Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: humble on October 23, 2006, 11:19:46 AM
-
Since we're seeing so many changes how about revisiting the collision model. While I completely agree with the underlying logic behind the current collision system the bottom line is pretty simple. More and more its being used to game the game. I'm seeing more and more instances with neg G manuevers in close fights followed with a "pop up" designed to force the con to either totally give up position (if you can even avoid the bogie) or dive under. In fact I've noticed more folks actually PRACTICING this move trying to learn it. Your also seeing more and more collisions with bombers brought on by the bombers "warping" during manuevering to keep station...bad enough the bird dissappears right as you adjust to its new position.....but then to run into the other drone that "beams" right in front of you is comical.
Collisions happen in air combat....simply part of the reality. Since the current system generates so many complaints how about enabling damage regardless of orientation.
At this point the system penalizes the player with positional advantage and is being used more and more as an "offensive weapon" by some pilots on defense. I've got no problem absorbing damage if I cant avoid a manuevering bogie....I'm simply asking that the bogie is no longer immune from damage.
This continues to be a major issue in 200 and is getting worse. As far as I'm concerned its because the damage model is being used in ways unintended by the design team.
-
My 1st impression was, NOT AGAIN! But you make some valid points.
Yes, there are some who try to game the collision model, how successful they are remains in doubt. I really do not think it is something anyone can actually get good at. It is purely chance that a move actually works. Most times in the last few days that a collision has occurred with me it has been the other guy who got the collision. I would say my ration is about 5 to 1.
No, collision regardless of orientation would not work. You would not want to go down in flames because a plane flew 20 feet off you left wing. That is what would happen.
As far as the "offensive maneuver" if you do not make the real close pass then it's not an issue. In a tight scissor I doubt that anyone can really use it as a weapon.
Most times it is because there is no fear of dieing. They will come in at you firing and not be able to or are unwilling to pull away. Hoping you will explode before they hit you.
The issue on 200 is because the majority of player do not have a clue how it works. That goes for noobs as well as veterans.
On the issue of bombers. I do agree that the collision model has a deficiency when it comes to bombers. Bombers cannot evade a bogey screaming up their but. I also thing that the planes should not warp into position when one plane is killed. Let them reform naturally. I sure HT would need to COAD that.
The real issue is that any change to the collision model either penalizes the good pilot or rewards the bad one. Both of which are not desirable. If it is too forgiving people will just fly right at you and worry less about colliding, If it's too restrictive then people die without actually colliding on their computer.
Yes it's not perfect but the current system is the best it can get. At least until the Internet travels art war speed.
-
Originally posted by humble
At this point the system penalizes the player with positional advantage and is being used more and more as an "offensive weapon" by some pilots on defense.
The only positions that will result in your being penalized are the ones inside the other guy's plane. As it stands, no one is immune to damage. If your FE doesn't see a collision, you won't get damage.
-
I guess I need to change my FE, I'm thinking of using one off of a 73' Ford pickup or a 83' Buick Skylark
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
The only positions that will result in your being penalized are the ones inside the other guy's plane. As it stands, no one is immune to damage. If your FE doesn't see a collision, you won't get damage.
Actually your wrong, only the plane that detects a collision is going to get damage. So the plane on the defensive is immune...which really isnt historically a problem....but I flat out gaurantee you its being used as a tactic. It took me less then 20 minutes to duplicate it and auger someone on purpose. Just lucky....probably....but I'll just go with the flow......
-
Originally posted by humble
Actually your wrong, only the plane that detects a collision is going to get damage. So the plane on the defensive is immune...which really isnt historically a problem....but I flat out gaurantee you its being used as a tactic. It took me less then 20 minutes to duplicate it and auger someone on purpose. Just lucky....probably....but I'll just go with the flow......
No, that's what I'm saying. You fly into him on your end, you take damage. I disagree that it's easily manipulated is all.
-
im not sure if im getting what you mean snap, people are forcing rams when you are behind them?
i will say though, when i get rammed from behind i usually live, but head on or be hitting them from behind i usually die so i think you have a point.
-
I've noticed a pretty significant change in tactics over the last 6 months by alot of good pilots. Changes that aren't really consistant with "proper" ACM in a close quarters fight. I've also picked up a fair number of kills where you scratch your head and go Huh??? What could he possibly be thinking.....
I'll use the IL-2 as a similiar example. About 6 months or so ago the IL-2 started to seriously pop up as a "dog fighter"....1st it was just 1 or 2 guys....now you have a pretty large number of guys proficient in gaming the IL-2 (wouldnt you love to be able to toggle to F3 view and back). So a game feature designed for use in large multicrew bombers is now being used in an unintended way to game the game. Seperate from the views the IL-2 is flown in a way similiar to that needed to create "issues" for an attacker.
Again I flew 1 hop this morning, eneded up low on the deck by A4 after a real nice 1 on 1 (in a -1 hog). I was low reasonably slow with a la-7, nikki and P-38 behind. Using the "new tactics" I easily got the lala to break off on 3 seperate occasions with out even a ping....he literally had to abandon the attack...the nikki and the 38 both broke off as well....I then reengaged the la-7 (he was a pretty good stick it turned out)....which was a stalemate till a friendly showed up.
Realistically your dealing with the same general principles that lead to an overshoot or scissors fight. However those dont inherently cost you anything....where a collision does. Basically you can create the threat of a collision...or even potentially the reality in such a way that it creates a better offensive posture for the defender then an actual scissors or similiar defense will.
-
im still confused here.
forcing someone to break off the attack or ram you, thats a rash tactic but a fair one. how is that gaming the game? its not in my view.
if they hit you its because they flew into you on thier FE, you you dont take damage, then you missed them on your FE. simple as that.
forcing an enemy to overshoot or collide would only be gamey if you did it with that express purpose and you never took damage yourself, in my view.
-
I think he's saying that the guy on the defensive can easily and at-will force the attacker to ram, and therefore either die or be damaged, and that this is a new and popular tactic that's being abused.
The Il2 has the meanest cannons in the game, takes a beating, flies pretty well, and is available without ordnance when the FH are down. I don't think it has much to do with the external view or being able to "force" rams.
-
Sorry Humble but forcing an attacker to break because he is fearful of a collision is a valid tactic. Many a time I have slammed on the breaks in a plane that bleeds E fast and seen the attacker collide on his FE. I have no sympathy for him. I have been on the other end of this and don't expect any from him either. It is up to the pilot to control his plane. Managing your closure IS part of good ACM.
Again, I am sure there are players out there who think they can game the collision model. I just don't believe they can be very successfull at it.
-
This is nothing new. The "ace" players when on the deck, and know they have no other alternative, will try to force a collision. I view it as part of the game.
It is sounding like more "non-ace", i.e. my category, players have figured this tactic out. Do I like it? No. Does it happen more than I want to see? Yes. Have I used it? Yes.
Don't plan on this changing. There are alternatives to this tactic, but you need to recognize that the other player is trying to force a collision. I prefer to call this a "game feature".
Throttle control, barrel rolls, yo-yo's, "better" gunnery, using cannons, along with slow speed control are all tactics against this "game feature". Of course, getting low and slow then gives you the opportunity to use the collision model offensively. Enjoy.
Regards,
Malta
-
OK, here is how it is done. Put your plane in a colison course (and it does not have to be head on) with the bad guy. Last possible moment (needs some practice) pull out of the way. Your FE sees NO colision since you evaded. Guess happens to the other guy :noid Yeah, sounds like a fair system, lol
-
hmm yeah... i was flying in some bombers a few weeks ago, and some guy in a 109, without the extra guns was gunning at me untill he run out of ammo.... he still kept flying around me, really close, and once i managed to shoot him down, he
'ed and said he was trying to "get me to collide" ie he knew that if he flew close enough he might miss me, but get MY FE to see a collision and kill me...
that is the problem with this system. collisions should happend for BOTH planes....
-
It sounds like you're describing a vertical scissors. There may be more chance of a collision because of view issues but I don't think that has to mean collisions are intended.
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
OK, here is how it is done. Put your plane in a colison course (and it does not have to be head on) with the bad guy. Last possible moment (needs some practice) pull out of the way. Your FE sees NO colision since you evaded. Guess happens to the other guy :noid Yeah, sounds like a fair system, lol
That should probably read "Guess what happens to the other guy who either lost his SA or simply didn't take any evasives." Sure, you can induce a collision in this manner, or he could just as easily do the same thing to you. Yeah, it's not perfect, but until copper is done away with completely, we really don't have any better options.
-
Originally posted by FLS
It sounds like you're describing a vertical scissors. There may be more chance of a collision because of view issues but I don't think that has to mean collisions are intended.
nope, he was flying in from the side and "aiming" for just under my wing tips in a aim to get MY FE to see collision... he said it himself.
I dont blame the guy at all, and he will not be named.
-
[SIZE=10]OMFG NOT ANOTHER COLLISION THREAD AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!![/SIZE]
-
Is there any soup to be had, ice?
-
Not too hard to 'force' a collision on the other guys FE if he is in buffs.
Discovered it accidently when two of us went to the DA to do some collision tests some time back.
It may actually be a combination of lag and the smoothing code, but it can be done, and is repeatable.
-
Originally posted by humble
...I'm seeing more and more instances with neg G manuevers in close fights followed with a "pop up" designed to force the con to either totally give up position (if you can even avoid the bogie) or dive under. In fact I've noticed more folks actually PRACTICING this move trying to learn it. ..
Sorry I was unclear Overlag, there was nothing in your post that sounded like a vertical scissors. I was referrng to Humble's post above.
-
trying to force a collision is dam near impossible..minus the head on..ive tried many times and it almost never works...the Il2 is a monster that you should be vary wary of. It takes enormous damage turns like crazy and has uber cannon...the Il2 "gaming" tactic you describe is nonsense. Most that cry about it are vulchers and bnz' ers lookin for an easy kill while going way to fast..an uber turning plane going 200 mph is gonna lag roll you or otherwise force an overshoot and light you up with 23mm...also the external view, IMO, is legit because of the mannable gun ( or spotter) in the rear. In other words one overshoot with a competent pilot and your gonna get plugged..as they say it only takes one cannon
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
That should probably read "Guess what happens to the other guy who either lost his SA or simply didn't take any evasives." Sure, you can induce a collision in this manner, or he could just as easily do the same thing to you. Yeah, it's not perfect, but until copper is done away with completely, we really don't have any better options.
1) B17s cannot evade very well. SA = bla bla bla. You don't always see everyone, right? The fact that you did not see them does not mean they should be able to cause a colision if they want to.
2) Yes, the other guy can do that to you to. Who said he can't. Its hard to do, but it can be done with some practice.
3) We agree, its not perfect. But everyone claims it is the best we can do. You ve been arouns for a while right? Do you remember any threads about colisions lets say 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe the better option is the one people dont complain about or can't take advantage of?
It seems that people are complaining about things that were not even mentioned in the past as being an issue. Those things have been changed for our own good. Now, I could not care less about any of the changes and I actually like most of them, but I did not have an issue with any of them before either.
Just saing, does anyone remember what happened when coca cola changed the original formula because they knew better than their customers?
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
1) B17s cannot evade very well. SA = bla bla bla. You don't always see everyone, right? The fact that you did not see them does not mean they should be able to cause a colision if they want to.
2) Yes, the other guy can do that to you to. Who said he can't. Its hard to do, but it can be done with some practice.
3) We agree, its not perfect. But everyone claims it is the best we can do. You ve been arouns for a while right? Do you remember any threads about colisions lets say 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe the better option is the one people dont complain about or can't take advantage of?
It seems that people are complaining about things that were not even mentioned in the past as being an issue. Those things have been changed for our own good. Now, I could not care less about any of the changes and I actually like most of them, but I did not have an issue with any of them before either.
Just saing, does anyone remember what happened when coca cola changed the original formula because they knew better than their customers?
1) Yeah, too much SA is practically impossible. FWIW, most of the guys that collide with me, I never saw coming either, while I have seen nearly everyone I've collided with, except some drones. Agreed on the B17 not being much good when it comes to panic maneuvers.
2)My point on that one being, getting out of the way is the best way to not plow into someone. If you're not too close, you can't collide. If you don't see one coming, and you do get a collision... well, that sucks, but that probably mimics real life to some extent. At least I look at it that way, and that makes it easier to tolerate.
3)2 or 3 years ago, I honestly didn't give it much thought , other than despising the fact that someone could fly right through me guns blazing. I had 0 concept of latency and packets and all that geeky coad stuff. I would guess that the same was true for a lot of us.
I kind of liked new coke. I'm still a classic guy, but I like variety, as long as it's not diet. ;)
-
What changed in the collision model was the text buffer messages. This was done to bring some understanding to the community regarding collisions. That failed. It only made the whining worse.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
What changed in the collision model was the text buffer messages. This was done to bring some understanding to the community regarding collisions. That failed. It only made the whining worse.
Nop, that was the change after a change :lol
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
3)2 or 3 years ago, I honestly didn't give it much thought , other than despising the fact that someone could fly right through me guns blazing
Agreed, I am just trying to say that something has changed that some people dont like. Its not a whine if it has been going on for a year.
Point 3 above. If anyone ever does/did that they will be better off taking the collision damage than what actually is going to happen to them. If you shoot anyone from this close, the uber damage model will kill you first (kill shooter effect) before it does any damage to the bad guy. So really, even if no one is trying intentionaly to game the colision model, when you get really close in a fight you have two things to wory about if the guy starts doing the floping fish uber ACMz (tm) move.
You have to worry about colliding and killshooting yourself. You do have the option to try and get out of the way but at slow speeds he will end up on your 6 at D200.
What I am saing is that your focus should be on fighting the other guy, not having to worry about these things. 2 or 3 years ago you did not have to wory about any of this and focus on the guy you are fighting and SHawk or Zazen trying to pick you off (sorry, I could not resist :lol) So, we have choice 1) things as they were in the past with no complains and choice 2) keep the change that generates all this crying on the BBS. Lets go with #2, lol
-
I stll dont buy all this no matter how many people say it. If i have someone on my tail there is only one way i want to shake them, by making them overshoot in some dimension or another. If during this move they ram be in the arse, and by a further stroke of luck i live and they die, then that hardly constitutes as 'intentionaly causing a ram'. wtf would i be causing a ram for, if they hit me that means they are overshooting, and if i dont collide with them they will be infront of me in seconds.
the very last thing i would want to happen in an overshoot in horizontal or vertical, is collide. to me this event would suggest that i had waited for my guns solution too long, flown too close and not been able to fire, and then even more so kept flying untill i collided. 3 mistakes, i deserve to die. who cares if the other guy flies on or not.
As to little children who might actually intend to make me ram them, and somehow they know how to survive, more power to them. anyone who cheats is so far down the acm levels compared to most of us here that they will die anyhow. they cant cause a collision if you kill them right.
-
"I think he's saying that the guy on the defensive can easily and at-will force the attacker to ram, and therefore either die or be damaged, and that this is a new and popular tactic that's being abused. "
if the player on defense tries to do this all the attacker has to do is squeeze the trigger until the plane in front goes poof....
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
It happens, people use collision to their benefit.
I think as the game grows more popular any/all exploitable aspects get more widely used.
I see buffs zigzagging & making the drones dissapear/re-appear, so I go for the lead buff then and climb out after its dead waiting for the system to put next buff in lead, repeat.
I even used collision once, a long long time ago. I was out of ammo & a goon was almost ready to drop troops, I swooped in front of him & chopped Throttle, he hit me. The goon went down & I flew back to base & grabbed a plane with more ammo. I'm not proud of it, but It happened.
-
Deleted
-
B@tfinkv,BugsBunny:
Take that crap to email.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
B@tfinkv,BugsBunny:
Take that crap to email.
HiTech
hey. We can say crap but not s**t.
-
Originally posted by Solar10
hey. We can say crap but not s**t.
I think he actually meant to type carp (like the fish), but you know how his spelling can be. :rofl
-
sorry HT.
was pretty light hearted though.
-
Originally posted by humble
.....snip.....
At this point the system penalizes the player with positional advantage and is being used more and more as an "offensive weapon" by some pilots on defense. .....
...snip....
Gotta call this BS. If your ACM target can "force" you to hit him, then you're "forcing" your attack into a zone so dangerous that it shouldn't be entered. In reality, if a player *knows* where the attacker will be in the future (which is what "forcing" a collision would require), then the attacker isnt doing his job. Period.
When defender tries to "force" the overshoot, then he's giving up E to try to gain position (as with neg G maneuvers, which are elevator intensive). If the attacker adds any kind of separation, by barrel roll, etc -- then the attacker's both widened his energy advantage and probably gained a positional one on the hard breaking bandit.
No one has ever forced me to collide...when I collide, its because if what I did.The only way someone can "force" me to hit him is if I let him -- by boring in for the kill with suicidal determination. That kind of attack is so unrealistic that it invalidates your entire "unrealistic collision" argument.
And if anyone is that rediculously, stupidly aggressive, there's absolutely NO reason I should be penalized if he hits me.