Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: wolf37 on November 11, 2001, 06:35:00 PM
-
Hiya All:
Why in a in flight collision does only one plane take damage. I have had many in flight collisions and I have yet to see the other plane go down as well. I do not try to ram enemy planes, the collisions happen well dog fighting, wheather it is a HO or rammed from behind. now I have been told that who ever is at fault is the one to crash or something like that. but on one occation, a plane came up behind me rather fast and as I tried to avoid getting shot down I pulled up and turnnering to the righht, I heard the collision as he went by. Now I ended up loosing a wing and he went on to shoot down another plane after I had crashed. so I know he did not crash. Now in real life war time, if two planes collided, they both crashed, not just one plane. I would like to see this put into place in the AcesHigh sim.
thanks
-
Collisions are modelled by whoever's FE sees the collision. If the other guy evades, then he doesnt take any damage. If you see the collision on your FE then you take damage. Really this is the only way to do it because of lag and other internet stuff. Maybe someone who explained it so well the other thousand times the question was asked can step in here and give you better reasons, but as far as I know this is why they are the way they are.
-
I think what Wolf is complaining about are those times when a plane collides with you in your blind spot...your FE sees it, but you have no clue. I actually did this to a Lanc a few weeks ago. I did a belly attack, but misjudged my climb. I zoomed up in front of him without firing a shot. He exploded because on his FE I had zoomed up thru his belly. Its BS...there's gotta be a better way.
-
I don't see why both planes can't take damage. My FE tells the other computer when my bullets hit. Why can't my FE tell the other computer when my plane (a big giant bullet) hits him? I'm not sure how damage is detected in the game, but it can even maybe take into account speeds and where the collision took place so BOTH take appropriate damage. Any discrepancies in the FE's can probably look to a table for a quick answer. From what I hear, it's the fast connects that usually lose in a collision.
-
Read these threads for a comprehensive take on collision modeling:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001293 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001293)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001047 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001047)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000868 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000868)
-
I read the threads you posted and I'm not convinced. There are times I watch my six and see the other player is not "nose on" and the bullets are missing me but I hear the hits a second later. This was the hardest thing for me to deal with moving from games like Falcon to the online world. Also, and what I see more of in Aces High, is that in an HO I will DODGE the enemy's shot and not see any bullets near me yet a second after the enemy has completely passed my aircraft to my six I will hear the damage and go down. I just experienced this the other day in my F6F vs a diving HO F4U. I never even saw the stinkin' bullets yet as he passes I lose my tail and flutter to earth like a feather. I don't see what the difference is then between a bullet hit and an airplane hit.
Also, who is to say who is at fault in the collision? My opponent may dive on my six and see that he misses me to the side or in front of me, yet on my end my FE sees the Bozo run into me...I'll still be the only one to die. If one player sees a bullet or airplane hit, both FEs should make amends with the damage. I have no idea if it's truth or Aces High Legend, but I've heard of guys with slow connections taking their goons and trying to HO opponents as a means of survival.
-
There are times I watch my six and see the other player is not "nose on" and the bullets are missing me but I hear the hits a second later. This was the hardest thing for me to deal with moving from games like Falcon to the online world.
He was "nose on" to you on his FE. His bullets don't have to hit you on your FE, just on his FE. His FE then tells the server and the server tells your FE. Your FE then appies the damage that his FE calculated and you hear the pings.
Also, and what I see more of in Aces High, is that in an HO I will DODGE the enemy's shot and not see any bullets near me yet a second after the enemy has completely passed my aircraft to my six I will hear the damage and go down. I just experienced this the other day in my F6F vs a diving HO F4U. I never even saw the stinkin' bullets yet as he passes I lose my tail and flutter to earth like a feather.
There are several posibilities.
First there is net lag. Net lag makes HOs more leathal to both parties in a game like AH than it was in reality because even after you kill him he doesn't know about it for up to half a second and can keep firing at you. Due to the ammount of net lag when one of the participants has a poor connection you can be all the way past the enemy before you hear the effects of his firing. Poor connects suck, but there is not much that can be done about it.
Second is the possibility that he had his tracers turned off. When tracers are turned off neither the shooter or target sees any indication of rounds in the air. It makes it harder to hit for most people, but it also prvents the tracers from alerting a bounced target of his peril.
I don't see what the difference is then between a bullet hit and an airplane hit.
Bullets that hit you on his FE and miss you on your FE, hit. Bullets miss you on his FE, but hit you on your FE, miss. An aircraft that hits you on his FE and misses you on yours, misses. An aircraft that misses you on his FE and hits you on your FE, hits.
Also, who is to say who is at fault in the collision? My opponent may dive on my six and see that he misses me to the side or in front of me, yet on my end my FE sees the Bozo run into me...I'll still be the only one to die.
In the scenario that you described you are very clearly at fault. You failed to avoind an oncomming aircraft. He did nothing wrong on his FE, he simply put himself close behind you, something that we all do in dogfights. How would it be fair to him if he were killed in that situation?
If one player sees a bullet or airplane hit, both FEs should make amends with the damage.
That would cause all sorts of weirdness. Imagine firing off a clumsy snap shot that clearly was poorly amined on your part and misses by a wide margin only to see the bandit explode because the bullets hit on his FE. Would you feel good about getting a kill that had nothing to do with your skill? Imagine executing a clean attack and dieing suddenly because there was a collision that there is no way you could have seen on his FE, how would you feel?
I have no idea if it's truth or Aces High Legend, but I've heard of guys with slow connections taking their goons and trying to HO opponents as a means of survival.
You'd have to have an insanely slow connection for that to work. People may have tried it, but I'd be very surprised if it ever worked.
-
<<His bullets don't have to hit you on your FE, just on his FE. His FE then tells the server and the server tells your FE. Your FE then appies the damage that his FE calculated and you hear the pings.>>
Exactly. So make a collision the same exact way. You've still not shown me why it's okay that these are different.
I don't see why it's okay for [the shooter's] FE to see bullet strikes yet they don't show up on [the target's] FE but the damage is recorded as opposed to it not being okay if [the attacker's] FE detects an airframe collision and the damage is not sent to [the target's] FE.
Just like bullets, you may not see the bullet "collide" with you, but you take the damage. You may not see the enemy aircraft "collide" with you, but still you should take damage.
It's okay if a 30mm round hits you whether your FE detects it or not but it's not okay if an enemy aircraft hits you if you do not detect it.
[edited with shooter/target because I confused you with the shooter not seeing hits should count if the target sees them...though I doubt they hear pings unless the FE tells your FE to make ping sounds.]
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Steven ]
-
I didn't read your whole msg... This is almost like a half-full/half-empty debate.
<<You failed to avoind an oncomming aircraft. He did nothing wrong on his FE, he simply put himself close behind you, something that we all do in dogfights. How would it be fair to him if he were killed in that situation?>>
Then why is it freakin' fair if I am blown to bits by his bullets that my FE does not detect? Answer me that and then I may buy that's it's okay to only damage one side in a collision too.
If you are okay with damage being taken by something your FE does not detect as hitting you, then you should be okay with it across the board whether it be by bullets, aircraft or flying monkies.
-
When was the last time two planes collided in mid-air with enough force to destroy one while leaving the other undamaged? While I understand the FE discussion for airplane position, I don't understand using the FE's ability to "see" as a basis for the argument. I know of several incidents in NTSB reports where one or both pilots did not see an impending mid-air collision. That doesn't mean they didn't or shouldn't have been damaged. If two planes collide on either front end, they should both take some form of damage. The all-or-nothing damage model for collisions is a little unbelievable.
MiG
-
Okay, okay... I'm overposting. But this one I actually took a few minutes to think out as I typed and here it is:
An object is an object is an object. I don’t see why aircraft and bullets are differentiated. I understand the problems with lag but I think the rule of collision-detection should be across-the-board. You stated it’s my own fault if last second I see a guy dive onto me and I have no time to avoid him and my FE shows collision yet his does not and I am the only one to explode and die. Point here is that the attacker did not see a collision (an object hitting an object) yet he is awarded the kill. But, in contrast, you do not believe that it’s okay if the attacker does not see his bullets hit but the attacked does see/hear the bullets hit and blows up. You said this would be confusing to the attacker. This is the same thing just using different objects. You contradict yourself. These are in essence the same exact things yet you hold exceptions to the rule for some reason.
I really have no problem with collisions, it’s a rare occurrence for me but it does happen. I have no problems with Aces High, I enjoy it and rarely have any problems other than my own stupid moves. I just find flaw in your reasoning and justification. I would like to further test your rules with an absurd example. Say that my airplane shoots little bullets with wings and tail (and looks just like a little P-40) and has trained fleas who can fly themselves into an enemy aircraft. (I’m trying to blur the distinction between aircraft and bullet to test your conclusion.) Okay, my FE sees these little P-40 kamikaze/bullets hit your aircraft but your FE does not….what happens? Or, my FE does not see these objects strike your aircraft but your FE does detect it…what happens? Or, what if my airplane is faster than a “speeding bullet” and catches up with my bullet at the same exact time both my airplane and bullet strike your aircraft yet only my FE detects these things…what strikes you? Both or only one object? What if I flew a bullet that shot airplanes at you? And object is an object is an object.
I just don’t get your reasoning. I think you are collision-o’-phobic or something. ;-)
-
For what its worth, I agree totally. The collision model has always been one of my biggest gripes.
-
Look at it this way:
In a HO situation you are closing quickly on the bandit. You fire, then you go and manuever out of position so your plane is no longer directly facing his plane. Therefore, you flew past him on your front end. You effectively avoided the collision.
He, on the other hand, in all his dweebiness fails to realize he needs to manuever as well- your "ghost" plane runs into him and he dies because he did not take the initiative to manuever out of the way.
I would hate to die becuase half these dweebs don't maneuver when they are going for a HO shot.
It's the best the way it is, until the internet runs in true real time.
-SW
-
I'll take the collision model that we have. At least it allows us to try to avoid the collision and survive. If BOTH planes were damaged when one FE detected a collision, it would be open season for ramming. Since we don't have the RL <cough> penalty for ramming, I'll take a gameplay concession to minimize it as an offensive "tactic".
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Look at it this way:
In a HO situation you are closing quickly on the bandit. You fire, then you go and manuever out of position so your plane is no longer directly facing his plane. Therefore, you flew past him on your front end. You effectively avoided the collision.
He, on the other hand, in all his dweebiness fails to realize he needs to manuever as well- your "ghost" plane runs into him and he dies because he did not take the initiative to manuever out of the way.
I would hate to die becuase half these dweebs don't maneuver when they are going for a HO shot.
It's the best the way it is, until the internet runs in true real time.
-SW
mmm no,
the way it is now, in a collision, u really hit something that isnt there according to the other players FE. he manuvered and missed, but u hit him on ur FE. so u hit something that isnt really there and u die
but they go on as normal.
well the same could be said for bullet strikes. u fire and see hits on the enemy.
but on his FE he manuvered and see u miss.
but ur FE see u hit and enemy gets killed.
so u actually get a kill on something that
wasnt there.
same situation, both instances u hit something that wasnt there. 1 u die, 1 enemy dies. its BS to program hit detection for
a simular situation, but totally different
and contradicting outcomes.
either u hit what u see, as in, firing bullets, or program for the lag as in
collisions.
either program collisions like bullet strikes, u hit what u see and both go down, or programm bullets like collisions, if u shoot at the target, u might miss cause
on his FE he turns and u missed even though
u saw hits on ur FE.
whels
-
Hmmmm, yes- I said exactly what you said Whels. You just reversed it and went on to disagree with me about it being the best the way it is.
Last I checked, you can manuever against the guy trying to kill you to deny him a shot.
Them bullets are lil' small things. Them planes, OTOH, are big ol' whoppers.
It's easier to simply let your plane hit a target than to let your bullets hit your target.
As it is now, and yes this is the way it is, if you get into a collision it's your fault. It happened on your end, you should of manuevered away earlier- but you didn't.
And, yes again, it is the best we can get right now.
-SW
-
You play to what you see... as does everyone else. Its just that everyone does not see the exact same thing. Once that does occur, this argument is a moot point.
Until then, you try to hit or avoid hitting things on your FE while hoping like hell the guy isn't seeing you on his sights in his FE. Responsibility for your own actions.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
As it is now, and yes this is the way it is, if you get into a collision it's your fault. It happened on your end, you should of manuevered away earlier- but you didn't.
-SW
That's not true. See my example above. That Lanc had no way to see me zooming up towards his belly. On my FE I climbed in front of him by 100ft. On his FE I went up through his fuselage and killed him. It's exploitable.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel:
That's not true. See my example above. That Lanc had no way to see me zooming up towards his belly. On my FE I climbed in front of him by 100ft. On his FE I went up through his fuselage and killed him. It's exploitable.
another example, me and another 51 fighting 1 on 1, no HO shots fired, i see him pass me to lmy left, we visually miss each other.
do i lose my left wing in collision? no, i lose the right wing, total opposite side from
where he passed me, i die, he flies on. yet on my FE we didnt hit visually.
whels
-
Until we run the internet in true real time, anything and everything is exploitable.
Fw-190- Most potent warp roller in the game, followed very closely by the F4U.
HOs- I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Lets just say it's an old secret from WB, using internet lag to get a guaranteed kill.
Cross vector approach (what you did above, but using it against fighters) can easily produce multiple kill sorties.
Fact of the matter is, every type of manuever has the potential to produce a collision.
Same way as if both people died from the collision except now you just reverse it.
Instead of both people dying to HOs (atleast both were participants in aiming their aircraft at each other).
Lets take a classic 6 O' clock approach and apply the "both die" formula.
There you are, merrily flying along looking for an easy vulch kill. Little did you know, there's a dweeb tracking you 1.2K above you. He dives down, you begin to manuever. His lag isn't the best, but yours is within ~10ms. You manage to force him to overshoot and undershoot through several scissors. Now, he breaks off in the opposite direction as you- except on his end your plane freezes in mid-air. Not a shot hit on yours or on his FE, but he got a temporary net freeze and hit you. His ISP resends packets and tries to re-establish it's connection (we're talking 200ms max). You saw him freeze, and immediately assumed he discoed. Then he moves again- instantly flying past you and resituating himself about 600yds behind you facing the other way...
Then the packets get to you- you see him on fire and going down. Next thing you know- BOOM! You die now.
Sounds just as, if not less, fair than the system we're using right now.
-SW
-
nope, i say its not the best way. a collision is a collision weather it be
plane to plane or bullet to plane.
if i hit u with my bullets u go down, if i hit u with my plane we both should go down.
if u programmed collisions the same way
i might see my bullets hit u on my FE, but u coulda turned on ur FE and i miss, result,
u fly off un hit by my bullets.
but as it is right now with the double standard, bullet hit what i see and it goes BOOM, but plane to plane, if i hit what i see
i go boom, the other doesnt. pure n simple
double standard.
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Hmmmm, yes- I said exactly what you said Whels. You just reversed it and went on to disagree with me about it being the best the way it is.
Last I checked, you can manuever against the guy trying to kill you to deny him a shot.
Them bullets are lil' small things. Them planes, OTOH, are big ol' whoppers.
It's easier to simply let your plane hit a target than to let your bullets hit your target.
As it is now, and yes this is the way it is, if you get into a collision it's your fault. It happened on your end, you should of manuevered away earlier- but you didn't.
And, yes again, it is the best we can get right now.
-SW
-
Of course your way is the best way Whels, what was I ever thinking?
I mean, a proven to work and produce less whines system is inevitably not the right way to do it on an internet that does not run in real time.
This isn't about double standards, get that outta here. Double standards would be a viewpoint you go back on later but still re-state your original viewpoint which you went back on.
This is about gameplay concessions because of internet lag.
Much like the ground vehicles, or the bombers, or the bombs, or... well damn near half the game. It ain't fun dying to something you can't avoid because of lag.
-SW
-
Originally posted by whels:
but as it is right now with the double standard, bullet hit what i see and it goes BOOM, but plane to plane, if i hit what i see
i go boom, the other doesnt. pure n simple
double standard.
I agree it is a double standard.
I don't know if we should change it though, when I'm on the bad end of a collision (usually happens that way) I want it changed.
However, last night I had someone else collide with me on his FE (first time I've seen that) fighter vs fighter. We went for a merge and I maneuvered out of his way after I decide I couldn't get enough angle for a shot. He pressed in and ended up ramming me on his FE. I sw him flying past and then boom! no more P47, even though I hadn't fired on him in that merge... I bet he wasn't happy that I wasn't damaged, I was just glad that the collision wasn't sent to me as damage packets because I was clear on my FE... Guess your perspective changes as to the circumstances of the ramming.
-
nope, i say its not the best way. a collision is a collision weather it be
plane to plane or bullet to plane.
if i hit u with my bullets u go down, if i hit u with my plane we both should go down.
if u programmed collisions the same way
i might see my bullets hit u on my FE, but u coulda turned on ur FE and i miss, result,
u fly off un hit by my bullets.
but as it is right now with the double standard, bullet hit what i see and it goes BOOM, but plane to plane, if i hit what i see
i go boom, the other doesnt. pure n simple
double standard.
Does anyone else see that this argument is just trying to justify getting mad about your own screwup by crashing into the other guy?
What the current system amouts to is the least frustations.
Gunnery is as it is because is much more frustrating watching your bullets fly threw someone and not hit them VS watching bullets miss you and still getting hit.
Collisions are as they are because it's much less frustrating as it is now VS colliding with someone 200 yards away.
-
Just an observation. When I'm invloved in a head on merge and resultant collision it is almost always because I tried to get that last shot off. It isn't because I manuvered and the enemy manuvered into me.
My point is that the interpolation or whatever method AH uses to counter net lag usually results in planes flying very straight when engaged in an HO. If your FE sees (and I don't mean your eyes, some seem to confuse the FE seeing with their visual ability to see the enemy) a collision then there was a collision for you.
I think everyone has a chance to easily avoid this most of the time due to the reason I mentioned previously. Therefore, why punish the person that avoids the collision.
-
My $.02 on the collision idea. If there is a collision between two planes BOTH should take damage. Either the collision happened or it didn't. That is real life, that feature could be, should be simulated here as well. Blaming it on net lag is a copout, the same as the debate on where you were on the other guys FE when he shot at you. If his FE said you were in line to take hits but yours doesn't you still take damage.
Collisions are NOT a one sided package like they are currently modeled. When two planes try to occupy the same piece of sky at the same sky they BOTH suffer the consequences irregardless who was looking where or how good their depth perception is.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Hitech,
<<Does anyone else see that this argument is just trying to justify getting mad about your own screwup by crashing into the other guy?>>
Like a bomber can realy get out of the way of a diving fighter. I remember one particular instance where I was low and slow in an F4U in a very steep nose up attitude...I could make barely any movements yet someone comes in and buzzes me and what appears safe to him is unsafe to me and he dives down onto and through me.
Whether someone rams me and I can't see it and take damage isn't any worse than someone making a HO on you and you look clear and out of the way and never seeing him shoot and watching him fly safely past to your six you hear the pings and blow up. I really do not see a difference here. Only little objects can blow you up even if you don't see them hit you on your end. It does seem a double standard and that was all my point was in the beginning. As to an answer?...I dunno. I do know people adapt and they probably would stop pushing the range in the merge after a while. There were really pilots who used their planes as a weapon but luckily this is only a game so it's no big deal.
Maybe only make a collision and damage occur *only* if detected by both FEs. If not detected by both, it never happened. It's a game.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Steven ]
-
Hitech:
sorry, but I disagree, I have had a plane collide with me from behind, he came down fast and I still end up as the plane falling apart because he screwed up his attack. so when you say that the person that screws up is the one to die, why would I have been the one on that ocation, this is the reason I posted in the first place, I died when somebody dove down on me and ended in collision and he flies away.
I have been in a lot of collisions well trying to take the HO shot then turning to avoid, or turning in on somebody as they are turning in on me and end in collision, and never posted as I heard (read) once that who ever is at fault kinda thing is the one to die. But when somebody zooms down on me and screws his approach and collides with me, why do I end up as the one at fault and to end up dead. Now I know he did not die as with in mins he had another kill. so he is still flying and fighting. well I am upping in another plane.
-
There are only four ways of modeling damaging collisions in online games, all of which have been tried at some point by HiTech. The possibilities are: both are damaged, neither are damaged, the aircraft on the FE that detects the collision is damaged and the aircraft on the FE that does not detect the collision is damaged.
I will give a breif overview of the pros and cons of each system and a breif look a gunnery modeling as well.
Both Are Damaged:
Pros: This most accurately simulates the resulting damage of a collision between two real aircraft. This system can be seen as egalitarian because both suffer the damage.
Cons: It can be seen as unegalitarian because players suffer collisions that they were not responsible for. Ramming becomes a major combat tactic in the simulation. It creates and environment in which ramming targets that can't dodge is rewarded, e.g you take off to defend a field and ram an enemy aircraft knowing that he can't dodge and it'll cost him 5 minutes of flight time against your 30 seconds of flight time. It increases the "gameyness" of the game. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal.
Neither Are Damaged:
Pros: It can be seen as egalitarian because both suffer the same fate.
Cons: This is the least realistic solution. There is no longer any reason to even attempt to avoid collisions. HOs would be even more common. Hitting a target, say a B-17G, is easy when you just dive through him while firing your guns, the shells fired from 10 feet will hit. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal.
The Aircraft On The FE That Detects The Collision Is Damaged:
Pros: Each party has an independant chance to avoid the collision and is rewarded for their success. It can be seen as egalitarian because only the responsible party suffers. Realistic behavior is encouraged.
Cons: It does not generate an accurate simulation of the damage that occurs in a real collision. It can be seen as unegalitarian because only one party suffers.
The Aircraft On The FE That Does Not Detect The Collision Is Damaged:
Pros: None.
Cons: It does not generate an accurate simulation of the damage that occurs in a real collision. It removes the reward for avoiding collisions. There is no longer any reason to even attempt to avoid collisions. It creates and environment in which ramming targets that can't dodge is rewarded, e.g you take off to defend a field and ram an enemy aircraft knowing that he can't dodge. Hitting a target, say a B-17G, is easy when you just dive through him while firing your guns, the shells fired from 10 feet will hit and if that doesn't kill him your aircraft certainly will. HOs would be even more common. It increases the "gameyness" of the game. It encourages unrealistic tactics, above and beyond being imortal. It can be seen as unegalitarian because only one party suffers.
Bullet Hits
The Target Is Damaged If Bullet Hits Occur On Either FE:
Pros: All bullet hits anywhere cause damage, e.g. if it looks like he hit you, to you or him, he hits.
Cons: Sometimes the shooter is rewarded even though he missed his intended target. Effectively doubles the target's size for the purpose of "Spray and Pray" shooting.
The Target Is Damaged Only If the Bullet Hit Occurs On Both FEs:
Pros: Bullets only hit if the target absolutely did not dodge.
Cons: Aircraft would be insanely hard to hit, hitting being more a matter of luck than of skill. Massively frusterating for the shooter.
Only The Shooter's FE Calcultes And Applies Damage When A Bullet Hit Occurs On It:
Pros: The shooter is only rewarded for his hitting intended target.
Cons: The target has a slightly reduced SA and slightly reduced ability to dodge.
Only The Target's FE Calcultes And Applies Damage When A Bullet Hit Occurs On It:
Pros: Maximizes the benefits of the target's SA and the target's ability to dodge.
Cons: The shooter must guess where the target is on the target's FE and is thus shooting a ghosts. Only dead 6 o'clock and dead 12 o'clock shots have a good chance of hitting, if the target hasn't changes course on the target's FE.
When you think about these things, try not to think about how it has affected you personally in the game, rather think about it in the terms of its effects from a theoretical player A's and player B's perspective and from the overall effect it would have on gameplay. Some of you have commented that the current system is exploitable and suggested a different system in its place. It doesn't seem that you tried to think of exploits in your proposed system. Think of those and compare the exploits of each system. Which is worse? Once you've done all of that, then present your arguments.
Until we get 10ms or faster ping times for everyone the system used in AH generates the most realistic, least frusterating, least exploitable results of the available systems.
[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
wolf37,
How did he screw up his attack?
Look at it from his perspective. He never collided with anything. He didn't screw up his attack.
The only person that had a chance to avoid that collision was you because you are the only person that could see that collision.
-
<<<The only person that had a chance to avoid that collision was you because you are the only person that could see that collision.>>>
Why do you always think it's so easy to get out of the way? The bomber pilot who is currently gunning cannot get out of the way of a deadly collision attack that wasn't intended because the attacker's FE is saying he'll pass clear. Or the full flaps F4U turnfighting on the stall horn vs a P38 and a N1K comes diving/climbing in who thinks he'll miss because his FE shows him that yet the poor F4U detects a collision on his end even if he's not even aware of the N1K attack.
The conflict is between the fact that a bullet can hit you and shoot you down that you do not see but an aircraft can hit you that you do not see and there is no damage taken by you.
I would personally maybe want to run experiments with only have a collision occur in the game if BOTH FEs detect the collision. I've seen it happen, where both go down. This would still make it so that you are careful to keep some distance from your target or pursuer.
I think I might adopt the tactic of attacking bombers from above by diving down to fly in front of them so that if there is a delay their FE will see me a second later moving that player forward a little bit and a collision occurs on his end. Yeah, that's the ticket! ;)
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Steven ]
-
All 4 possible combinations have been tried.
Unfortunately my post explaining them got cropped and is missing its top half. I will edit it.
There is nothing else I, or anyone else can say beyond the fact that they have all been tried and what we have, while not flawless, is the best option available.
I can't explain any better or more than I have. This will be my last post in this thread. Please read the edited post above as well.
[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
just FWIW, the day I "collide" with a plane wich is 20 yards away, will be the same day I think seriously in playing only Sub Command. :)
If someone is as stupid/clumsy/idiot to crash his plane on mine, but I manage to avoid him, then I MUST NOT die. The reverse is also appliable. Period.
-
Mutual shoot down during a collision is the equivalent of making the colliding plane a lethal one ping bullet. It would change the very nature of AH base defense and capture that is for sure.
Imagine this (too easy to imo),,,
I'm in a Yak and I've run out of ammo. I spy an enemy bomber/C47 flying towards my base to either bomb it or capture it. Do I land and hope to reup in time? lol. right ;) Or do I ram them as I know they'll go down too? Although I may lose my 2-4 perk points I may have accumulated!
The prevalent "win-at-all-costs" mind set would pervert any "mutal death collisions are more realistic" feature and intentional rammings would replace the HO over night. Only it would be worse.
IMO of course.
Westy
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
Mutual shoot down during a collision is the equivalent of making the colliding plane a lethal one ping bullet. It would change the very nature of AH base defense and capture that is for sure.
Imagine this (too easy to imo),,,
I'm in a Yak and I've run out of ammo. I spy an enemy bomber/C47 flying towards my base to either bomb it or capture it. Do I land and hope to reup in time? lol. right ;) Or do I ram them as I know they'll go down too? Although I may lose my 2-4 perk points I may have accumulated!
The prevalent "win-at-all-costs" mind set would pervert any "mutal death collisions are more realistic" feature and intentional rammings would replace the HO over night. Only it would be worse.
IMO of course.
Westy
done that simular already.
was at a port 1 night in a m16.
enemy fighter straffed my gun out.
c47 lands to let troops out.
i purposly run into his stopped plane,
he blows up, i get the kill, i remain unhurt
lol.
whels
-
Hmmmm. Yep it's been a few months... about time for this topic to come up again. I was questioning this system way back in WB 1.01.. until Worr explained it to me and I finally understood. Hopefully, I'll be able to provide that understanding to some of you. :)
whels,
Yep even the current system is exploitable to some degree, especially by slow moving vehicles. It's not perfect, it's just the best compromise. You can't use exceptions to disprove the rule, it's not logical. Look at a regular merge between two fighters, which is by far the most common situation in the game, and that is the situation you need to work with. That is the situation that is the most problematic, and the one the current system is designed to solve.
Look at a head-on pass if mutual damage was the system we used. We come at each other head-on in Hellcats for example at 8k and 250 IAS or so, and you execute a barrel roll at 1.4 K getting out of my flight path completely. I don't see you do that on my FE for another second or so though, so I am trying to shoot you and fly straight into you like a fool. Please tell me why you should explode because I suck, even though you avoided me completely and in plenty of time? Why should you explode no matter what you do to avoid it? Wouldn't that lead to every merge being a simple hold-down-the-trigger-and-see-who-dies-first test? Wouldn't the fellow with the most laggy connection win that contest every time? Um... I'll keep what we have now thank you. It's the best compromise, and the only reasonable one IMNSHO.
-
Karnak:
If the plane dives down on me, on my six, and collides, how is it I am at fault and am the one that screwed up. if he came in on my high six in a dive to shoot me down, he must havce seen me, I got the check six call and took a fast look, but when he collided with me, I was not watching him. but as he was coming after me, he must have been looking at me to try and get the shot. so he would have to be the one that screwed up.
-
<<<Look at a head-on pass if mutual damage was the system we used. We come at each other head-on in Hellcats for example at 8k and 250 IAS or so, and you execute a barrel roll at 1.4 K getting out of my flight path completely. I don't see you do that on my FE for another second or so though, so I am trying to shoot you and fly straight into you like a fool. Please tell me why you should explode because I suck, even though you avoided me completely and in plenty of time?>>>
It's funny how I've gotten myself into this discussion. I can't put my finger on it, but even though I accept the system as it is, the arguments being used never hold water with me. Maybe I'm just a Devil's-advocate turd.
On my FE I avoid your aircraft in an HO and nothing happens.
On my FE I avoid your HO bullet stream yet seconds after you pass I hear the pings and I go down.
The above two examples seem contradictions to me. And it seems there is a phobia against colliding with an airplane your FE doesn't see. Colliding with bullets your FE doesn't see seems to be acceptable however. An object is an object is an object.
<<<Why should you explode no matter what you do to avoid it?>>>
You are talking only about having avoided another aircraft because you still believe that the bullet should hit even though you avoid it in a HO too.
Yes, I do understand the facts of delay and all that and know we are playing something with considerable limitations. I agree with the airplane-collision-phobia people though and do accept the contradiction. It's actually kind of hard to intentionally ram someone HO who is trying to avoid you though. If someone is good at that, I would never call you a "fool" or say you suck. ;-)
-
wolf37,
Its your fault because the collision only happened on your FE. There was nothing for him to avoid or make a mistake in doing. He had no control over what happened.
A mistake on his part would have been him colliding with you on his FE. That is something that he should have avoided.
-
Karnak:
If a plane is coming down on my high six for the boom and zoom attack, he must be able to see me. I saw him when I veiwed around looking up and back and did not stay in that veiw watching him come all the way down and into me, My veiw at time of collision was looking forward as I was startiing to roll out of the way of his attack. So for him to collide with me would mean that he could see me trying to avoid his attack and would have to adjust his line of attack to try for the shot, and then end up colliding with me. I am not saying he collided with me on purpose, but it does happen. But I dont see why I should be the only one to take the damage a end up dead.
And Hitech:
thank you so much for your respounce, I am so happy to know that by posting here I can expect to get insulted by you. As that is how I took and understood your respounce.
-
Originally posted by wolf37:
And Hitech:
thank you so much for your respounce, I am so happy to know that by posting here I can expect to get insulted by you. As that is how I took and understood your respounce.
Dude, if your skin is really that thin, perhpas you should consider something a bit less hostile for your computer gaming experiences. I'd suggest the MS solitare game to you, but you might get insulted when a card sticks a tongue at you...
:rolleyes:
-Smut
-
wolf37,
What you say would be true if what he saw on his screen was the same thing your FE saw.
It is not.
Put yourself in his shoes, not yours. Look at what he sees.
He sees an enemy below and ahead of him.
He dives on the enemy.
The enemy begins to break turn.
He adjusts his tracking for the shot and fires.
He flies past the enemy aircraft, above, below, in front or behind it, and climbs back up.
He never flew through the enemy aircraft. He never collided with the enemy aircraft.
He very well may have made an effort to avoid colliding with the enemy aircraft.
Also, consider this:
If he had collided with you on his FE, you would have gotten off with a free kill.
Look at this theoretical occurance this way:
You see an enemy aircraft dive towards you.
You break turn out of his firing lane, watching to make sure you dodge his aircraft.
The enemy aircraft zips D200 behind you and explodes.
How would you like it if you also exploded in that situation?
How about being in the first situation and colliding and dying with thin air?
You are focusing too much on the specific instance that happened to you.
[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
Karnak:
I am not saying there is anything wrong with his attack, but why should only one of us die, I did not see the collision as I was looking forward, there where no ping ping ping from gun hits, and a P-51 does not take your wing off with one hit. Yes he made a good attack as he had alt advantage and I would have done the same thing. But if he does not see the collision as he pulls up and I dont see it as I am looking forward, why just one plane to go down from it.
Smut:
why dont you read the title for this forum. If they dont want questons on gameplay feedback, then remove the forum. I asked a lagite queston, Hitech's answer was not lagite. It was nothing more then an insult. No matter how small an insult, it is not the way to answer a queston.
-
wolf37,
Not only did he not see a collision, which your FE did even if you didn't, but he very likely saw a "not-collision".
It wouldn't look like he might have hit you and died due to that. It would look like he died due to getting within D200 of you.
What it comes down to is this, of the 4 methods of modeling collisions in online flight sims which produces, overall, the most realistic results?
Both dying produces realistic damage at the expense of realistic tactics and combat, it actualy encourages specifically unrealistc tactics in some cases.
It is more important to model combat as accurately as possible than to accurately model damage from collisions as the game is about air-to-air combat, not collisions.
-
To this topic on collisions and other whines but about killshooter all I can say is THANK COD! that HiTech and Pyro aren't about to change anything just because a small minority have myopia.
Westy
-
What exactly is not "lagite" :rolleyes: about HT's post?
Seems you got an answer you don't agree with, so you want to read it as a personal attack.
FWIW, I happen to agree with HT (big shock, I'm sure).
Is the current sytem perfect? No. However, the alternatives are worse IMHO (Been there, done that). It's also probably the best that can be done given things like net latency.
-Smut
Originally posted by wolf37:
Smut:
why dont you read the title for this forum. If they dont want questons on gameplay feedback, then remove the forum. I asked a lagite queston, Hitech's answer was not lagite. It was nothing more then an insult. No matter how small an insult, it is not the way to answer a queston.
-
My take on the most recent posts here. Let me restate my position so there is no doubt.
I am for collisions damaging BOTH aircraft irregardless of who's FE "saw" it. That is based on "reality". Either a collision happened for BOTH planes or it was a miss.
I understand about net lag. I also understand that net lag tends to "award" the slowest connection the kill. This isn't particularly fair or accurate. IMO it "invites" this type of attack as much as a suicide bomber killing a cv in the game.
I doubt that there is going to be an increase in A2A collisions if it kills both players. Why? becuse there will be an increased emphasis on BOTH players to avoid the close pass (inside 100 meteres / yards) since they both will lose a kill otherwise. It WILL require heightened SA on both players as well as faster responses to the attack. Perhaps if players have to remain farther apart there will be fewer collisions?
As to stats, if BOTH players die then NO kill is awarded at all. That way there is really NO reason to take out someone in a kamikaze strike, at least any more than there is now. (can we say carbombing or cv bombing?) Perhaps a perk penalty could be awarded as well. You die in a collision and you lose 5 perks, each. More impetus to avoid the impact and rely on the guns instead.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Maverick,
You have much too much faith in people.
If person A took off and flew for 5 - 10 minutes to get to the base he was attacking and person B took of and flew for 30 seconds to intercept person A, who has more to lose?
That's right, person A does. Person B now has a sound tactical reason to kamikaze person A, something that he cannot intentionally do under the current system but which would become staggeringly easy under the "both die" system.
Another point is that making sure you never get withing D200 or D300 of an enemy is highly unrealistic behavior for WWII air-to-air combat.
It is a myth that a slower connection gives an advantage in a collision. Due to the latency involved even in fast connections it is extremely rare for moving aircraft in AH to not be dispalced by more than D50 on the two FEs. The person who dies is the person who collides with the other aircraft on his FE. Connection speed has nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, in the "both die" model the guy with the lower connection speed who wants to kamikaze another aircraft has a huge advantage. Are you going to try to dodge the guy who is diving past you, D500 to the rear? Oops, to bad. He just killed you.
-
"I am for collisions damaging BOTH aircraft irregardless of who's FE "saw" it. That is based on "reality"."
I don't happen to agree due to the legions of ill intending denizens of the net and the win at all costs mentality. It would be sorely abused just as suicidal bombing and the spate of HO is. But I am curious. What's your take on the AH "AWACS" radar?
Westy
-
Westy and Karnak,
My position is that you then must have sufficient SA to AVOID the collision just like avoiding a HO.
As to the "myth" about faster connections vs slower ones. I have DSL. I seem to lose the collision contest almost every time. I say almost as there is only one time I can recall when someone collided with me and I didn't die. I do not ram planes and make sure I don't get too close so I don't have a problem with collisions that I can see. I just lose all the ones where players collide with me and I am not looking. They then get the kill. If both die and no kill is awarded then no points.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Karnak:
Thank you for the time you put in to give me an answer as to why or why not the collisions are set up the way they are. I atleast now have a better understanding of the set up.
-
Smut:
how do you see Hitech's answer as lagite, he gives no explanation as to why only one plane die's, that was Karnak who put the time in for that. And Hitech stats it as gee, I am mad because I screwed up and want it changed. One, I am and have not been mad about this post. two, I don't see where as I screwed up on this one time for what I placed the post for.
Hitech's respounce gave no reason as to why, just a remark about whining for screwing up and posting here. But yet the forum is called
game feedback/issues
I posted on an issue I am not sure about how it works and yes, would like to see it changed. But as Karnak points out it would be very hard to do. But I was kinda expecting a repounce from HTC's that would give me a better idea as to why it is set up the way it is, instead I got nothing more then crap from Hitech.
-
Did you even read the rest of HT's post?
Here, do it now:
Originally posted by hitech:
What the current system amouts to is the least frustations.
Gunnery is as it is because is much more frustrating watching your bullets fly threw someone and not hit them VS watching bullets miss you and still getting hit.
Collisions are as they are because it's much less frustrating as it is now VS colliding with someone 200 yards away.
Feel foolish yet? No?
Then re-read what you just posted:
Originally posted by wolf37:
Smut:
how do you see Hitech's answer as lagite, he gives no explanation as to why only one plane die's, that was Karnak who put the time in for that. And Hitech stats it as gee, I am mad because I screwed up and want it changed. One, I am and have not been mad about this post. two, I don't see where as I screwed up on this one time for what I placed the post for.
Hitech's respounce gave no reason as to why, just a remark about whining for screwing up and posting here. But yet the forum is called
game feedback/issues
I posted on an issue I am not sure about how it works and yes, would like to see it changed. But as Karnak points out it would be very hard to do. But I was kinda expecting a repounce from HTC's that would give me a better idea as to why it is set up the way it is, instead I got nothing more then crap from Hitech.
Let's look at this line again:
Originally posted by wolf37:
Hitech's respounce gave no reason as to why, just a remark about whining for screwing up and posting here.
Seems like you might be distorting the facts a bit here, huh?
Why?
-Smut
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Smut ]
-
"My position is that you then must have sufficient SA to AVOID the collision just like avoiding a HO."
I agree 100%. But no amount of SA is going to help you prevent a collision due to a net induced warp or some jerk who has decided he's out of bullets, gas and options and is going to ram you when you come at him on the next pass. After all it just helps him replane faster anyway.
As for me? I have a really good cable ISP and I typically lose every collision. Either against debri, a HOing opponant or in a close scissors. However I also admit that *every* collision I'm in I could have avoided. Perhaps the lack of chance for death hasn't made me do much with that at all. I simply just re-up and head for the fray again.
Westy
p.s. what about radar? :)
-
Last night I'm in a vertical scissors with a La7 on my 6. I can see he's about to overshoot. I look back in time to see him fly thru my right wing and shear it off. He flies away unscratched. Could I have avoided it? Only if I had eyes in the back of my head. I hate the collision modeling.
-
Westy,
You just made my point about the connection speed mandating who loses the collision contest.
As to dar, there are enough posts in appropriate threads already to understand my position.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Smut:
you had best hope Hitech never comes to a fast stop, as if he does, your head will go so far up his bellybutton you will never see the light of day again.
-
???
I guess the truth hurts, huh?
Can't stand your own words?
LOL...
-Smut
Originally posted by wolf37:
Smut:
you had best hope Hitech never comes to a fast stop, as if he does, your head will go so far up his bellybutton you will never see the light of day again.
-
Smut:
its kinda funny how you only repeat what ever somebody else say's, you have yet to make an opion of your own in regrads to this post. you have shown how much you are a Hitech bellybutton kisser, and thats about all you have done. You have not made one good point in this post, just repeat what ever somebody else has said. Now you can respond to this any way you would like to, I have no intentions of reading any thing more here. Karnak did a great job of explaining to me why it is set up the way it is, you have just worked on kissing Hitech's ass. maybe you should consider trying to get your own opion.
-
Dude, the reason I have to keep repeating posts is because you obviously have a short term memory problem. You also seem to be unable to read more than the first line of any post not written by you.
You say I didn't give my own opinion? Just to prove you wrong, again, all I need to do is scroll up and copy this:
FWIW, I happen to agree with HT (big shock, I'm sure).
Is the current sytem perfect? No. However, the alternatives are worse IMHO (Been there, done that). It's also probably the best that can be done given things like net latency.
You can't or won't stand behind your own words, even when proven wrong. Why don't you try to grow a spine? FYI, calling someone an "ass-kisser" simply because they don't agree with you and you don't want to answer their questions is pretty lame.
Oh, and Bite Me.
-Smut
-
Ahem.
Back to the topic at hand.
There are 4 possible ways of handling this:
1) 'Collider' takes damage, 'Target' doesn't. This is the way it's handled now. Downside: It's exploitable (barely), it's unrealistic. Upside: You know you've been killed right away (No delay from your FE telling you you're dead)
2) 'Collider' takes damage, 'Target takes damage': Downside, the 'target', which didn't see a collision on his FE, takes damage. He may have manovered to avoid the collision, but he gets screwed instead. Also, the damage to the target shows up a second AFTER the collision
3) Target takes damage, collider doesn't. This is a stupid idea (I'm just throwing it in here for completeness sake)
4) Neither takes damage unless both sides see the collision on their FE:
Downside: Long delay before damage takes effect (since both sides have to tell the server about the damage, then the server has to come back with a 'Yup, the target agrees that was a collision'), occationally you'll fly right through a guy.
Upside: Not gameable, realistic (up to a point), completely fair.
I'd say options 1 & 4 are the only 'workable' and fair solutions.
In the case of 4 we'd all have to live with collisions that took effect a certain time after the fact ('Collider' + 'target' ping time later) Still, this time shouldn't be more than 1 second later, on average.
So it boils down to this: Either one guy might get screwed in a collision, or nobody gets screwed but we have to live with 'late' damage from collisions.
-
Lemar, only thing I disagree with your analiss is #4,on anything but a head on collision both FEs will never both see a collision.
HiTech
-
Hey HT,
Is it really true that both FE's rarely see the same collision?
I'm curious to know how much in dissagrement two FEs in a dogfight are.
An alternative would then be to set up detection of 'Near misses'
One FE would have to see the collision, and the other would at least have to see a 'near miss' to have the collision happen.
-
lemur,
A good way to test this is to fly in formation with another guy and tell eachother the distances you see between you.
Keep in mind that the faster the two aircraft are moving the greater the discrepancy. The faster the two aircraft are moving in releation to eachother the greater the discrepancy.
It boils down to this:
Two aircraft flying next to eachother at 150mph are not going to see staggering diffferences.
Two aircraft flying next to eachother at 400mph will see significantly larger differences.
Two aircraft merging across eachother's noses witha closing speed of 800mph will see very large differences.
I this player's (me) experience differences of D200 and D300 are about standard. When you consider that a fighter's wingspan is D10 to D17 in width you can see that collisions on both FEs are rare.
-
I'm all for both aircraft dying in a collision.
It's not fair that someone out of ammo can ram you? No worse than a HO or getting vulched when you are trying to land and can't maneuver or shoot back....and those poor, defenseless goons...
Besides, with the way things are going these days..the added threat of getting rammed might instill a nice difference in the game.
As it is, it's pretty much a furball arena. The Mindanaou map lasts for weeks on end and all others usually reset within the day.
Great for the furball lovers I guess...sux for those that like to utilize the other vehicles in the game....
One other question that might be of interest...when you blast, say a buff to pieces, do the wreckage pieces ever "perceive" a collision and expode further? I ask because I have, on quite a few occassions, blasted buffs and turned away, yet my FE perceives a collision with the pieces and I die...yet on my screen, it was not even close.
-
No thank you. We aready have enough "grief players" in the MA...why give them something else to use?
For those unfamilar with the term "grief player" (a.k.a. "griefer"), it refers to someone that is intent on exploiting loopholes in the game mechanics to ruin the gaming experience of other players. It is a widespread problem in the MMORPG world.
-Smut
Originally posted by AKWarp:
I'm all for both aircraft dying in a collision.
It's not fair that someone out of ammo can ram you? No worse than a HO or getting vulched when you are trying to land and can't maneuver or shoot back....and those poor, defenseless goons...
Besides, with the way things are going these days..the added threat of getting rammed might instill a nice difference in the game.
-
AKWarp,
You have it exactly backwards.
Right now they can't ram you, but your suggested "fix" would make ramming commonplace.
-
Karnak,
I don't have it backwards...I KNOW I can't ram anyone intentionally and kill THEM. Go back and read what I said. I want BOTH planes to be damaged or die in a collision, no matter who hit who first. If that means anyone can go around ramming others, then so be it...it would be, afterall, a 2-way street.
As for griefers, this would not be an exploit, it would just be part of the game. Ramming common place? Heh, we would most likely see a lot of people trying it a lot at first, but once you realize just how hard it is to actually run into another plane on purpose, I don't think we'd see it so commonplace after a short while.
As for the wreckage....what's the story? Who's FE sees a hit on a piece of it? Mine? the AI's? The con's? Why is it I can blast a buff to pieces and turn away well in advance, yet still die beause I supposedly hit a piece of wreckage that was 100 yards away? I thought this collision/bullet hit thing was supposed to be what my FE sees? Or is that only for select things? And if it is, then there is NO reason not to allow dual damage/death in aircraft collisions.
-
You are forgeting the Buff drivers, I think.
-Smut
Originally posted by AKWarp:
As for griefers, this would not be an exploit, it would just be part of the game. Ramming common place? Heh, we would most likely see a lot of people trying it a lot at first, but once you realize just how hard it is to actually run into another plane on purpose, I don't think we'd see it so commonplace after a short while.
-
No, haven't forgotten them. Buffs are pretty hard to take down as it is (unless oyu have 2-3 fighters working it). Would still be hard to ram one.
-
Warp, the way I understand it, if your FE doesn't "see" a collision with even a piece of the buff then there shouldn't be a collision for you.
Perhaps you're actually being damaged by bullets fired from the buff before it was destroyed and the hits on you are delayed due to net lag. Just a theory.