Last night on my first sortie I was hanging around 21 defending it with a few others. It wasnt in big trouble so we all had abit of alt. I was working on a 109's 6 till I got to d200, as I squeezed the trigger a team mate came in HO on the 109 that was about to die, and I ended up shooting myself(kill shooter). I died, the 109 died, the HO'er lived.
I want nothing to change that will encourage HO's
-
I couldn't agree more Camel.
Had the same thing happen to me on more than one occasion.
AKDejaVu
-
Hmmm, I was Pro-Co Death when I first played AH, (as Warbirds is now) but now I find myself leaning towards the "Play Russian Roulette or Fly ACM"..after all, it's a bigger gamble on both sides to go HO in AH due to the fact that only one of you is most likely to get the kill.
Jury's still out, I can adjust to either way.
------------------
Ripsnort(-rip1-)
=CO=II/JG2~Richthofen~
Communications Officer
Aces High Training Corps
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/ripsnort.jpg)
"Experience is a hard teacher because she
gives the test first, the lesson afterwards"
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 04-02-2000).]
-
Under the current scoring system, I can parachute to safety while my opponent plunges to his death but he gets a kill and I don't.
Sorry, that is PORKED.
In real life he'd get a grave, and I'd get a kill awarded after the Catalina picked me up!
-
Camel,
we want the same thing. I dont encourage HO, I usually fly C.205 and P51, not so good at HO against F4U-1C and Spitfires.
I hate HO's. I'm pretty sure that if you get the kill against your heavy damaged HO-lover, a lot of them will be more careful in the future.
A "gamble"? Where is the gamble in a HO? It should be a suicide for both pilots. Where the hell is realism in the actual model? I dont play QUAKE I play AcesHigh.
Regards,
Gatt
4th Stormo CT
P.S.: sorry, I was so pissed off that I havent posted in one of the other two threads about HO.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-03-2000).]
-
I have no intent of stirring up and argument or leaving bad feelings. However, here is my opinion on headons.
gatt(I think), you say you play Aces High and not Quake. Good, admitted one thing: you play a sim. The question I have for you is, do you want to continue to play a sim or actually end up playing Quake? You see by limiting the factors and levels we can play on you are in fact invoking a quake environment. Not being able to have a shot at a head on is quake like. Everyone(no matter what they fly and what armament they have) should be allowed the same chances as a WWII pilot actually had. They should be allowed to fly the entire map(fuel permitting) if they want to. They should be able to fly any which way they want(gravity permitting). They should be allowed to shoot at what they want(ammo situation and intelligence permitting). Simple fact: HOing is tactically, not stupid, but down right mindless. YOu have a chance at not taking fire or you have a chance at exchanging fire with an enemy. More often than not both of you will take fire and the one with better aim(and better armament) will win. This is a known fact by everyone and it's also a combat proven fact in WWII. There are actual recorded instances where WWII and WWI pilots took the HO. I believe somewhere on this BBS someone stated something about the Flying Tigers being told to take HO shots against Claudes(the A6M Zero statement was incorrect.. 20mms were not advisable to take hits from ;-). The obvious victor would be the one with more punch, that being the P40C(I believe that's the model the Chenault's squadron flew, 2 .50s above the engine and 2 in each wing, altogether SIX .50s punching into a light armored plane). Gatt, you then stated that "A lot of times I cut in pieces the other guys (yes, I see flashes, pieces, smoke and explosions, my squad mates tell me the foe died) but he gets the kill. I die, he dies, he gets the kill." This leads me to believe you too participated in the head on. So why are you asking others to stop this head on nonsense when you yourself are participating in it? That's outright hypocricy(sp?) if you ask me. I will admit I took head ons the first few times I flew Aces High. It was sort of an experiment to see what the damage model and ballistics model was like. I'm by no means a newbie to combat simulations. For my resume I have experience in the first Confirmed Kill(v.91 to whenever it became brand W till 2.0), Fighter Duel, and a few other games in between then and now. Back then HOs were very uncommon. Why? Close to 100% of the flyers were hardcore combat pilots. They read up on history, ACM and other such things so they could be the best they could be at the game. I believe we are on the same side on this issue. It's the players that make the experience, not the game. Putting in various limits to something that is supposed to simulate combat is rediculous, it defeats the purpose of it. Therefore, it's up to the players of the game to make it a simulation or a game. YOu have a choice(not just you gatt, everyone) between that 1 kill(HO) and perhaps a 3-kill sortie. You make a stupid choice and take the HO, well you can kiss the fun 3-kill sortie good-bye. Look in ANY ACM or history book and you will ALWAYS find that the point of attack that everyone agrees on to be the best is the direct 6 O'clock position. Why? Because, what is he honestly going to do? Piss in the wind and hope it deters you from blowing his silly bellybutton to bits? :-) Fly smart and I guarantee you will have the best sorties of your life and the MOST fun ever. Fly stupid and you will have the worst time in a game. I've seen posts squeaking and moaning about the damage model, head ons and other such nonsense. I have one question for you guys: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SILLY FOOLS DOING LETTING HIM SHOOT YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE?????? I'm by no means the best, maybe average... However I've been doing this kinda thing for a long enough period of time that I know the difference between tactics and stupidity. HOs and letting someone get a shot on you are STUPID, everything else is tactics. If you are getting shot, I'd suggest you quit your moaning and read up on ACM. I know when I get killed I learn from that experience and will never let that situation happen again. For example, head ons(which is what this particular thread is about), I do NOT take them unless I absolutly have to. And if I die, it's my dumb bellybutton mistake that got me killed, not the damage model, not the physics(atmosphere) model, not HTC, not the other players CPU speed, vid card, RAM or connection.. my STUPID mistake.
I LOVE simulations. I LOVE this particular simulation. I would NEVER want to see anything that's currently modelled changed. I may squeak about it, but it's no doubt because I'm pissed at myself.(I apologize to hblair for that incident I had with him.. my AH callsign is AKSWulfe, again my apoligies, I hope you can understand my situation.. I was being straffed and too ignorant to move ;-) Remember guys, it's up to YOU to make the game the way you want it to be. It's not up to HTC or the other guy, it's up to you(AND the other guy, but you guys must work together ;-). In summary, I want that idiot(<g> ) to take the HO on me, because once he misses, I'm on his bellybutton shooting him to bits and he'll learn from that engagement.. HOs are a tactically stupid and the 6 O'clock position is THE tactically SMART position to kill from. :-)
HTC keep plugging away, this game is amazing.
-SW
AKSeaWulfe+
ps: gatt, I in no way mean any ill will towards you or anyone else in this community. this post is just to hopefully "open some eyes".
pps: If you take me HO, you die, it may be slow but I guarantee it will be humiliating ;-)
-
AkSeaWulfe,
Nothing personal, but pls, read my words again. I dont want to stop people being able to run for head-on's. Heck, how could I?
All I want is to get the kill against that flaming wreck I could not be able to avoid. And this: if and only if I shot him down.
How can he only get a kill while hanging on his chute or falling in flames like me? This is QUAKEish.
So, let people go HO, but they have to know that they will get a "you have been killed by XXXXXX" like me.
Simple question: in the real thing you cut in pieces the guy that shot you down. Did you get the kill or not?
-
Some of you folks out there just don't bother reading before pontificating, eh? (Ok, AKSeaWulfe, I admit, I decided that you missed the point and didn't bother reading all of that long-winded claptrap)
Gatt is not saying that the HO should be a valid tactic, nor is he saying that he takes the HO. I've flown with him many times, and let's just say he's more sophisticated on the merge than that.
What he is saying is that the current scoring system encourages HOs by an unfair distribution of the scoring.
It's not random; it's not roulette. Take these two situations:
A. Cannon Hawg and P51 with equal ping times HO. Cannon Hawg applies a lethal dose of ammo in 1 second; p-51 fires for a second, and only succeeds in shearing off a wing at the root. The Hawg driver, having the bigger cannons, gets the kill, notwithstanding the fact that his plane is just as dead.
B. Cowboy Bob ADSL in Grapevine Texas gets a ping time of 15 ms, while some poor slob on an equatorial launch platform gets 800 across a satellite link. In an HO, Cowboy Bob can get his kill packets to HTC a lot quicker, and will always get the kill; nevertheless our slob friend will send in a just as valid set of hit packets, and obliterate Cowboy Bob's ride.
C. Two schmucks HO and blow off some wings. They ride their planes down, hoping that the other hits the ground first, so they get the kill.
-
This whole debate is pointless. Two people that know they are going to die are arguing over who gets the kill.
If it really concerns you, figure out new better ways to avoid it.
Other than that, this thread is simply an argument over why someone might have a better k/d ratio.
AKDejaVu
-
Why has he got pantyhose for his squad insignia?
-vlkn-
-
Yeah, it could be a k/d ratio reason as well, but it isnt. I wonder why you guys take this remark personally. I usually dont whine, but IMHO this thing is really unhistorical.
Eheh Vulcan,
if those are the pantyhoses you know and that your (lets say) girlfriend usually uses, I really can imagine what a macho you are (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) oh my God!
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-03-2000).]
-
This whole debate is pointless. Two people that know they are going to die are arguing over who gets the kill.
Were this the point, I'd agree with you that it is a non-issue. But it ain't. The fact is, like it or no, some folks do collect kills, and the current scoring system encourages suicidal behavior, such as HOs, staying in your cockpit, and the like.
Here's the point: The current system is both inaccurate and encourages undesirable behavior.
Arguing "well you should be avoiding HOs anyway" is as patronizing as it is idiotic.
Take the argument that jury awards in civil suits were so out of hand that people were deliberately doing stupid things just so they could sue somebody, and therefore our tort law should be revisited. In this case, the analogous response to yours above is "Well, you shouldn't be starting frivolous lawsuits, now should you?"
If something's broken, we'd like to see it fixed, particularly if it has an effect on gameplay.
In short, it ain't a slam on HTC. We have confidence that they will fix known problems.
It ain't bickering by folks who are gonna die. Frankly, I don't care about dying. Sometimes I play the "Strat game", which involves all sorts of dweebish behavior; sometimes I play to have great sorties, thrilling dogfights and the like. I don't give a damn about K/D, and I eat for lunch the idiots who go for the HO when they have plenty of options.
Only an idiot would believe this was a defense of the HO, or a whine by folks who take the HO all the time and feel robbed of kills.
But perhaps there'd be a lot less idiots out there if the scoring were more appropriate.
How about if nobody gets a kill on a mutual-death HO?
(and vlkn. After you remove that iron leg from your behind, we invite you to repeat your question (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
-
I agree with gatt
lampo
-
I think the scoring needs to change, too. Not that I pay too much attention to my score, mind you, but there's one scenario where it really bugs me:
1. I get on opponents six(skillfully avoiding his HO technique)
2. I blow his wing off, he rides his ship to the ground(which is going to take a while)
3. A countrymate of my victim bounces me while I'm fixatedly tearing apart my victim above. My plane blows up, I die.
Result: His buddy gets the kill for me, but I get no credit for the guy who is plummeting to the ground in a plane without a wing.
Maybe this is some kind of weird take off of the old "If a tree falls down in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any sound?"
Did I shoot down my victim or not? The answer seems pretty simple to me. Regardless of what happens to me after the fact, I should still be credited the kill.
------------------
banana
308 (Polish) Squadron RAF "City of Cracow"
"On the whole, it is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them"
-
It seems that most of the complaints against HO's come frome experienced/good pilots. It makes sence that if you are forced into situation where you have the tactical advantage, or are at least at equal energy states, and you are a good pilot (let's say with a kill/death ratio of over 2 to 1), then you will probably not like any event that makes the playing field more equal, because if both pilots were to limit themselves to traditional "on 6" ACM's then you would likely end up with the kill. To a newbie (or an oldie who flies like a newbie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ), however, if you have a kill to death ratio of say 1 to 10, whenever you enter a fight you can expect to die most of the time. So why wouldn't you want to enter a situation where you may stand a 25 to 50% chance of getting a kill, even if you are likely to die? If the opponent tries to evade the HO you may at least get a high angle deflection shot on him, or he may even turn enough to put you on his 6!
If I had to fight someone like Hristo 1 v 1, I would not pass up a chance to go head-on because it would make the difference in our skill abilities less significant. I would probably go from a 10% chance of winning to a 30% chance.
Some planes seem to be built for HO's. On the rare occasion that I fly the 190, I intentionally look for HO's. I know that I will stand a great chance of winning a HO, and a poor chance of winning a traditional ACM fight. Against buffs, HO's are the way to go in this bird. I once saw a B-17 lose it's wing at d800 when I was making a head on pass.
In a B-26, on the other hand, I often resort to HO's. I have my best kill ratio (3.5 to 1) in the B-26. Much of it is due to forcing a guy into a HO when he isn't prepared for one.
Bottom line is, I think that HO's have a place in this game. I can also attest that there are many skilled pilot out there who can effectivly evade a HO and can even use the attempt to get on the HOer's 6.
eskimo
[This message has been edited by eskimo (edited 04-03-2000).]
-
***EDITS AND DELETES A BUNCH OF squeakY NONSENSE*** I agree with Gatt, the scoring needs to be fixed as far as living(ie: bailing or surviving) and dying(ie: blowing up or crashing). However, as I told him in the MA earlier today, I still think this will encourage HOs.. perhaps even more so. Except now pilots will bail the second they see a wing come off the other dude. So really I think there is no away around this nonsense other than doing your best to avoid them.
S! Gatt
-SW
AKSeaWulfe+
[This message has been edited by AKSeaWulfe (edited 04-03-2000).]
-
Sigh...
I remember when this topic was first brought up in Warbirds. It was the other side of the coin. Basically, HOs were bad in the arena because people figured it was a good way to stay close to 1:1 in K/D and even better if you perfected it. Basically... if you were a good aim you were guaranteed a kill. If the other pilot was a bad aim, you might even live.
Now.. as for the rambling:
The current system is both inaccurate and encourages undesirable behavior.
The score system doesn't encourage this behavior. People will perform HO attacks regardless of the scoring system. Look at AW and the HO shield. It made it VERY difficult to get an HO kill, yet people would still fly right into(through) each other with guns blazing. When you are only concerned with pointing your nose at the enemy and not with where his nose is pointing this will happen. A large number of the pilots in the arena are still working on the first part. The second will come later.
Arguing "well you should be avoiding HOs anyway" is as patronizing as it is idiotic.
1. I never said "you should be avoiding them anyways".
2. Patronizing is saying "well just don't HO then" (just say no)
3. Suggesting to "figure better ways to avoid a HO" means that some things work BETTER than others. It doesn't mean that HOs are completely avoidable and it is your duty to find out how. I will say this... I've flown away more times when I've tried to avoid a HO than when I didn't... even though the other plane went down just as often regardless.
If something's broken, we'd like to see it fixed, particularly if it has an effect on gameplay.
All you need is a system that actually makes the pilot fear for his life and you will solve this problem instantly. Oh.. guess what... even with that system people will still take HO shots.
There seems to be some assumtion that when two pilots killed each other in real life, the kills were awarded apropriately. I wonder how often this was the case? How often would someone be awarded a kill without guncam footage and how accurate were the eye-witness accounts? The computer age as exposed us to near flawless accounting of actions... maybe its just a question of how accurate being flawless is.
So.. once again... if HOs really bother you, then do your damndest to avoid them. Not saying you will always be successful, but at least you will have made an effort. Its not everyone elses job to rid the world of the vile HO.
BTW.. if you want to see me go off on HO'ing... fly Knight and HO a target that has another Knight on his 6. I don't think the game should be responsible for promoting/discouraging HOs. Common sense and some kind of realization of strategy should be doing this. If people don't feel they need to get these points across then fine... just don't complain about the results.
AKDejaVu
-
In the end, there are those that couldn't care less about score (really!). They would however give their left testical for a kill, and if that means HO, that is perfectly acceptable.
Would scoring change HO? Maybe, maybe not. It might affect the crowd that is concerned with score, but I tend to believe the bulk that practice this tactic don't care a whit about the score.
Would it make the rest of us feel better to at least know we saw our name in lights for killing the bugger and living? Absolutely! This is the only way I care about it. I agree with funked, rather silly for me to be freefalling and have the guy who just rode his plane to a dirt nap get credit over the buffer.
Even at that, it is only a minor irritation to me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 04-03-2000).]
-
AKSeaWulfe,
I understand that my C.205's oil/coolant on your windscreen calms you down ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
To hell with all HO dweebs who get kills flying a destroyed a/c.
-
If two pilots destroy(et.al) one another in a head-on, what's wrong with neither getting a kill? Might be a little difficult to implement algorithm-wise, but seems to me that it would discourage the cheap-kill-seeking-head-on-dweeb while not discouraging the Hey!-I-gotta-protect-my-bomber-team-player.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing you have to live for X seconds before the kill is credited (for the credit to neither scenario above), but giving credit to both on mutual destruction, well, is taking what little discouragement we have in there out.
------------------
Fatty
FAT DRUNK BASTARDS (http://fdb.50megs.com)
-
Yes, actually you are right. Better if no one gets the kill. Not an easy feature to implement, tho ....
-
Yes, I agree no one should get the kill, but like its been said, probably impossible to do.
With all that is going through a guys head during a fight, I'd rather not add, "Hell, I'll just give up, and go HO, cause I atleast Ill get a kill". As it stands now getting the kill message in a HO is the "gamble". Which I feel is the best solution. Ho's will never go away, but this system of possibly not getting the kill message might make you think twice.
I also agree that they guy that rides his plane all the way down verse the bailer is f'ed up, but not unique to HO's.
[This message has been edited by Camel (edited 04-03-2000).]
-
HO's suck. Nuff said.
------------------
+Jase ^Nomads^ AH
Fly-Nomadic
"To Everything Turn..Turn..Turn"
-
I can't resist a good couple of logical flaws here:
First, HOs will always exist. I never claimed that they wouldn't.
Crime will always exist. Does that mean that we should encourage it?
Second, "suggesting that we spend time finding better ways to avoid HOs", implies that we do take them, and this is what pisses us off. In addition, it is idiotic, because the complaint is not some puerile "HOs suck", but rather that "this scoring feature has undesirable consequences". Really, discussing the merits of HOs is beside the point.
Third, I will on occasion take HOs. If I'm in a dweeby ("strat") mood, I'll play according to the "vulch and be vulched" MA mindset. I may take off from a disadvantaged (=vulched) field, where an HO is a sound strategic move (if dubious on the tactical and ACM scale): you make the other guy commute from his field, while you restart in the same area. But in such a case, I don't give a hoot about scoring. If I'm playing to survive, I won't do such idiocy.
But all this is beside the point. A scoring system should not reward people who decide to stay in their cockpits rather than bail out.
-
Second, "suggesting that we spend time finding better ways to avoid HOs", implies that we do take them, and this is what pisses us off.
That's BS. Everyone gets in an HO occasionally. Some get in them more often. Not saying you are in either category. Anyone that gets into an HO did it for one of two reasons. Either they chose to go for the HO or they were unable to avoid it. Working towards minimizing participation in either category is very doable.
In addition, it is idiotic, because the complaint is not some puerile "HOs suck", but rather that "this scoring feature has undesirable consequences".
Ah.. this is great. I must say the "idiot" sword is weilded quite frequently by you. It has a tendancy to make it dull. You really should work on sharpening it up.
What is truly "Idiotic" is to complain about the current system without providing any way to correct it.
1) Nobody is awarded the kill. If a pilot manages to shoot someone down in a HO... one of two things happen... either you both go down in wich no kills are credited (no harm no foul) or you get the kill and survive.
2) Both pilots are awarded kills. This is great. Guarantee a kill for pilots that have decent aim in an HO.. both pilots as long as they have decent aim. Once again... the percentages say that you could have above a 1:1 k/d ratio if you had a 15% hit percentage and practiced this extensively.
3) The current system. Nobody really knows what will happen in an HO. If the other pilot scores a pilot kill.. he gets the kill. If the other pilot loses a wing but manages to hold it together longer.. he gets the kill.
what you claim is a "reward" is also a double edged sword. If two pilots HO each other and take off one wing apeice... the both start heading downward. Who gets the kill? The pilot that could hold the plane together longer without augering into the ground. Even after the HO.. you are still competing with the other pilot. No more "I shot your wing off right before I bailed.. so I get the kill hahahaha". You still have to work for it.
The scoring system rewards more points (to total points) based on wether you bail or ditch. This means that in an HO... you can still ride the plane down... just bail before you hit. Once again... you are gambling that you will have to bail last.
There simply is no solution to the HO "scoring" debate. Maybe there should be a committe that sits and votes on wether a kill should be granted to a pilot. They can have vulch rules, ho rules, afk rules, bingo rules and so forth. This way, regardless of wether you are awarded the kill or not.. you can't complain because it was awarded by a committee of your peirs.
So.. once again. If you don't like the way kills are asigned in an HO... avoid them more. Yes it is possible. Record your flights and watch them. Think about this more. "Idiocy" isn't saying to design better ways to avoid an HO... "idiocy" is figuring you already know every way to avoid them.
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 04-04-2000).]
-
Ok, I'll play:
First of all, I repeat the word "idiotic" for a sound rhetorical purpose: if someone's going to challenge my calling something "idiotic", I have to use that word to explain my position.
Secondly, if you read, I have, and do suggest ways to "fix" the scoring.
Third, your evaluation of the "current system" is flawed:
A. Nobody really knows what will happen in an HO.
Negative. Both pilots spray a lot of ammo on target before it registers. While it's not 100% certain, the current system favors lower pings and bigger guns.
B. If the other pilot loses a wing but manages to hold it together longer.. he gets the kill.
Great. So if the other pilot decides to ride his bird into the ground, he gets a kill, while the silk rider gets a "kilt"? We're substituting one game of chicken (who'll flinch first on HO) with another (who'll bail first)? What sense is that?
C. There simply is no solution to the HO "scoring" debate.
Nonsense. make the player have to "sit out" 30 seconds after bailing (from moment of bailout), crashing or exploding. In that period, keep accumulating kills. That way, you make them pay a tolerable penalty for dying, limit vulchees, and all on the excuse that you need to keep the scoring "above boards"
D. So.. once again. If you don't like the way kills are asigned in an HO... avoid them more.
And what about furballs? This morning Easymo in his cannon hawg whacked my La5, but as I was too low to bail out, I rode it into the ground. A shifty connect and high lag bought me an extra second. In that period he got whacked. I died and no kill was awarded.
E. "idiocy" is figuring you already know every way to avoid them.
Lessee:
1. Don't attack someone's 12 ock.
2. Don't get yourself into a situation where you're co-E or worse with any con whatsoever, especially ones you're not engaged with.
3. Don't fly near guys warping all over the place
4. Don't fly if you're warping all over the place
That covers about all the HOs I've encountered. I will, of course, concede the point that it's a conceited pilot who claims he doesn't need constant training.
-
A. Nobody really knows what will happen in an HO.
Negative. Both pilots spray a lot of ammo on target before it registers. While it's not 100% certain, the current system favors lower pings and bigger guns.
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Not always, but at one time I did think as you do. I now have a cable modem and usually my ping time is 70-90ms vice being connected at 49k with a ping time of 250-250ms via a dial-up.
Since I got my cable modem, I tend to NOT "Get the Kill". From my FE I am pounding as much as I am getting pounded, during HO's or attacking BUFF's. Time after time I watch the other players plane explode, then I explode, then the other player gets the the kill message.
This happens about 95% of the time these days. Prior to that, I "Got the Kill" for about 50% of the time under the same circumstances.
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
-
Originally posted by Minotaur:
Since I got my cable modem, I tend to NOT "Get the Kill". From my FE I am pounding as much as I am getting pounded, during HO's or attacking BUFF's. Time after time I watch the other players plane explode, then I explode, then the other player gets the the kill message.
This happens about 95% of the time these days. Prior to that, I "Got the Kill" for about 50% of the time under the same circumstances.
Mino, I get almost the exact same percentages of deaths in a HO. I've been a long time believer that being on a fast connection is actually a disadvantage when it comes to AH. I tested with a old 56K v.90 3com modem and I got the kill around 50% of the time in a HO, I went back to using my T1 and I get the kill about 5% of the time.
I've tested the lag advantages/disadvantages as recently as last night with some friends on 128K ISDN in the training arena. My results were very similar I could place hit sprites ALL over them and actually only hear maybe 1 ping (I was on the phone with them). While we were testing I told him everytime I got a hit sprite on him and about 75% of the time he heard nothing and took zero damage. In the reverse situation I took ALL of the damage he dealt. If he saw a hit sprite I heard a ping or took damage.
ISDN dealt 100% damage to me and only took 25% damage from me.
T1 dealt 25% damage and took 100% damage.
While I'm on the T1 I never even get close to a HogC because if they even fire in my general direction I seem to explode. One of these days I need to play AH on a modem for a entire tour and see if my scores are better.
Mox
The Wrecking Crew
-
A thought from someone new to AH. Why not get more realistic. If you don't land it, you don't get credit.
------------------
Apache
++Renegade Nation++
-
Hi Apache.
What is realisic about that? If you could be awarded the Knights cross after you were dead you could sure be awareded a kill.
The aircraft of the aces books often mention howmany kills a pilot got on his last mission....
Welcome!
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
hi all:
the problem is the lag, and i never get to bail from a HO, im just dead, and i have brought this up about getting credit for a kill. (kill or be killed)
i took some fire there as well, butt is still smoking.
blue skies all
-
Pongo is right. If you shoot down a plane, you should get a kill regardless of your fate.
P.S. Ditches should be kills too.
P.P.S. No kill should be awarded if Robo-Ack kills somebody.
-
This response is to Funked...
>>P.S. Ditches should be kills too.<<
This opens up a whole new can of worms. In real war there were various categories for "kills"(actually victories but hey we're not getting techinical here.. or are we?:-)). There is destroyed(blown up or pilot bails or plane crashes etc) then there's damaged(ditched, partially disabled, but still flies home) and then there's other categories. Honestly, if everyone wants a ditch as a kill I can sway either way and I can sway either way on the topic this thread is about(getting a kill after being killed), my viewpoint on the current topic(as gatt stated way up top about I THINK setting up scoring for discouraging HOs) is that there's really nothing you can do to discourage HOs unless no one gets the kill(which would be silly if both bailed, or one lived etc). Alright now back to the topic at hand. Really a ditch would be tallied as disabled or damaged in a real world situation, so that would probably count as an assist in the current scoring setup, which would make more sense than a full kill. Obviously a pilot with enough skill to land a plane that has one or more control surfaces missing and/or damaged engine apparently had enough skill(or speed....) to get away from his opponent and be able to ditch. Therefore the "victor" doesn't deserve a "kill" as the plane is not killed, but disabled. So perhaps rather than a kill, an assist should be awarded for a ditch(which I think most people could agree on as being legit, because you worked on damaging him, so why not get some credit for putting him out of action?)
Just my 30$/month on the issue.
-SW
[This message has been edited by AKSeaWulfe (edited 04-05-2000).]
-
"Really a ditch would be tallied as disabled or damaged in a real world situation"
Negative. The Luftwaffe counted Allied planes that were shot and forced to crash land over the Continent as kills. I'm pretty sure the other countries scored them the same way.
-
Talking about HO's favoring the bigger guns and the lower lag ..
I got ADLS and usuall have about 180 ping (across the pond) flew the C-Hog extensively last tour and usually died about 50% of the HO's i got into.. only about 20% of the HO#si got the kill. I changed to the D hog and plan to fly it exclusively in this Tour and funny i get way more kills with it in HO's. I think the bigger ammount of bullets in the air increase the chance of scoring a pilot kill or taking out something "very ital" in the front of the A/C.
Re: Dicch should count as kill... Yea if you ditch behind enemy lines it's a kill if you ditch behind friendly it's not .. too bad nobody knows where enemy lines are..
------------------
(http://members.aon.at/duckwing6/dw601.gif)
Phillip "Duckwing6" Artweger
Flight Officer "E" Flight
Skeleton Crew (http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/oneshot/main.htm)
-
After reading this whole thread I have had an idea. Mind you this is going to throw a few monkey wrenches into the works but here goes.
What would happen if in order to claim a kill you had to return to base and make a good landing. Rounds fired & planes shot down information is "Held" until your back on the ground. What would that change do to this whole HO/score question?
First, it gives those who want to the incentive to fly more historicly.The incentive to take your time & set up your attack. To fly with a wingman, communicate more. To find a safe field at which to take off & land away from the action.
Second it comes down to ACM & tatics, if you want a kill you'll have to fly in such a way to increase your odds of getting one in such a way that you have a chance to RTB.
Last, those who chose to ignore all such things as score, ACM, & whatever have the ability to do so. But, they gather no points & gain nothing unless they land their kills.
A ditch would hold your existing streak/score. If you took damage before ditching it should reward the person who dealt that damage. Providing that he manages to land safely.
Gone are the days of fly, die, respawn, fly.
Furballs would be something to be flown above & try to pick off the unwary target fixated plane. Rather than something that everyone dives into willy nilly.
I'm not saying it would be easy to do, or even that we should.
As long as your at it you might as well throw in an additional penalty for dieing. Like haveing to ferry a plane from the country's main field closer to where the action is.
10 minutes anyway of time to reflect on your mistakes of the last sortie.
------------------
Maj Ghosth
XO 332nd Flying Mongrels
-
Interesting ideas.
Frankly, I don't care if I'm proven wrong on my theory concerning the advantage of Cannons and low ping. If the case is the opposite, my point still holds: namely, that it ain't random.
As for scoring, my personal preference is for something as close to "historical" kill-tallying as possible. Ditches of disabled planes (no engine, fuel exhaustion with leak, or catastrophic struc. failure), bails and explosions should award kills, regardless of whether the pilot survived. Kills should be tallied for the previous sortie up until the point where the pilot begins the next (hits "fly").
From there on, use social control to address the "proper ACM" issue.
(and come to think of it, some of the HO artists out there are pretty high ping)
-
Originally posted by Ghosth:
What would happen if in order to claim a kill you had to return to base and make a good landing. Rounds fired & planes shot down information is "Held" until your back on the ground. What would that change do to this whole HO/score question?
Ghosth, I tried to say the same thing a few posts earlier, but my use of the word "realistic" was apparently more in contention than the issue. I agree with your thought, as I believe the issue is to attempt to reduce HO's.
Agreeing with Pongo, kills were awarded posthumously, however, they didn't (unfortunately) have the option to come back up as we do.
If one was not awarded a kill unless safely landed, it is my opinion that the player-killer mentality would be reduced. We would then have a more rea...uh, a flight/combat/historic flight sim where pilots use proper ACM (and all the things that go with it, ya'll know what I mean (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ).
------------------
Apache
++Renegade Nation++
[This message has been edited by Apache (edited 04-05-2000).]
-
That is a very interesting idea, Ghost. Imagine the rush to rtb safely if your kills weren't displayed in the radio buffer until you landed!
Here's an example of what the buffer may look like in your scenario:
"4 kills by Ghosth of the 332 Flying Mongrels", and on your buffer, you'd also get a list of your victims, in the order you shot them down in that sortie.
An idea of pure genius Ghost! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
banana
308 (Polish) Squadron RAF "City of Cracow"
"On the whole, it is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them"
-
Great idea Ghosth!
danish
[This message has been edited by danish (edited 04-05-2000).]
-
Originally posted by funked:
[B
Negative. The Luftwaffe counted Allied planes that were shot and forced to crash land over the Continent as kills. I'm pretty sure the other countries scored them the same way. [/B]
Okay, I guess this where it gets interesting. Because I'm prety sure that, in the BoB, german pilots who saw damaged planes descend and probably land/ditch were only credited with probables or damaged. This was over england of course, where confirmation was difficult. I suppose over the continent during this time period ditches/landed planes(both crash landed or just landed but damaged) were counted as victories because they could be confirmed. I suppose a simple algorithm could be created for this kind of confirmation. if they land in their own country, no credit for a victory unless someone is within icon range. If they don't land in their own country then you get credit for it.. of course it would have to be a ditch in your country to get a definite kill. Otherwise a ditch in another country other than his or your own(depending if we stay with the current 3-country system or not), then you'd need a friendly within icon range to get credit for a victory. This would of course require a lot more CPU power on the server's part, or maybe a second server networked to the current one(unless HTC is already running more than one server networked together) to process the data involving this credit system. This is probably the best solution and most realistic. But probably not very feasible, atleast not at this day in age. Maybe a year down the road. Oh well, ideas like these get put on the back burner but eventually we get the hardware to run 'em.
-SW
-
Well Ditches are a tough nut to handle no matter what you do with them.
Ignore them & you add to the fly/die/respawn syndrome. Yet I don't think they should be scored as a kill. After all the Pilot is going to walk away.
Since the FE is already tracking your position, it hopefully wouldn't be that hard
to score it based on location.
Ideally it would be scored based on damage/hits it took, with a modifier for location.
Clip......................... ......
A thought from someone new to AH. Why not get more realistic. If you don't land it, you don't get credit.
------------------
Apache
++Renegade Nation++
clip......................... .......
Yes Apache I saw your post (& agreed with it)
I had already come to the same conclusion.
Perhaps I expained the consquences better.
Or maybe I just used the right buzzwords (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Point is I'd really like to see this tried in the SE arena. I think it's the best place for testing development of ideas like this.
------------------
Maj Ghosth
XO 332nd Flying Mongrels
[This message has been edited by Ghosth (edited 04-05-2000).]
-
Agreed Ghosth.
Salute
------------------
Apache
++Renegade Nation++
-
This whole debate is pointless. Two people that know they are going to die are arguing over who gets the kill.
If it really concerns you, figure out new better ways to avoid it.
Other than that, this thread is simply an argument over why someone might have a better k/d ratio.
BOOYAH!! Perfect reply AKDeja.
Without pontificating, I can summarize my thoughts as thus; In a HO, if both planes die, award both planes kill. HOs can be avoided, let the sonofasqueak try to HO me. I jink, he misses, hes toast. If he gets a lucky ping, good shot, I jink sooner next time.
OUT.
-Ding
-
hiya all:
to start with, drop this stupid idea of haveing to fly back to your base and land to get credit for a kill, remember, if you are not on the runway when you exit plane, its a ditch. the guys that go out and shoot down two or three planes in some great dogfighting, get screwed when they are out of ammo and somebody chase's them down and boom, your three kills are gone. the vulching will become the only fighting in the game, and those defending need only kill somebody once and all there credits are toast. the dog fights will be less, you shoot somebody down and run for home because you want your credit. good luck getting an escort for your c47, the escorting plane gets a kill and turns for home because he want to make sure he gets his credit for the kill, c47's better take about 10 guys for escort duty. over all, really stupid idea, and for you that dont know, in WWII a dead pilot still got credit for his kills if he had a witness to report it, at same time in WWII, pilots that made kills with out a witness to back it up, did not get credit, unless a ground unit found the trashed plane for proof. so if you want to be as real as it was in WWII, no witness, no kill, weather you make it back or not.
next, everybody talks about not getting there kill because they went HO and they know the con they shot at was dead, or going to have to bail, but they blew up and the con got the kill. well im sure there are a lot of peaple here who chase a fighter all over the sky, close to the ground, doing loop t loops, rigzagging, chase the money around the barrel, and shoot him up good, you see his wing rip off, hes out of controll, it's a kill, but before he bails or blows up, you get hit from behind and you die. you just lost your kill, not do to a HO, but because you where busy with the guy you where chasing that you did not see the second con show up, screw the HO topic, i want my kill i just work so hard to get, but no way bud. and a lot of you know this to be tree, you have been there, and some even have whined at who ever just shot them down. * you bastered, we where having a good fight and you just jumped in and ruined it* tough cookies, you got screwed out of your kill and it does not matter if it was not a HO, you deserve the credit do to you, but untill this problem is resolved, keep an eye on your 6, and fly with a buddy. a would a knight please fly with me, i'll try to behave myself. dont say it, i know, not a hope in hell. lol
i hope this gets worked out soon.
blue skies all
-
The problem with recording kills in WWII was a matter of proof. Pilots were probably confused, or they exagerated, or perhaps even lied, but still it was hard in many cases to confirm what really happened. We are lucky enough, however, to have the ultimate proof of a kill, a computer that is able to see and record all. There is no reason not to use it's abilities to their fullest potential. In WWII they used whatever means to best determined what had actually taken place in combat. Had they had a direct link to God's eye, I bet they would have peeked.
Under the current score system, I am often willing to enter a 1 v 3 fight with only 11 rounds and 3 liters of gas. My attitude often is: What the heck, I already got 1 or 2 kills, maybe I'll get another.
The bottom line is that the scoring system should encourage people to engage, not run.
Making things as absolutly realistic as posible should not be the ultimate goal of a flight sim. Otherwise most of us would fly around for months without even seeing an enemy plane, and once we died we would never be allowed to fly in that sim again!
eskimo
-
SeaWulfe
I agree the territory should determine if a kill is awarded for a safe ditch or not.
However your estimates of the CPU power required are way off. It is a quite simple matter to determine the location of the ditched aircraft when the pilot exits. The CPU usage increase would be trivial.
-
Eskimo you are absolutely correct!
-
Originally posted by funked:
However your estimates of the CPU power required are way off. It is a quite simple matter to determine the location of the ditched aircraft when the pilot exits. The CPU usage increase would be trivial.
I suppose, I honestly don't know the current algorithm for placing aircraft on the map for the server. I know all the server has to do is send and recieve data packets that already have information on location already coded, so the server acts more or less as a switchboard. However, I was thinking about how many times people ditch and how many they ditch and how many do it at any single time. Then it has to decipher where the ditch was, if it was in enemy or friendly territory, and if there was someone else around there to see it if it was in enemy territory. I just figured this would be a lot of things for the server to decide, unless they code it for the client's side to decide whether or not it was in friendly or enemy territory and if there was a friendly around to see it if the ditch was in enemy territory. Maybe the algorithm for doing this isn't nearly as complicated as I'm thinking it is. Well, actually it's not complicated at all. I just thought that, lets say 100 people were on the server, then lets say every time on person ditched, there were five or six that ditched at the same time. Now the server has to go through the data that contains locations and decipher the location of the ditch(friendly or enemy). If it's friendly, server stops there and you get the kill. If it's enemy, then the server has to continue on to decide whether or not a friendly was around to see it. (I'd say icon range at the very least, but would be more inclined to say the friendly has to be within 3K of the enemy ditching. Maybe this isn't as much work as it seems on paper(or atleast having to do so many calculations for each ditch in any given second), but I don't know. At the very least I'd say this won't be available for another couple versions. Code, debug, test etc. While working on more important things(voice comms, new planes, vehicles, perhaps adjusting damage model?, adding cool new features etc). So far I have no complaints about the game, and I enjoy it a lot. I find the scoring issue to be the most trivial of all matters right now, but I guess it's just a matter of who wants what when.
-SW