Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Strip on June 25, 2009, 02:24:58 AM
-
What if we took away the credit for a kill if you collided with them in the process?
IE I collide with your bomber, doing survivable damage to myself, while shooting a wing off. Seems like it might help the collisions if you know you wont get credit for a kill.
Strip
-
I think MOST collisions are unintentional. Yea, there are probably some that do it on purpose, and yes, its a pretty stupid tactic. But a kill should be a kill if you were actually the reason the guy went down.
I think there are other things about kill scoring that need to be addressed besides that. I have been awarded kills just because it seems like I was the closest plane to the guy that went down... and I never fired a shot at him.
-
Only you can cause or prevent a collision. Amazing how many people don't want to accept that.
I don't see any reason to take a kill away just because there was a collision involved.
Only if it could be coaded so that the kill award was removed if there was not a single registered hit on the other plane could I possible agree with this idea. And I really don't see the point.
Fact is you don't know where the damage came from, gunfire, or collision.
-
The crashing together of airplanes model is not accurate anyway. Red aero plane slams into back of my bird and poof, "You shot down: IDIOT #3" Happened to me twice while low and slow on approach, bringing a wounded bird in for a break, and greedy vulchures rearended me twice (two different sorties) and I got an additional kill each time. I think they deserved to blow up, but I should have been blewd up, too. Oh well, I can't complain when I got the kill credited to me.
-
The crashing together of airplanes model is not accurate anyway. Red aero plane slams into back of my bird and poof, "You shot down: IDIOT #3" Happened to me twice while low and slow on approach, bringing a wounded bird in for a break, and greedy vulchures rearended me twice (two different sorties) and I got an additional kill each time. I think they deserved to blow up, but I should have been blewd up, too. Oh well, I can't complain when I got the kill credited to me.
You fail to understand how and why the collision model works as it does. Instead, you are locked into a real world based "at fault" model.
In your example, you crashed the rear of your aircraft into the front of his as you didn't get out of the way. He did avoid you on his front end.
-
Only you can cause or prevent a collision. Amazing how many people don't want to accept that.
I don't see any reason to take a kill away just because there was a collision involved.
Only if it could be coaded so that the kill award was removed if there was not a single registered hit on the other plane could I possible agree with this idea. And I really don't see the point.
Fact is you don't know where the damage came from, gunfire, or collision.
Oh yeah,why didn't I think of that?
If I only moved my B24s out of the way of that yak it wouldn't have hit me.
Bombers(especially drones) do turn and climb like a zeke anyway.
Besides,I'm sure that the bomber would fall apart while that yak(with no ammo) flies away unscathed.
-
Only you can cause or prevent a collision. Amazing how many people don't want to accept that.
I don't see any reason to take a kill away just because there was a collision involved.
Only if it could be coaded so that the kill award was removed if there was not a single registered hit on the other plane could I possible agree with this idea. And I really don't see the point.
Fact is you don't know where the damage came from, gunfire, or collision.
-
Ramming planes was a tactic used by the germans and russian(and other desperate pilots.)
Avoiding a collision is easy to do in a fighter,not so easy in bombers.
Hoing and collisions were common place in the not so friendly skies.
Whining and finger pointing by the loser,probably not so common. :D
-
Yay. A collision thread.
One must remember, in Aces High a collision often involves only one aircraft involved while IRL a collision ALWAYS involved both parties involved.
Also, many "kills" awarded after a collision are probably more the result of the two HO-ers shooting at each other and getting hits, fatal or otherwise, more than the collision damage itself.
Do we need to review AH2 collisions?
wrongway
-
Karnak, seriously?
-
What if we took away the credit for a kill if you collided with them in the process?
IE I collide with your bomber, doing survivable damage to myself, while shooting a wing off. Seems like it might help the collisions if you know you wont get credit for a kill.
Strip
I really do not care for myself whether or not a kill is awarded from a collision, but I do not see how it would "help" collisions. I never intend to collide, but it does occur sometimes. So for those of us who know that it is near impossible to intentionally ram and get away with it, getting a kill out of it does not factor in to the equation.
-
Karnak, seriously?
He is serious.
And he's right.
See the AHTC website for lag & it's effect on Aces High: http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/lag/lag.htm
Or search for "collisions" on this forum for a lot of detailed explanations buried under a ton of false assumptions and recurring whines ;)
And just to point it out again: The vast majority of collisions in AH are just accidents. It's not that easy to deliberately ram someone as CH200 tries to make you believe...
-
Karnak, seriously?
Yes, seriously. Stop thinking of it in terms of traffic collisions and who is at fault. The program doesn't, and can't, care about any such things. All it knows is that on your front end two aircraft tried to occupy the same space, thus the collision. If two aircraft had tried to occupy the same space on your oponent's front end then he too would have had a collision.
Remember, unlike reality where a collision involved two objects, in AH we are talking about four objects. You on your front end, the image of your oponent on your front end, your opponent on his front end and your image on your opponent's front end. Due to the time it takes data to move across the internet those your oponent's position will never be the same on your front end as it is on his front end and likewise your position will never be the same on your front end as it is on his front end.
That is why collisions happen as they do in AH.
Specifically, in your example, your opponent had no way to avoid hitting you as you were not there to be hit on his front end, thus the responsibility to avoid the collision must be on you.
-
Thankyou for taking the time to explain how that works, Sir. :salute
-
Sheez....a simple no would have sufficed.
I know how the collision model works....
Just thinking of the people who stay on target way to long and end up colliding as they go by.
-
Yes, seriously. Stop thinking of it in terms of traffic collisions and who is at fault. The program doesn't, and can't, care about any such things. All it knows is that on your front end two aircraft tried to occupy the same space, thus the collision. If two aircraft had tried to occupy the same space on your oponent's front end then he too would have had a collision.
Remember, unlike reality where a collision involved two objects, in AH we are talking about four objects. You on your front end, the image of your oponent on your front end, your opponent on his front end and your image on your opponent's front end. Due to the time it takes data to move across the internet those your oponent's position will never be the same on your front end as it is on his front end and likewise your position will never be the same on your front end as it is on his front end.
That is why collisions happen as they do in AH.
Specifically, in your example, your opponent had no way to avoid hitting you as you were not there to be hit on his front end, thus the responsibility to avoid the collision must be on you.
I still think the best solution is the only record collisions that occur on BOTH FEs.
-
Why would you fudge it like that? How does that make more sense than collisions matching what happens on your screen?
-
I still think the best solution is the only record collisions that occur on BOTH FEs.
Problem with that is it makes it pretty safe to fly through your opponent, guns blazing. It is easy to hit from 0 feet.
It would cause a massive distortion of tactics compared to real world tactics.
-
It would cause a massive distortion of tactics compared to real world tactics.
This would be my biggest concern with this sort of setup.
-
Yep... For no good reason either. How is it an improvement over getting what you see?
-
lmao Grape love you singnature!
-
"Only you can cause or prevent a collision. Amazing how many people don't want to accept that."
Most collisions in AH are caused by attempted HOs or by newer players that have not used to chasing small icons. Lower the HOs lower the collisions. The collision model is flawed. 2 planes traveling at 250+mph bump into each other and almost always one survives? How often does that happen in real life? Bear in mind that most collisions in real life are not at the aircraft attitudes we are simulating.
-
The collision model is flawed. 2 planes traveling at 250+mph bump into each other and almost always one survives? How often does that happen in real life? Bear in mind that most collisions in real life are not at the aircraft attitudes we are simulating.
Oh boy...
Read the other posts in this thread again.
When one player gets a "you have collided message" and the other does not, it is because on THEIR screen a collision occurred, while on the other players screen there was *no* collision. What you see is what you get. What would you suggest to change this? Get rid of collisions entirely? Or fix it to where the guy who clearly dodged the enemy plane on *his* screen gets tagged by the collide anyway? These are your only two possibilities, neither is an improvement.
-
Ya we have argued this point before. And no doubt it will keep coming up until its gone or fixed. Fix the model. If your going to model collisions apply them to all aircraft or get rid of them. Getting rid of collisions is an improvement over the model we have now.
Yesterday I got hit in the underside of the aircraft, same type aircraft..His canopy hits my underside, I died instantly he lived to continue flying. That's your idea of a good collision model?
Yet you say that niether idea is an improvement? AW and other MMO's don't or didn't model collisions yet they were still fun. There are plenty of things that are not modeled in this game. Getting rid of collisions isn't a that big a negative.
-
They are applied to all aircraft.
Getting rid of collisions isn't a that big a negative.
Getting rid of collisions means ACM changes entirely. What positive do you get? The exemption from having to know and execute proper ACM? The dumbing down of air combat?
-
now.
Yesterday I got hit in the underside of the aircraft, same type aircraft..His canopy hits my underside, I died instantly he lived to continue flying. That's your idea of a good collision model?
On his screen he cleanly passed you. What would you suggest? He maneuvers based on what he *actually sees on his screen* and misses you yet you would give him a collide because of what you saw on *your* screen (something he has *no way* of knowing or reaction to)?
Well, okay...how about this...you pull lead on a bandit for a guns solution and land a ton of hits...but they aren't awarded because on *his* screen it looks like your nose was still in lag pursuit (due to the net lag) and couldn't *possibly* have had the deflection needed for a gun deflection? The scenario I describe here happens all the time due to net lag and the suggestion I offer is about as fair and workable as your collision suggestion.
Yet you say that niether idea is an improvement? AW and other MMO's don't or didn't model collisions yet they were still fun. There are plenty of things that are not modeled in this game. Getting rid of collisions isn't a that big a negative.
Yes, Air Warrior had neither collisions nor front-quarter shots and by all accounts that reduced realism and introduced flaws into the ACM that are not workable in a more realistic sim like AH.
Getting rid of collisions would destroy ACM. It would make many sorts of overshoots impossible, if anything it would increase the number HOers be decreasing the risk associated with that maneuver. And there is absolutely no need for it whatever, since the collision model is not flawed. If you don't want a collide, don't run into other planes, that simple.
-
yes im all against hoing in the game, BUT were people that did it in WW2. Kamikazes (divine wind) Didn't just cllide wit hships but with other planes also.. So i doubt that aces high will subtract kills from ho's due to historical reasons.
-
Fix the model or drop collisions. Period. Want realism. Model them for all aircraft. Model collisions accurately. Two opposing aircraft traveling at 400mph+ touch and only one dies? How can one person have a collision but not the other? Both aircraft should be damaged and in the majority of cases both would die or lose their aircraft.
Realism? Really? In this game? Come on! Do you really think that on a given day the WW2 pilot saw 20 or 30 different types of aircraft? From 5 or more nations? Let alone the speculative performance aspects of the individual aircraft. Lets not even get into the GVs. Thats a whole bunch of inaccurate bull.
By the way you could HO in AW.
-
Fix the model or drop collisions. Period. Want realism. Model them for all aircraft. Model collisions accurately.
How much more realistic do you want it than collisions registering as they happen?
Two opposing aircraft traveling at 400mph+ touch and only one dies?
Anecdotic..
How can one person have a collision but not the other?
Latency. Less-than-instantaneous networking = necessity to compensate with predictive code. Why does this not make sense to you?
-
How can one person have a collision but not the other?
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1364/rammyfegg1.jpg)
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8728/ramotherfexg7.jpg)
First picture shows the P-51 players screen, second picture is what happens on the Jug pilots screen - at exact the very moment of collision. (See the "Lusche collided with you" message on second picture)
Only the 51 took damage from this.
-
Fix the model or drop collisions. Period. Want realism. Model them for all aircraft. Model collisions accurately. Two opposing aircraft traveling at 400mph+ touch and only one dies? How can one person have a collision but not the other? Both aircraft should be damaged and in the majority of cases both would die or lose their aircraft.
Yay!!! Here we go again!!1!
Me thinks someone just isn't going to get it.
:aok
wrongway
-
Funny this wasnt even about how collisions worked.......
-
The problem is you can't differentiate between damage caused by point blank guns, and the damage caused by collision.
They are intertwined.
-
The problem is you can't differentiate between damage caused by point blank guns, and the damage caused by collision.
They are intertwined.
True...
If you don't cause gun damage do you get credit for a kill after a collision ?
-
If no one caused more damage than you did with the collision, you should get credit.