Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Widewing on May 07, 2002, 08:25:05 AM
-
Here's several instances that have convinced me that the method of attributing kills is seriously in need of attention.
Last evening I fly to a nearby enemy field and spot a B-17 making a landing approach. I notice that he is trailing white smoke from one engine. I swoop down and attack about 20 degrees off of head-on. The Buff's wing comes off and he crashes about a half mile from the runway. I get an assist.
Later, my squad is attacking another field, I catch a SpitV at the top of his loop, apparently undamaged, and explode him with 20mm fire. I get an assist.
Still later, I attack an La-7, showing no signs of damage, my cannons shoot off his left wing. I get an assist.
Finally, I spot a Dora trailing coolant, as he lines up to land. His engine is still running. Just as he touches down, I explode the 190 with 20mm, while dodging ack. I get an assist.
What's wrong with these examples? In two cases, had I not killed the aircraft, they would have landed successfully, with no one getting a kill credit. In the other two examples, I killed fighters that displayed no visible damage, and were fully capable of destroying any aircraft on which they could bring their guns to bear.
In each case, it is obvious that they had taken some hits along the way. However, nothing even close to fatal.
In the real world, kills would credited to the pilot who actually shot down the enemy, not to someone who merely pinged him at some earlier point.
This current system of assigning kill credit is fundamentally flawed. Kills should be credited to the pilot who makes the enemy aircraft unflyable, period. Whatever happened prior to that is not as important as the final destruction of the enemy. Assigning kills based upon who did the most damage is illogical. Why? Because that aircraft can still drop its bombs, or otherwise kill friendlies until it is actually destroyed.
HTC really needs to address this issue, as it causes a great deal of aggrevation to those who work their butts off, risking being shot down, only to find they receive nothing more than a useless assist. It's especially annoying when it's obvious that the enemy would have landed safely but for the last minute intervention.
Let's have a common-sense kill credit system, that assigns kills based entirely upon who made the enemy aircraft unflyable. Anyone scoring hits prior to that should get an assist. Anyone scoring hits after, gets nothing (being kill stealing worms anyway).
Can anyone make a decent argument why this should not be the case? Don't offer the argument that "you get as many as you lose", so it all evens out. All that does is prove my point that the system is flawed. It should never be a case of luck or averages. It should depend entirely upon what you did or didn't do, nothing else.
Proximity kills: Dumb. If you don't kill it, you should not get credit. If you die via AI ack, no one should get credit, just limit it to a death, just as if you crashed on your home field.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I accept ack kills maybe changed.
Proximity kills, yes they may exist like RL. I do a lot manuver kills. You shoot down planes without damegd and get assist, he probably without rudder, flaps, ailerons, gears, elevators, wings or pilot wounded (not only lose oil, fuel or have radiator gone is importat). Someone do it that guy return base damaged and he didn't land yet, he could crash trying to land. Why are you crying for a easy kill?
-
I'd rather have new planes, revised cockpits, newer & larger terrains. :)
-
i know what you mean, last night i took a quick deflection shot and 1 min later got kill msg, later i got a good 6 position and shot up the enemy realy bad, i broke off then got a assist.
how about a easy fix, i know it's not perfect......but.
what about 1/2 perk points and 1/2 kill for a assist?
at least that way you get something for your work.
i think the english in WW2 gave out partial kills (1/2,1/3) if more than one plane was involved.
44MAG
-
Its fine how it is.
AKDejaVu
-
When I shoot down an enemy plane and only get an assist, I note who it was that got the kill, and then I haunt them with 385 Check-6 calls.
That is my policy on assists.
-
Originally posted by RatPenat
I accept ack kills maybe changed.
Proximity kills, yes they may exist like RL. I do a lot manuver kills. You shoot down planes without damegd and get assist, he probably without rudder, flaps, ailerons, gears, elevators, wings or pilot wounded (not only lose oil, fuel or have radiator gone is importat). Someone do it that guy return base damaged and he didn't land yet, he could crash trying to land. Why are you crying for a easy kill?
Landing a damaged aircraft is no big deal, with the exception of having your wingtip shot off. I land fighters missing ailerons, or elevators, or rudder or even landing gear all the time. Not a problem for the average pilot. However, I have gotten multiple kills flying aircraft pretty much shot to pieces too. Hell, I've even managed a few kills deadstick when some knuckleheads flew right in front of me. Clearly, a damaged aircraft is still a dangerous aircraft until it's destroyed. You should have noticed that the Dora mentioned in the original post was actually on the runway when I finally closed range. All he had to do was stop to get credit for a "landed" sortie. Well, he stopped, but didn't require his brakes.:D
I'm not looking for easy kills. I'm looking to see that every pilot gets the proper credit for his/her efforts. I asked for decent arguments, your's doesn't come close. If you are satisfied with what I consider a sub-standard system, well, that speaks volumes. Me, I'm never satisfied. It can always be better. Moreover, it will be better as soon as HTC realizes that it's an important issue to their customers, because they respond to their customer's complaints and problems, especially when the complaint is widespread and valid. If I knew they would not consider a complaint, I would be wasting my time wouldn't I?
Hblair, is there any reason why we couldn't have the upgrades you mention AND a common-sense scoring system too? Me, I'm for getting the basics correct first, but I understand your position as well. These maps are getting old fast, and the cockpits are rather "understated". However, there are few things more basic to Aces High than the scoring system. I'd like to see it revised before the emphasis is placed on graphics. As it is, we are getting at least 6 new aircraft in the next release.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Asking for a "common sense" scoring system implies that this one isn't based on "common sense" ~ I have a lot more respect for the designers than to insult them like that. To be fair, it's a lot more accurate to say that the scoring system needs some design changes and fine-tuning.
When a plane terminates it shows an explosion graphic, sometimes, even when it did not in reality explode. That may be one of the things you saw happen.
In general though, I absolutely agree the scoring system needs to be fixed.
#1 No death from hitting a tree with your ground vehicles.
#2 Proximity deaths are important because of the fact that out-maneuvering another pilot may result in his death. I've had numbers of people try to get me, push to hard to stay up with me, and then plummet to their final demise. Due to that fact, I would not want proximity deaths changed. You get some, you lose some ~ but the important part is getting credit for one of the most satisfying kills of all ~ maneuvering deaths.
#3 What SHOULD happen though is that the "whoever hits the ground first" scoring system should be changed. If someone kills you in a Head-On, and crashes 1 minute later, then you should get a kill too, or they should have the kill for you taken away.
#4 Enemy armor who choose to "tower" after they are damaged just dissapear, you dont even get kill credit (if they are anywhere near their field)
-
Try to implement what you are sugesting widewing, lets say a pilot has both wing tips shot off, one by player a, one by player b. the plane is still flyable and just before landing he crashes. Who gets the kill? Or he has the rudder and elevator shot off by 2 people, who gets the kill.
The way it is now is very easy to understand, the person who puts the most total damage (that being the total of wepon lethality) gets the kill.
-
Wide & Bota,
You both have good ideas.. I for one get pissed b/c I shoot down a a/c only to get the freaking ASSIST!! And theres not a plane in sight..it's freakign cheap but thats how this game is. And I cold heartly agree that we should atleast get a half kill..afterall we did put a few round of our ammo in the bugger to put him out of the sky.
The other is that god forsaken H/O lose kill B.S. Both planes should go down and you both should get half the credit.. thats the way I see it. Though I dispise H/O's but some would be attackers insist on H/O for a cheap quick kill.. beware I have 8 happy .50 cals waiting.
-
Originally posted by nuchpatrick
Wide & Bota,
You both have good ideas.. I for one get pissed b/c I shoot down a a/c only to get the freaking ASSIST!! And theres not a plane in sight..it's freakign cheap but thats how this game is. And I cold heartly agree that we should atleast get a half kill..afterall we did put a few round of our ammo in the bugger to put him out of the sky.
Hey slick, what makes you think you didn't shoot down somebody elses kill who was trying to RTB? Is this stuff so hard to figure out? :)
-
Originally posted by BotaBing
Asking for a "common sense" scoring system implies that this one isn't based on "common sense" ~ I have a lot more respect for the designers than to insult them like that. To be fair, it's a lot more accurate to say that the scoring system needs some design changes and fine-tuning.
When a plane terminates it shows an explosion graphic, sometimes, even when it did not in reality explode. That may be one of the things you saw happen.
In general though, I absolutely agree the scoring system needs to be fixed.
#1 No death from hitting a tree with your ground vehicles.
#2 Proximity deaths are important because of the fact that out-maneuvering another pilot may result in his death. I've had numbers of people try to get me, push to hard to stay up with me, and then plummet to their final demise. Due to that fact, I would not want proximity deaths changed. You get some, you lose some ~ but the important part is getting credit for one of the most satisfying kills of all ~ maneuvering deaths.
#3 What SHOULD happen though is that the "whoever hits the ground first" scoring system should be changed. If someone kills you in a Head-On, and crashes 1 minute later, then you should get a kill too, or they should have the kill for you taken away.
Common-sense is frequently the victim of the expiations of programming. I am not implying that the programmers lack common-sense, but that their programming results in a scoring system that that ignores the common-sense realities of air combat scoring.
Proximity kills should never be assigned to a pilot for kills made by AI ack.
Your point on maneuver kills is valid and I agree that this should remain, although no proximity kills should be assigned to aircraft not airborne. In other words, just sitting on the runway, and having an over-zealous enemy auger next to you trying to get a shot is not grounds for a kill credit.
Your second point is also valid. In the real world, pilots gained credit for kills, even if they themselves failed to return to base, as long as the victory was witnessed. A kill is a kill, regardless of who bails out or crashes first. That should be fixed as well.
Thanks for your thoughtful input.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by hitech
Try to implement what you are sugesting widewing, lets say a pilot has both wing tips shot off, one by player a, one by player b. the plane is still flyable and just before landing he crashes. Who gets the kill? Or he has the rudder and elevator shot off by 2 people, who gets the kill.
The way it is now is very easy to understand, the person who puts the most total damage (that being the total of wepon lethality) gets the kill.
Think of the kill/damage model this way.
each plane has a certain # in a damage meter.
say P51 has 300 points of damage , when it reaches
0 it totally blows up. now in that total u have % chance during
each hit taken of something major happening parts of ur plane. and it depends where ur being hit, the % could be greater for a part in that area to take bad damage.
but for sake of ur question, p51 has 300 points of damage it can take. Enemy # 1 come along and hits P51 for 60 points of damage but P51 escapes and tries to RTB, Enemy #2 sees
stricken P51 on rtb, comes down and hits P51 with 59 points of damage but also causes structural failure of wing. P51 crashes giving kill to enemy #1 cause in the way the kills are done, HE done more total damage then #2 did, even though he cause wing failure.
i dont know how HT does the kill award/damage thing, but i just look at like the above. who ever does the most damage point total wise, gets the kill, no matter what parts u see come off.
Whels
-
Widewing,
I feel no sympathy for you or your argument. What you present and how you present it are simply unreasonable.
For every assist you mentioned in that sortie... there was an individual that actually put more damage into that aircraft than you... wether visible or not. That counts for something.
For every aircraft that you "finished off"... you feel you should have been rewarded with a kill. Fine. Do you think that will affect to an even greater extent the ammount of kill stealing complaints that you see posted here? I sure as hell do.
The only way to solve the "fairness" issue is to have a board sit and review each kill and award it apropriately. A computer game is not going to be able to do that with any sense of fairness.
In leu of that... we go with something that is very simple and something that shows no favoritism. If you do more damage to a plane.. you get credit for the kill. If you want credit for a kill... do more damage to the plane. Very simple.
For every assist you get on a crippled plane... you are just as likely to get a kill on it. I can't count how many times I've lost a wingtip or an elevator only to be caught trying to limp home to base and being in a no-win situation. The person that did all the work is not credited... just the vulcher that cleaned up afterwards. I just can't see that being any more fair.
Leave it as it is.. its simple.. its clear... its concise.
AKDejaVu
-
Dont leave it as it is, there are some blatant obvious bugs that should be fixed, but its just fine tuning imo...
No way that enemy armor should get out of a legitimate kill when they are ditching way away from their hangar, etcx
-
Fly the Yak-9T, and you'll never see an assist.
-
scoring? *yawn*
-
Kill stealers would love this change - the way it is is better. As it is people are already shooting up burning planes. I am not for anything that would encourage more of that.
-
please don't 'fix' what isn't broken.
-
There are several aspects of the current scoring system that are poorly implemented, regardless of design or intent. It needs fine tuning.
If you think a tank that goes and camps a VH spawn point and then just "ditches" with no penalty and no kill for the victor once its damaged isnt broken, we have very different opinions of what is fun and fair.
-
when deja makes sense he.... makes sense. In this case.... he makes sense.
lazs
-
What Makofan said.
-
You cannot tell from your side if the wing was nearly off from the previos damage.
But I do think that definatly dead planes..(wing gone, tail gone, engine on fire, etc)
should be dead....not killable by chasing for further damage to the carcus till something blows. even if they are on the ground..even if they are in the hanger..
-
Originally posted by hitech
Try to implement what you are sugesting widewing, lets say a pilot has both wing tips shot off, one by player a, one by player b. the plane is still flyable and just before landing he crashes. Who gets the kill? Or he has the rudder and elevator shot off by 2 people, who gets the kill.
The way it is now is very easy to understand, the person who puts the most total damage (that being the total of wepon lethality) gets the kill.
(I have been trying to write this for three hours, but have interrupted by two Engineering design meetings and a Staff luncheon, so it's a bit tardy)
This is easy to score if we use the commonly applied standards of WWII. If the aircraft was not seen to crash, it can only be scored as damaged or, at best a probable. Since damaged aircraft carry no value, the answer is no one gets the credit. So, if no enemy aircraft is within visual range, no credit is given. If there are no witnesses to the crash, how can anyone be given credit?
Those were the general rules for most air forces during the war. Why not apply them here in the interest of historical accuracy, if not for logic.
As it stands now, if you have damage that precludes a safe landing, you need only fly beyond visual range and bail out. Yes, you suffer a death, but the enemy does not get credit for the kill, does he? I never see any indication in the message buffer that anyone receives a kill if I bail beyond visual range. By the way, that is how it SHOULD work.
However, if that damaged aircraft remains in the combat area, it can still be a threat to any aircraft foolish or unlucky enough to cross its path. I've killed an La-5 after losing a wingtip (F6F), because he was careless on the overshoot. So, regardless of previous damage, if the aircraft is still under controlled flight, the pilot who finally destroys the aircraft should receive credit. Either that, or split the kill equally between those who contributed to the eventual kill.
As the saying goes, "you're either pregnant or you're not". There's no such thing as 90% pregnant. That's why no credit was given for a "probable kill" during the war, because almost doesn't count.
To score based upon individual damage levels is unrealistic. Why? Because some very badly battered aircraft can and do return to base. Ultimately, the pilot who prevents the aircraft (and by default, the crew) from returning to base should receive the kill credit. The burden for securing the victory should be on the attacker to finish the job. Should he fail, for whatever reason, that aircraft is still viable and therefore, its destruction credit should go the pilot who actually eliminates the aircraft by reducing it to being incapable of controlled flight, either by catastrophic damage or the death of the pilot.
My regards,
Widewing
-
how about a whineless BB eh that would be real nice. its good as it is now tehres less of a chance of kill steals of course kill steals only happen to people who fire a few shots till there smoking in any way possible Then run of and dont finish the job os someone comes in and finishes it for them. SO STOP YOU WHINING mayby they should block stupid whiners who cant handle getting there tulips whooped.
-
Widewing,
if i ping u and u fly out of my visual range and bail, , i will still get the kill, if i havent died or landed and exited plane before u bail. there is no range limit on kill credit if u have been pinged.
the exception is if ur in your territory and land on the ground and exit(ditch) no one will get credit even if they pinged u.
whels
Originally posted by Widewing
(I have been trying to write this for three hours, but have interrupted by two Engineering design meetings and a Staff luncheon, so it's a bit tardy)
This is easy to score if we use the commonly applied standards of WWII. If the aircraft was not seen to crash, it can only be scored as damaged or, at best a probable. Since damaged aircraft carry no value, the answer is no one gets the credit. So, if no enemy aircraft is within visual range, no credit is given. If there are no witnesses to the crash, how can anyone be given credit?
Those were the general rules for most air forces during the war. Why not apply them here in the interest of historical accuracy, if not for logic.
As it stands now, if you have damage that precludes a safe landing, you need only fly beyond visual range and bail out. Yes, you suffer a death, but the enemy does not get credit for the kill, does he? I never see any indication in the message buffer that anyone receives a kill if I bail beyond visual range. By the way, that is how it SHOULD work.
However, if that damaged aircraft remains in the combat area, it can still be a threat to any aircraft foolish or unlucky enough to cross its path. I've killed an La-5 after losing a wingtip (F6F), because he was careless on the overshoot. So, regardless of previous damage, if the aircraft is still under controlled flight, the pilot who finally destroys the aircraft should receive credit. Either that, or split the kill equally between those who contributed to the eventual kill.
As the saying goes, "you're either pregnant or you're not". There's no such thing as 90% pregnant. That's why no credit was given for a "probable kill" during the war, because almost doesn't count.
To score based upon individual damage levels is unrealistic. Why? Because some very badly battered aircraft can and do return to base. Ultimately, the pilot who prevents the aircraft (and by default, the crew) from returning to base should receive the kill credit. The burden for securing the victory should be on the attacker to finish the job. Should he fail, for whatever reason, that aircraft is still viable and therefore, its destruction credit should go the pilot who actually eliminates the aircraft by reducing it to being incapable of controlled flight, either by catastrophic damage or the death of the pilot.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing, the scoring couldn't be the way you suggest until the damage model is changed.
Let's say a 190A8 wing can take 100 points of hit damage before it departs the aircraft.
Let's say a 20mm puts 25 points of hit damage per round.
Let's say a .50cal puts 5 points of hit damage per round.
OK... You are in a SpitIX and score 3x 20mm hits on a 190A8's left wing. That wing now has 75 hit points, but with current damage modeling, nothing appears to be broken and the plane still flies as normal because it still needs 25 points of damage.
Now, I come along in my P-51 and score 6x .50cal hits on the same wing of the said 190A8. The wing now has 105 hit points and departs the aircraft.
Obiviously, you would want the kill, because you put more damage on that 190 than I did, even though we were unable to see that visually.
-
my thots +)
A kill should be credited as soon as fatal damage is done... enemy plane loses a wing, credit given to he who did most of the damage. Even if plane is still floating down.
Plane loses tailplane... once again credit given to the person who did the most damage prior to the tailplane separating...immediately
if say i do just enough damage to remove a critical part, like the tailplane for example, that aircraft is still live currently until pilot bails or hits the dirt. Leaving it wide open for someone else to swoop in and do just enough damage to steal it.
I don't really have a problem with kill steals, I just think the above would help silence the steal whines...
no more steals...
SKurj
-
To score based upon individual damage levels is unrealistic. Why? Because some very badly battered aircraft can and do return to base. Ultimately, the pilot who prevents the aircraft (and by default, the crew) from returning to base should receive the kill credit. The burden for securing the victory should be on the attacker to finish the job. Should he fail, for whatever reason, that aircraft is still viable and therefore, its destruction credit should go the pilot who actually eliminates the aircraft by reducing it to being incapable of controlled flight, either by catastrophic damage or the death of the pilot.
LOL! You do realize you just came up with a "the last pilot to ping a plane should get credit for the kill" scenario don't you?
You need to stop thinking about how it did work in WW2, or how it should work here and start thinking about possible ways to make it work. You say what should happen without actually thinking about what you just said. Its getting downright silly.
AKDejaVu
-
I get only a small percentage of assists, system seems Ok to me.
-
Hi Hitech,
I think I've noticed that no perk points are awarded for an assist, and it would be nice to get some reward for a shared kill, is that something that can be implemented without too much trouble?
Badboy
Originally posted by hitech
The way it is now is very easy to understand, the person who puts the most total damage (that being the total of wepon lethality) gets the kill.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Widewing, the scoring couldn't be the way you suggest until the damage model is changed.
Let's say a 190A8 wing can take 100 points of hit damage before it departs the aircraft.
Let's say a 20mm puts 25 points of hit damage per round.
Let's say a .50cal puts 5 points of hit damage per round.
OK... You are in a SpitIX and score 3x 20mm hits on a 190A8's left wing. That wing now has 75 hit points, but with current damage modeling, nothing appears to be broken and the plane still flies as normal because it still needs 25 points of damage.
Now, I come along in my P-51 and score 6x .50cal hits on the same wing of the said 190A8. The wing now has 105 hit points and departs the aircraft.
Obiviously, you would want the kill, because you put more damage on that 190 than I did, even though we were unable to see that visually.
A problem I see is that people are getting caught up in the numbers.
In the simplest of terms: If an aircraft is capable of flight and fight, or able to return to base, then it is viable. The pilot who does such damage as to prevent the above should get the kill credit. If several pilots all hit the aircraft within a defined time window, they share the kill via divided perks and everyone gets an assist.
To address the unwarranted concern voiced of another, that "the last ping gets the kill", once the aircraft is no longer capable of flight, no assists or kills would be awarded. This stops the practice of pinging wingless aircraft in an effort to steal the kill. Moreover, if a time window is established, every shooter gets an assist and shares the perks (perks divided according to damage percentage).
My regards,
Widewing
-
To address the unwarranted concern voiced of another, that "the last ping gets the kill", once the aircraft is no longer capable of flight, no assists or kills would be awarded. This stops the practice of pinging wingless aircraft in an effort to steal the kill. Moreover, if a time window is established, every shooter gets an assist and shares the perks (perks divided according to damage percentage).
And to adress the unwarranted whining voiced by yourself...
Does the last ping that "renders the pilot incapable of flight" get the kill? Come on widewing.. you need a system here. You need a system that determines exactly who deserves a kill.
Does the pilot that is on an enemy's 6 and has just put 30 rounds into him as someone else swoops by and pings him once getting that critical damage to register deserve the kill?
Remember.. the system has to be able to determine wether or not its deserved. Your system does not do that... you just move to a different scenario for the whines to occur in.
Now.. when 4 people are spraying at the same target... the one that does the most damage doesn't necessarily get credit... its the one that does the last damage.
This type of crap happens when you take one specific scenario and use it to justify global changes to the game.
So you had a 4 assist sortie. BFD. Either come up with a solution for every situation or just shut up. Right now all you've done is come up with a way to have the scenarios you described in the initial post work in your favor without regard for how they'd affect the rest of the arnea.
AKDejaVu
-
He who does the most damage gets the kill is the only way to go. If someone flogs the spinning a/c on it's way in, drag him out on country channel, pants him, and let everyone else see it ;)
As far as scoring ?? Deft's score pages at WB has a variation of HT's system that works quite well.
http://scores.warbirdsiii.com/cgi-bin/display.pl?class=avin&arena=wb3main
With the removal of K/S and the important addition of minimum sorties needed. After alot of discussion, a sortie a day, or 30 sorties a tour here would be required for a rank.
One thing I've noticed here, Joe Blow flys one sortie, kills 5 and is ranked. Well it's what, day 7 of the tour ?? Joe Blow would lose rank, day 2. ( unless he flew another sortie )
Deft also has a second formula ( still in revision ) that is more concerned with survival, time being removed from the formula.
http://scores.warbirdsiii.com/cgi-bin/display.pl?class=yak&arena=wb3main
Deft's pages are not a part of the company and depend on dumps from the arena's.
Great site, I never get anywhere personally, but it's fun to keep track. Gunnery, K/S, K/D, all the catagories are clickable, and give a different list on who's on top depending on catagory.
Came back too late for me though ;)
-
IMHO just split a kill to all that did damage.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
A problem I see is that people are getting caught up in the numbers.
Widewing
But exactly the point of the way AH damage works, Widewing.
In my example, if you had put 3x 20mm explosive tip rounds in the wing of a plane, it is going to have some serious issues. Stability, reduced durability, loss of lift, etc.
If the damage model were such that it was not 'all or nothing' the pilot in that plane would probably bail out a lot sooner because his aircraft would be much more difficult to fly.
If he did not bail out, the damage inflicted by your 3x 20mm rounds would probably be substantial enough for you to finish him off on your own.
Also, remember that real WWII pilots were far more inclined to bail out after taking serious damage. Basically, if you didn't get our while the plane was still flying, you might not ever get out.
In RL, bailing out early meant saving your bellybutton instead of trying to glide around and wait for another burst of cannon fire to tear you apart.
Anyway, what I am saying is what most are saying. Do the most damage and force the guy to bail or die. There have been many situations that I would have bailed out (awarding the shooter a kill) instead of trying to fly home with the severe damage (lost flaps, control surfaces, wing damage, engine oil and coolent, etc.) that my plane had.
If it were a real plane I would want out before something else fell apart. Better to get out when it's striaght and level than when it's spiraling to the ground at 300+ MPH.
-
What if the first major failure, such as losing an entire wing, elevators, the tail,or the pilot counted for major bonus points in the "who got the kill" calculations? If the bonus points for causing the first fatal failure were high enough to give the kill the the player who caused it on a moderately shot up aircraft to get the kill, but not so high as to give the kill somebody who simply puts the final .303 on a wing that is about to go it might balance out OK.
This bonus would have to be good for only the first fatal damage inflicted. All damage infflicted after the bonus points for the fatal damage was inflicted would be null and void. That would eliminate the KSers.
The flaws I see with this are that engines and wingtips cannot be counted. An aircraft with its engine gone is still somewhat capable of getting a kill and thus is a valid target. Some aircraft are flyable with a wing tip missing, some are not flyable and some are marginal to the point where some players can fly them and others cannot. Because of this wingtips and engines should not be counted.
What do you think of the "bonus points in the damage total calculation for the player who inflicts the first fatal damage" idea?
-
What do you think of the "bonus points in the damage total calculation for the player who inflicts the first fatal damage" idea?
Define "caused". Is it the person that put the most damage towards causing that first fatal damage.. or the person that fired the last round that caused it?
AKDejaVu
-
DejaVu,
It would be awarded to the person who caused the failure, even if it was simply a single .303 that made the difference.
However, the bonus would not be large enough to overcome the number of "points" given to the player who had inflicted so much damage as to bring the aircraft to the point where a single machine gun hit caused the failure.
Say a wing has 60 points of damage that it can take before failure, then the bonus would be 25 points. If Player A does 55 points of damage to the wing he gets 55 points, Player B then does 5 points of damage cuasing the wing to come off and gets the 25 point bonus giving him a total of 30 points. Because the bonus has been awarded no further damage on the aircraft counts towards anybody's total. Player A gets the kill because his 55 points are greater than Player B's 30 points.
-
just a comment about proxy kills...
if you eliminate them what happens when you are chasing somebody and they panic and stall/auger into the ground?
that is almost more rewarding to myself than actually shooting them out of the sky, no ammo spent and enemy is dead.:D
unfortunately in the current scoring system you get no credit for that except in your kill/death ratio which helps your rank but no perks.:mad:
personally i believe the this is an example of skill and control and should count for more, but i see no way to implement it.
-
Then I wouldn't like it Karnak. It does not reward the person that did the most... rather the one that had the golden ping.
I can think of many situations where your proposal would work.. and many more where it wouldn't. What I do foresee is an opportunity for quite a few more threads like this if such a system is implimented.
AKDejaVu
-
DejaVu,
Hmmm. My idea was to create a system where it was weighted towards the person who caused the major failure, but not so weighted as to allow the "golden BB" syndrome to occur.
It also had the nice little deal of eliminating the KS crap that is my pet peeve with the current system.:D
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
And to adress the unwarranted whining voiced by yourself...
Does the last ping that "renders the pilot incapable of flight" get the kill? Come on widewing.. you need a system here. You need a system that determines exactly who deserves a kill.
Does the pilot that is on an enemy's 6 and has just put 30 rounds into him as someone else swoops by and pings him once getting that critical damage to register deserve the kill?
Remember.. the system has to be able to determine wether or not its deserved. Your system does not do that... you just move to a different scenario for the whines to occur in.
Now.. when 4 people are spraying at the same target... the one that does the most damage doesn't necessarily get credit... its the one that does the last damage.
This type of crap happens when you take one specific scenario and use it to justify global changes to the game.
So you had a 4 assist sortie. BFD. Either come up with a solution for every situation or just shut up. Right now all you've done is come up with a way to have the scenarios you described in the initial post work in your favor without regard for how they'd affect the rest of the arnea.
AKDejaVu
Before I posted my original comments, I was certain that my ol' pal AKDejaVu would hold true to pattern and argue, "it's good enough the way it is." You did not let me down. ;) Indeed, whenever anyone offers suggestions to improve game play or realism, you seem ready to rush out and pee on their flowers. I have never seen anyone so determined to defend the status quo who does not work for the government, or do you work for the government? :eek:
I understand your loyalty to HTC. However, I am only suggesting that there is room for improvement. Furthermore, anyone suggesting that there no room for improvement is obviously too easily satisfied.
So, to simplify, I will specifically offer suggestions in numerical order.
1) All kills should be awarded to the pilots who's actions actually caused the enemy aircraft to become unflyable. If several pilots shoot at and hit, and destroy a target plane, no one gets a kill. They all get an assist. However, perk point pecentages are divided by amount of damage inflicted. No perks or assists are awarded after the aircraft becomes unflyable. Therefore, no kill stealing. Vehicles may require different rules.
2) An aircraft that eventually crashes as a result of damage will not be credited as a kill unless it crashes within visual range of an enemy (any enemy belonging to the same nation as the shooter). If no one sees it crash, how would you know it did? A death is credited to the pilot, but no one gets a kill, or an assist. That is how it worked in the real world. Moreover, this is supposed to be a history based sim, right? Should a damaged aircraft escape and be attacked by another pilot, it is considered viable and kill credit goes to the pilot who finally destroys the aircraft. Assists will be credited those who damaged it. Examples of this situation appear in the lead post. Remember, if it can return to base safely or have the ability to drop bombs or shoot, it's still fair game.
3) No proximity kills will be awarded for a kill by AI ack.
4) No proximity kills will be awarded to aircraft not in flight. (this still preserves the "maneuver" kill).
5) If two planes kill each other, both will receive kill credits. This silliness of losing your kill because you baled first, or hit the ground first doesn't make the grade. Dead is dead. Recall that this is a history based sim. When WWII pilots shot down enemy aircraft, but failed to return themselves, those who witnessed the kill always made sure that credit was given upon their return from the mission. If there was a mid-air collision between an American and German aircraft, the American still received credit for the kill. No one watched to see who baled out , or crashed first. A destroyed enemy aircraft is still destroyed regardless of who did what after that fact.
Now, I'm sure that there are areas that I have not covered. However, if HTC wishes to hire me as a consultant, I'll be happy to consider their offer. But, as a paying customer, I have the right to voice my dissatisfaction with aspects of the game and suggest ideas to rectify what I believe to be problem areas in game play. Some may not like it, but that, I'm afraid, is their problem. I can also accept that my suggestions are not easy to program, and hence the current system is the best for the current technology. Sometimes concessions in realism must be made to facilitate game play. However, I cannot ever accept the statement that "it's good enough". In this industry, good enough is never good enough for long. Obviously HTC knows this because they, more than any other like provider, constantly strive to improve their product. I only ask, that as they improve Aces High, that they consider changes and improvements to the scoring system. And gentlemen, it's not just I who have concerns about various aspects of the system, it's a commonly expressed complaint.
My regards,
Widewing
-
"I have never seen anyone so determined to defend the status quo"
Yep thats DJ all right.....
Prolly 50% of his posts are exactly like that. Now he'll come back saying the percentage is more like 46.7%... :D
-
All I Have to say to this is Whatever.
Just have fun thats what it's all about isnt it. Do scores really matter that much? Is that what this game is all about?
Personally I just have fun killin toejam and trying to learn how to fly better, but then again i'm just a tard.
Sorry for the stupid post i just don't see the importance in perks and scores, to me its all about the taking out of ones enemy and winning the war.
Hell if the actual war had this problem there would have been wars about the war.
-
Sorry again about the post lol
-
============
Do scores really matter that much? Is that what this game is all about?
============
"Aces" High
Ace: A pilot with 5 or more combat kills.
-
Yes, they matter. Do I think they matter so much that I have a toejam-fit every time I 'kill' a plane and get an assist? Nope. I won't remember that 'kill' in 10 minutes, much less at the end of the month when I'm reviewing my stats (and yes, I admit it, I do check my stats :)).
This may sound condesending, but since nobody else has said it I really feel I must. Plus I think it is eminently suited to this thread.
Quoting somebody
" This thread is really about the scoring system not showing everyone what a hot stick I am, so I want the scoring system changed"
Quote is paraphrased... I think it went something like that. That is honestly what I think it is about. A lot of the guys that you are calling naysayers are comfortable with their competence. They don't need to beat their chests and prove to the rest of us how good they are. Dejavu is a very good pilot, I'm sure he gets lots of assists. But instead of worrying about how many more kills he SHOULD be getting if not for this 'porked' scoring system- he just goes out and shoots down some more people.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with our scoring system either.
-
Its not about defending the status quo. Its about thinking just a tad bit before changing it.
This seems to be the forum for "I had a bad sortie and this needs to be changed" type posts. They are simply pathetic and this thread is a prime example.
So... come here and tell HTC to change things so that you don't have that particular bad sortie anymore... suggest changes that are far more sweeping than you realize and act suprised when you are laughed at.
Is the current score system perfect? Nope... not at all. But you'd like to see a different system put in place. And you know what... it will be just as if not more silly. Simply because it is a system. Any system can and will be manipulated.
It would be nice to magically know who really deserved the kill in every situation... the only problem is that no two situations are the same. Yet here we are pretending as if they are.
Now.. when someone can't quite figure out why he wasn't credited for a kill he feels he rightly deserved, we can explain that he really didn't do sufficient visible damage and that this being a tuesday and he being in an allied plane and the fact that the sun was rising and not setting means that it is more likely that somoene else got the kill.
Or.. it can come down to "someone else did more damage to the plane".
You are trying to place a specific value on damage. Unfortunately, you define that value in your own terms. HTC has a system that as silly as it is... is consistant. It is easy to explain and it leave little to question.
If you want to be more sure to get kills... kill planes that are leaving their base instead of returning to it. Quit trying to act as if picking off leftovers needs to have a greater reward and you are somehow more deserving for doing it. Its roadkill.
Sheesh... its simply amazing how pathetic the stories that justify these changes are getting.
AKDejaVu
-
DejaVu,
I was actually trying to come up with a better system. I think I did, but you just immediately consigned it to the "golden BB" syndrome and chucked it with, seemingly, no thought.
I'd be very curious to hear your scenarios that you claimed would break my proposed system. I can't actually think of any.
-
Maybe I'm not common, but I think taking the kill away from the pilot that scored the most damage would result in many more complaints than the current system.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Its not about defending the status quo. Its about thinking just a tad bit before changing it.
This seems to be the forum for "I had a bad sortie and this needs to be changed" type posts. They are simply pathetic and this thread is a prime example.
So... come here and tell HTC to change things so that you don't have that particular bad sortie anymore... suggest changes that are far more sweeping than you realize and act suprised when you are laughed at.
Is the current score system perfect? Nope... not at all. But you'd like to see a different system put in place. And you know what... it will be just as if not more silly. Simply because it is a system. Any system can and will be manipulated.
It would be nice to magically know who really deserved the kill in every situation... the only problem is that no two situations are the same. Yet here we are pretending as if they are.
Now.. when someone can't quite figure out why he wasn't credited for a kill he feels he rightly deserved, we can explain that he really didn't do sufficient visible damage and that this being a tuesday and he being in an allied plane and the fact that the sun was rising and not setting means that it is more likely that somoene else got the kill.
Or.. it can come down to "someone else did more damage to the plane".
You are trying to place a specific value on damage. Unfortunately, you define that value in your own terms. HTC has a system that as silly as it is... is consistant. It is easy to explain and it leave little to question.
If you want to be more sure to get kills... kill planes that are leaving their base instead of returning to it. Quit trying to act as if picking off leftovers needs to have a greater reward and you are somehow more deserving for doing it. Its roadkill.
Sheesh... its simply amazing how pathetic the stories that justify these changes are getting.
AKDejaVu
Well, after filtering through the BS above, I have yet to see one valid argument why my suggestions are unworkable? All I hear is your continued defense of the status quo.... You must be the type who cannot bear change....
Besides, you still miss the point: The current system is illogical and does not reflect how kills were credited historically. It cannot be defended logically, only emotionally. During WWII, did they count the holes to determine who did the most damage? How did they assign credit? Credit was given to the person responsible for destroying the enemy aircraft. Should more than 1 pilot have been shooting at the enemy, the kill was divided, or a determination was made by reviewing gun camera film. Well, we don't have gun cameras, nor anyone to make rulings, so divide the kill.
As to "being sure to get kills"... Hmm, well, this tour I'm 141/24 with 37 assists. Considering that I tend to fly a variety of fighters, I think I'm getting plenty of kills. I do, however, like to patrol deep inside enemy territory for bombers, goons and stray fighters. At least when I'm not flying with the squad, anyway.
BTW, it happened again tonight. I arrive at a low fight in my Yak. Below is a Niki fighting it out with 3 Rooks. He's trailing fuel, but that didn't stop him from killing 2 Rooks before I could get to him. I fired a short burst into his cockpit, exploding the plane. I received an assist... Yet, had I not arrived, he probably would have killed the remaining Rook, who was flying a damaged Spitfire (missing an aileron). Other than the fuel leak, the Niki was visually intact. Now, who deserved that kill? The guy who failed to kill the Niki, or the guy who actually did?
It ain't rocket science....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Virage
Maybe I'm not common, but I think taking the kill away from the pilot that scored the most damage would result in many more complaints than the current system.
How would he know that he did the most damage? The current system rewards failure. That's right, failure to complete the job.
My regards,
Widewing.
-
hmmm... just my thoughts on this matter...
Widewing, sorry, I cannot see your argument besides the fact that you are frustrated. As a game, the current system is straight forward as it is and is only illogical to the new concept that you are introducing.
Aside from that I see some good suggestions made here, but as Midnight commented, it takes a new model or new concept which would need to be work on and work out. I like BotaBing's and Karnak's comment, although Karnak's suggestion needs more definitions to be in place which damage to award how many points. And possibly case-by-case scenarios to see if it is workable. Yours ...
1) All kills should be awarded to the pilots who's actions actually caused the enemy aircraft to become unflyable. If several pilots shoot at and hit, and destroy a target plane, no one gets a kill. They all get an assist. However, perk point pecentages are divided by amount of damage inflicted. No perks or assists are awarded after the aircraft becomes unflyable. Therefore, no kill stealing. Vehicles may require different rules.
I am not for this, as this goes against HTC policy on promoting team play. A kill should be awarded anyway. We need to define unflyable too.
2) An aircraft that eventually crashes as a result of damage will not be credited as a kill unless it crashes within visual range of an enemy (any enemy belonging to the same nation as the shooter). If no one sees it crash, how would you know it did? A death is credited to the pilot, but no one gets a kill, or an assist. That is how it worked in the real world. Moreover, this is supposed to be a history based sim, right? Should a damaged aircraft escape and be attacked by another pilot, it is considered viable and kill credit goes to the pilot who finally destroys the aircraft. Assists will be credited those who damaged it. Examples of this situation appear in the lead post. Remember, if it can return to base safely or have the ability to drop bombs or shoot, it's still fair game.
Why penalize a player just because he didn't see the crash? Just like a manuever kill, he caused distraction/damage enough to make the enemy crash, no?
If you would like to go in this direction, I would suggest an "effective" time for the damage to be active for a kill... I've seen games where kill is awarded if the last hit is within 30sec of self-destruction of the enemy... but this will need more refining as we need to consider wingtip losses and such... and maybe 5min of flight or more...
3) No proximity kills will be awarded for a kill by AI ack.
Ok.
4) No proximity kills will be awarded to aircraft not in flight. (this still preserves the "maneuver" kill).
Ok.
5) If two planes kill each other, both will receive kill credits. This silliness of losing your kill because you baled first, or hit the ground first doesn't make the grade. Dead is dead. Recall that this is a history based sim. When WWII pilots shot down enemy aircraft, but failed to return themselves, those who witnessed the kill always made sure that credit was given upon their return from the mission. If there was a mid-air collision between an American and German aircraft, the American still received credit for the kill. No one watched to see who baled out , or crashed first. A destroyed enemy aircraft is still destroyed regardless of who did what after that fact.
Silly I agree, but I think I see a problem with delayed crashes due to the damage inflicted at that time...
Well, overall, I myself am happy with the current system and can live with it, anyway.
-
soo.... you believe that the person who cripples, or, does the most damage does not deserve the kill? I don't agree withj that. The cherry pickers shouldn't be rewarded. The guy wh tags him the most usually does the most work.
I have shot down a smoking plane that managed to kill a friendly or two before he died and I got the assist but I thought that was fair.
As for you feeling that "not finishing the job" is a bad thing... It seems that you feel that the cannon birds and cherry pickers should have an even greater advantage? It appears that you want to reward waiting till a con is tied up and pretty much defensles before you attack it. one has to wonder at such motives.
I would actually like to give more percentage of damage award to the first shooter... the agressor. The one who stuck his neck out to fight. finishing him off shouldn;t count for much. I actually think I get awarded too many "finish off" kills as it is and I fly MG planes for the most part.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FDutchmn
hmmm... just my thoughts on this matter...
Widewing, sorry, I cannot see your argument besides the fact that you are frustrated. As a game, the current system is straight forward as it is and is only illogical to the new concept that you are introducing.
Several things frustrate me, aside from my abhorrence of assists as a concept. After all, we're not playing basketball or hockey. We are supposed to be flying WWII aircraft, simulating WWII air combat. Therefore, we should have a scoring system that reflects those scoring systems in place during WWII. Our current system would work fine for flying X-wing fighters in the asteroid belt, but that's not what we are doing, is it?
Hundreds, and probably thousands of aircraft were destroyed in WWII where no kill credit was given, simply because no one witnessed the destruction of the aircraft. Damaged aircraft frequently limped back to base, were repaired and were back in action shortly thereafter. Now, if a fighter stumbled upon a damaged enemy aircraft, currently not engaged, and shot it down, he received full credit for the kill. The logic here is simple: The enemy aircraft and pilot/crew would have survived were it not for the intervention of that attacking fighter.
Furthermore, I disagree with your implication that the current system promotes team play. I believe it does the exact opposite. Where is the incentive to join a fight when all you can expect to get for your trouble, and shooting out a portion of your ammunition, is an assist? As it is now, if I see a damaged Buff that I can reach, I tend to say "the hell with it, why risk getting shot down for a lousy assist." If, however, I was assured that I would get the kill credit, then I'd be more inclined to accept the risk. So would most people. Currently, the system rewards failure. Failure to finish off your target. Many times I have smacked an enemy fighter with a snapshot, knowing that I'll never get a second chance before one of my countrymates finishes him. I accept that I won't get that kill, because I do not believe that I have earned it, as I was unable to finish it, for whatever reason. Hey, if you can't finish the target, too bad. Be glad you made the target softer for your teammates and move on to something you can finish.
Now, if everyone involved in killing an airplane received a percentage of the perk points (assuming they all scored hits within a reasonable time window), that promotes team play because it rewards participation. Gangbangers will not care one way or the other, because they're all trying for the kill anyway. However, if you can pick up a few perk points helping out teammates, that's some level of motivation. As it stands now, assists give you nothing but depleted magazines. In addition, the desire to get maximum perks may motivate people to finish their target, and not rely on someone else to get them their kill. I don't care about perk points, because I have thousands that I never use. However, some people do care about them, especially new players who have few.
Motivation for team play is largely based upon a personal desire for your squad/country to succeed, adding some perk points will only add to the satisfaction of getting "the job done." Our furballers aren't usually interested in team play anyway.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Please don't forget the percentage of us that DO NOT play for score and DO NOT achieve sole-source gratification by reading a fleeting kill message in the text buffer of an online game.
Some of us play simply for the action. Some of us.. whether the text buffer reflects it or not.. know when we've done well in a fight... and when we have not done well.
Some of us just love to pitch into a multi v multi battle, whirl and swirl and shoot and sweat.. and then look around as the smoke clears and see only our squad and country mates left flying. Some of us consider THAT as personal success.
Again.. not everyone is so overly concerned with kill stats and text buffer messages.
BUT...
Originally posted by Widewing
The current system is illogical
Au contraire.. it's QUITE logical. Put the "most damage" (as defined in the AH program by HTC programmers) and you get credited with the kill. Not the "last damage", not the "hit an important part of the plane damage".. just the most damage.
It's very logical. You just don't happen to agree with the logic. :) But that's ok, because we all have opinions and you're just like the rest of us. ;)
Originally posted by Widewing
...does not reflect how kills were credited historically
So, would you be happier if HTC changed the naming convention from "assist" to "credit" and apportioned the credit based on the amount of damage done?
That would be in the historical vein and actually far more accurate than the "historical method" you propose.
After all, if three actual WW2 guys came back with gun cam film of strikes on a single particular enemy aircraft they all got 1/3 credit did they not? This despite the fact that some of them may have had far more strikes on the aircraft than others? So some guys actually got more than they deserved with this method and some got less, correct?
Bottom line is that, at least for me, this entire question is a tempest in a teapot. Credits, assists, whatever... I already know when I've done well and when I've done poorly despite what the text buffer or stats pages shows.
I know when I've flown smart, flown stupid and also when I've flown stupid deliberately because a particular job needed doing even though it would result in getting shot down (taking one for the team :) )
It is, after all, just a game.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Furthermore, I disagree with your implication that the current system promotes team play. I believe it does the exact opposite.
LOL! Relax dude, this is only a game. :D And I never said this either. Think about it, your suggestions are going to the extreme of penalizing I think should not be. Hey, divide the perk points however it can be but kills should be awarded anyway. That's all I am saying. See what I am getting at?
-
Widewing, you fly for Rooks don't you?
How in the world are you having people stealing your kills if they are always outnumbered? (seriously, they are whenever I'm online)
I fly for Bishops and for tour 27 I had kills/hour over twice that of yours while my hit percentage is barely 1% over yours. You also had 4.5x as many kills... nevertheless I've maintained about 6 1/2- 8.3 kills/hour for the past 4 tours on the Bishops side.
I think the point is to kill 'em good so that those guys who wanna steal your kills from right in front of you (who also have horrid aim) can pump as much ammo into them as they want and they still won't get the kill.
I use a wide variety of weapons, I rarely have kills stolen from me... it happens, but on average I'd reckon only about 1 kill/week is stolen from me.
Get closer and make sure you give them a good pelting, no one can steal those kills.
-SW
-
I don't pay attention to score at all, only to perkies. That being said, I had an experience last week that raised my eyebrow and got me a nasty reaming on my country channel for being a "lame kill stealer".
I was flying a P-47D-11 and chasing a Spit. One of my country mates who was above and in front of me, closed in and blew the wing off this Spit. As the Spit was spiralling downward missing one entire wing, I had an FDB moment and decided to pull the trigger and send him down with some extra .50 slugs just for laughs. I caught him square, and blew him to pieces. I was awarded the kill! :eek:
The guy who really deserved the kill was pissed, rightly so, and proceeded to call me every name in the book and question the ancestry of my grandmother(she's really Swedish). I tried to explain that I wasn't trying to steal his kill, because it was so obvious that he was going to get the kill by blowing the entire wing clean off. I was just having a little fun by shooting the chute before the chute got a chance to open. :)
Needless to say, this guy was pissed, I felt bad for even taking the shot, and we both know he should've been awarded the kill.
So, in this case, the "kill scoring" doesn't work correctly. Why anyone who damages a plane after an entire wing is blown off should get credited with the kill doesn't seem right to me.
Not a big deal, mind you, but I think I agree with Widewing on this issue. I would put this in the "low priority" bin and address it a little later when more planes are released.
-
banana,
Maybe my proposed system would improve things if it simply ended the damage count once the first fatal damage had occured.
As soon as an entire wing, tail or elevators are gone, then no damage done from that time forward counts towards who killed it.
-
Sounds reasonable to me, Karnak. But then again, I'm not the one who has to program it. ;)
-
"that's not how it was in WWII"
do you use the clipboard radar? If so, that's not how it was done in WWII.
do you fly the plane you want, when you want, for the country you want, doing the mission you want? If so, that's not how it was done in WWII.
Selective realism is rearing it's ugly head again. This is a game, a line has to be drawn somewhere in relation to gameplay/realism for each and every aspect of the simulation. In terms of the flight models, the line is as close to realism as they can get it. In terms of radar information to the pilots, it's much closer to gameplay than it is to realism. Same with the icons and range finders.
Awarding of kills as it is now slides the bar towards gameplay more than realism but also towards logic and more importanly ease of programming.
-
Nifty, are you suggesting that people stop giving constructive criticism?
I don't see anything whiney about Widewing's thread. He found one aspect of the game that doesn't feel right and he suggested a fix. What's wrong with that?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Besides, you still miss the point: The current system is illogical and does not reflect how kills were credited historically. It cannot be defended logically, only emotionally. During WWII, did they count the holes to determine who did the most damage? How did they assign credit? Credit was given to the person responsible for destroying the enemy aircraft. Should more than 1 pilot have been shooting at the enemy, the kill was divided, or a determination was made by reviewing gun camera film. Well, we don't have gun cameras, nor anyone to make rulings, so divide the kill.
Your idea would work if we were recreating history in the MA. We aren't. This is a sim with planes from World War II. This is not a sim of World War II with planes.
I understand your frustration, but I must agree with Deja in that your solution would create more problems in terms of kill stealing than it would solve in terms of giving kills to those who deserve it. There would be more problems created than solved I think. This game and its scoring system are not perfect. You just have to adapt to the system in order to survive sometimes.
Anyways, just wanted to add my two cents.
-math
-
Originally posted by lazs2
soo.... you believe that the person who cripples, or, does the most damage does not deserve the kill? I don't agree withj that. The cherry pickers shouldn't be rewarded. The guy wh tags him the most usually does the most work.
I have shot down a smoking plane that managed to kill a friendly or two before he died and I got the assist but I thought that was fair.
As for you feeling that "not finishing the job" is a bad thing... It seems that you feel that the cannon birds and cherry pickers should have an even greater advantage? It appears that you want to reward waiting till a con is tied up and pretty much defensles before you attack it. one has to wonder at such motives.
I would actually like to give more percentage of damage award to the first shooter... the agressor. The one who stuck his neck out to fight. finishing him off shouldn;t count for much. I actually think I get awarded too many "finish off" kills as it is and I fly MG planes for the most part.
lazs
Lazs, it isn't about work, it's about effectiveness. Developing the skills to finish an enemy is part of the learning process. In WWII, pilots were not awarded kills for aircraft they failed to finish off. These were classified as a "probable" or "damaged".
Now, if you have any questions about my personal tactics or methods, you're are invited to wing up with the =Ghosts= anytime and see for yourself how we fly, fight, train and plan missions. Indeed, the vast majority of our squad is made up of former AW pilots (=Ghosts= was originally an AW squad). So, there's lots of sim experienced hands in our squad. However, many are new to AH, so they're still learning the flight modeling. Designated fighter for May is the Spitfire, in its many models. Next month will either be the F6F-5 or P-38L. The requirement to fly the designated fighter applies only to squad night missions. We have some good sticks, and some who are new to the game. The new members will get much better because we train alot. Even our missions are designed to hone skills. One of our newest members, VX, was an Air Warrior trainer. Our more experienced members (experienced in AH), Hammer (CO), SNO, BGS, BOAT and didebite are all very good pilots. The rest are learning fast and show great promise. What they lack in experience, they make up for in boldness. The =Ghosts=, greatly respected in AW, are well on their way to that same status here in AH. As I said before, you (or anyone else) are always welcome to wing up with us. I promise you, there will be no milk runs. Last night we pulled off a nap-of-the-earth sneak attack on A60 (taking off from A63 with 3 mossies, 6 Spitfires, 2 goons and a Buff). The resulting furball was tremendous, with many Bish going down, while we had just one survivor RTB (me ;)), escaping the pursuing horde. It was a hoot, albeit a long flight home dodging trees and sheep. :D
For the record, I fly a mix of cannon and MG aircraft, including the F6F-5 and undergunned Yak-9U. I tend to get a lot of assists flying the Yak due to rather low lethality of the guns. During one sortie last evening, I accumulated 7 assists (aginst only 5 kills, reloading twice). Most of those assists were from snapshots in a furball over or near A5. You know as well as I that you live and die by the snapshot in a furball. Unfortunately, the Yak lacks the hitting power to get frequent snapshot kills. If it had the guns of the La-7, it could well be the best fighter in the game. Kills were mostly 1 on 1 fights southeast of 63 with lone intruders trying to sneak in under the dar. I got a B-26 vulching at A5, but no cherry picking.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Do what I do. ".squelch 6"
Then use whatever "scoring" system you feel is right. Just put a sticky on your monitor and put a mark on it every time you feel you "got a kill" by whatever rules you think are right. :)
-
Originally posted by Nifty
"that's not how it was in WWII"
do you use the clipboard radar? If so, that's not how it was done in WWII.
do you fly the plane you want, when you want, for the country you want, doing the mission you want? If so, that's not how it was done in WWII.
Selective realism is rearing it's ugly head again. This is a game, a line has to be drawn somewhere in relation to gameplay/realism for each and every aspect of the simulation. In terms of the flight models, the line is as close to realism as they can get it. In terms of radar information to the pilots, it's much closer to gameplay than it is to realism. Same with the icons and range finders.
Awarding of kills as it is now slides the bar towards gameplay more than realism but also towards logic and more importanly ease of programming.
For the record, I'm not crazy about the radar either, but at least those concerns were partially met with the 500 ft. AGL dar hard deck. Which, by the way, has added greatly to playability.
Earlier in this thread I wrote the following:
"I can also accept that my suggestions are not easy to program, and hence the current system is the best for the current technology. Sometimes concessions in realism must be made to facilitate game play. However, I cannot ever accept the statement that "it's good enough". In this industry, good enough is never good enough for long. Obviously HTC knows this because they, more than any other like provider, constantly strive to improve their product. I only ask, that as they improve Aces High, that they consider changes and improvements to the scoring system. And gentlemen, it's not just I who have concerns about various aspects of the system, it's a commonly expressed complaint."
So, if HiTech says to me, "he biggest problem with your ideas is that they are not practical to program", I can accept that.
However, I will never accept the "it's good enough" argument. I'm not being unreasonable.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen...
After giving a little more thought, let me add another two cents here...
we are getting side tracked with all this "what happened in WW2" type stuff...
The real issue has already been addressed by Badboy... which is how to reward assists more than it is now. Isn't it so?
A simple revision on the perk point system will suffice IMHO. Currently,
perk point awarded = ENY value of Victor / ENY value of Victim * 1.25 (if you land)
and this only goes to the player awarded for the kill.
Revise this to...
perk point awarded = ENY value of Victor / ENY value of Victim * % of damage inflicted on the Victim * 1.25 (if you land)
for all kills and assists awarded.
Simple solution isn't it? It awards kills and assists similarly. And I think all the values in this formula is already considered in the present system. Just need to revise the formula. :D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
banana,
Maybe my proposed system would improve things if it simply ended the damage count once the first fatal damage had occured.
As soon as an entire wing, tail or elevators are gone, then no damage done from that time forward counts towards who killed it.
I thought about this also Karnak, but then I thought about WideWimgs example. Say that I notice a plane limping home, I make an attack, shoot it down and get no kill message at all? Or say this plane was a bomber and crippled me or ended up shooting me down also. How would I know when not to waste my E on a pointless attack?
Personally I am not really into getting kills awarded to me just for the sake of it. I will say that shooting other planes down is about 99.5% of the game for me. I get the same satisfaction knowing that I "Splashed One", whether I get the kill message or not. It is just nicer to get the kill message.
This is really what this all about isn't it? Who gets the kill message?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Widewing, you fly for Rooks don't you?
How in the world are you having people stealing your kills if they are always outnumbered? (seriously, they are whenever I'm online)
I fly for Bishops and for tour 27 I had kills/hour over twice that of yours while my hit percentage is barely 1% over yours. You also had 4.5x as many kills... nevertheless I've maintained about 6 1/2- 8.3 kills/hour for the past 4 tours on the Bishops side.
I think the point is to kill 'em good so that those guys who wanna steal your kills from right in front of you (who also have horrid aim) can pump as much ammo into them as they want and they still won't get the kill.
I use a wide variety of weapons, I rarely have kills stolen from me... it happens, but on average I'd reckon only about 1 kill/week is stolen from me.
Get closer and make sure you give them a good pelting, no one can steal those kills.
-SW
The reason my kills/hour was so low was due to my frequent trips deep into Bish and Knit territory, hunting bombers. I killed a lot of them, but time between kills is usually quite long. I prefer to tackle Buffs and Lancs at 5k rather than 25k. Add to this the likelihood that I will find them not paying much attention, (feeling secure deep in their rear areas) is greater than over Rook territory. Adding to this, I always climbout to a minimum of 17k before heading to a fight. Sometimes, I'll go as high a 28k, depending upon what I expect to encounter. There is no easier way to gain the tactical advantage than having the edge in altitude. I rarely arrive at a fight without first securing every advantage possible. Base defense is another issue, but even there I try to get above the attackers. Anyway, climbing to altitude absorbs a lot of online time.
My K/H is better this tour because I'm not hunting Buffs as much. However, I have flown some very long escort missions as part of RJOs.
So far this tour my K/D rankings are much better as well, and are as follows:
Fighter: 76
Attack: 46
Vehicle: 52
The best pilots get high K/D ratios through skill. Well, I don't have their level of skill, so I try to compensate via tactics, aggression and careful planning. Generally, that works as long as my planning isn't faulty and I find myself alone in a crowd of enemy. So far, so good, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
By the way, I rarely have kills stolen. Usually, if I see a plane going down, either one I hit or someone else's, I'll scold anyone who dives in for a steal via voice com. That failing, he gets enough "check 6" calls to make the point crystal clear. I've seen one guy deliberately killshooter a thief by intentionally flying through his bullet stream. :eek: Pretty neat if you can pull it off. It sure pushed the thief's button... he was very unhappy. Too bad, eh?
My regards,
Widewing
-
I've said for a long time that the way the kills are scored is nuts.
HTC says its the one that does more damage... yet I can pump 1200 rounds of .30 cal from my spit1 into a lancaster and not even damage it, then comes a cannon bird, hits it with a 4-5 shells, blows the wing off.. and I get the kill. HUH?
IMO, it would be better if the planes had "fatal damage" markers in the damage model.
Each plane has wing root, tail, tail stabs, fuel (or whatever it is where you hit and the plane shows a fire, then explodes 11 seconds later) and cockpit (pilot) as the places where damage is applied (damage that can bring you down for sure that is, you can still glide and land engineless planes, planes with control surfaces shot to hell, wingtip-less planes can still glide and land, etc,etc).
So, in my opinion, the instant YOU hit an enemy plane and cause the wing root, tail or fuel to snap out, the kill should be instantly awarded to the player that did that damage (or save the info until said enemy plane bails or augers or explodes, then give kill credit). That way if you shoot the wing off a bomber with a short burst in your Ta152 at 33k and the buff falls down and at 5k some moron in a (insert plane here) shoots the buff and makes it explode, he wont steal the kill.
For any other kind of damage, like wingtip, control surfaces or pilot wounds, i'd say the game should assign priority to these and award the kill to the person that did the most serious damage (either by component or by # of components he took out).
for example, if each one had a priority, or had a "point value"...:
Elevators: High priority (5 pnts each elev)
Wingtips: High priority (4 pnts each)
Aleirons: High Priority (3 pnts each)
Pilot Wound: Med. Priority (2 pnts)
Tail Stabilizer (for planes that have more than 1): Med. Priority (1.5 pnts each)
Flaps : Low Priority (1 pnt each)
Gears : Very Low Priority (.5 pnts each)
Rudder: Low priority (1 pnt)
so if several people are shooting at a plane and it augers from damaged surfaces, it wont be the one that pinged it the most but did no damage, OR the one that was closest to the augering plane that gets the kill, but the one that racked up the most "points" from the above list.
And as always, I think perk points should ONLY be awarded if the pilot returns home (aka, lands in friendly field, ditches in friendly territory or bails in friendly territory). Dying or being captured should yield no perks at all.
-
Here are my thoughts ... they are just that ... I spent a couple of hours thinking on this, so it probably is full of holes, but it is an idea for a solution. I do not present myself as an expert in the field of Flight Sims nor am I trying to tell HiTech that he has it "all wrong" and I am right. Remember, its just an idea.
Each critical flight component must be assigned a total damage value per plane. Total damage values would take into consideration the modeled "ruggedness" of the component for each plane.
Destroying any one of these components does not necessarily cripple the plane to the point of making it un-flyable. The only exception that I can think of is the P-38. Once the elevator stab is destroyed, the plane is not flyable. I know that there are more components, such as landing gear, leaking fuel, radiator, engine oil, etc., but as far as I am concerned, they have nothing to do with the ability of the plane to continue to fly and still be lethal (at least for some period of time), so they would not be consider in the calculations. I have scored many a kill with leaking fuel and the like.
pilot
rudder
elevator(s)
wing tips
ailerons
Some critical components make up larger critical components and they must be assigned a total damage value per plane. Total damage values would take into consideration the modeled "ruggedness" of the component for each plane.
Without these components the plane is not flyable nor should it be considered dangerous beyond the scope of wildly shooting rounds as it floats/plummets to the ground. A complete failure of these components would halt any damage methods from scoring hits by other planes that are trying to "steal" the kill. This would eliminate a portion of "Kill Stealing". The list below is just from my observations and no way implies that these are the only scenarios that would fall into this category. HiTech and "Crew" would have a better insight as to what the complete list would be.
cockpit - shooting the pilot to cause death (I think that this is already covered with an explosion and complete destruction of the plane)
tail section - shooting the tail section off a plane or total destruction of rudder(s) and elevator(s) and pieces of the tail fuselage causing separation due to stress.
wing section - shooting the wing root causing the wing to separate or shooting enough of the wing structure to cause failure, resulting in the wing separating from the plane due to
stress.
Damage to these components is caused by different ballistics and they need to be assigned a damage values.
For the sake of argument, I will assign my own values. These numbers and the ones that are assigned to each plane are for EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY !!! I do not profess to be an expert in the area of assigning these numbers, but I do know something about logic. These numbers are meant to demonstrate the logic. They are not ABSOLUTE.
Ballistics
--------------------------
.50cal = 10
.20mm = 20
.30mm = 50
rockets = 200
P51 (numbers signify complete failure - all variables start at 0)
--------------------------
pilot = 10
rudder = 70
elevator1 = 70
elevator2 = 70
tail structure = 40
tail fuselage = 250
complete failure of tail section = 250
wing tip1 = 100
aileron1 = 100
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
wing root1 = 250
complete failure of wing section1 = 250
wing tip2 = 100
aileron2 = 100
wing structure2 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
wing root2 = 250
complete failure of wing section2 = 250
P38 (numbers signify complete failure - all variables start at 0)
--------------------------
pilot = 20
rudder1 = 100
tail structure1 = 50
tail fuselage1 = 150
rudder2 = 100
tail structure2 = 50
tail fuselage2 = 150
elevator1 = 150
complete failure of tail section1 = 150
complete failure of tail section2 = 150
wing tip1 = 100
aileron1 = 100
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
wing root1 = 250
complete failure of wing section1 = 250
wing tip2 = 100
aileron2 = 100
wing root2 = 250
wing structure2 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
complete failure of wing section2 = 250
Lancaster (numbers signify complete failure - all variables start at 0)
--------------------------
pilot = 30
rudder1 = 150
elevator1 = 140
elevator2 = 140
tail fuselage = 300
complete failure of tail section = 300
wing tip1 = 200
aileron1 = 200
wing root1 = 450
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
complete failure of wing section1 = 450
wing tip2 = 200
aileron2 = 200
wing root2 = 450
wing structure2 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
complete failure of wing section2 = 450
Once a complete failure has occurred, that causes the plane to become unflyable, we would have to establish who participated in the failure and score accordingly. Note, the P38, the tail section and its components will cause a complete failure quicker than a wing failure. Therefore, if you are working the wings and someone fly's in and causes a complete tail failure, your hits (score) on the wings are not even considered. My thoughts are you should know the weak points of the aircraft and attack that.
Lets clarify the pilot variable first. This value is determined by what is surrounding the pilot (windscreen - seat plating - etc), so in some planes, it might take more hits to the cockpit area, and the angle of the hit would have to be taken into consideration, before the pilot is actually killed.
Lets look at attacking the wings ...
Now if I attack the P51 and I take out the aileron and wing tip, and some guy fly's over the top of me and score hits on the wing structure to cause the wing to fly off. This combination causes a total failure of the wing and the plane is now a lawn dart. Any shooting at this plane will now be ignored. In this scenario, I get the kill.
my total = 200 (kill awarded)
---------------
wing tip1 = 100
aileron1 = 100
other total = 50 (assist)
---------------
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
Now if I attack the P51 and I take out the aileron and wing structure (not a complete failure yet), and some guy fly's over the top of me takes out the wing tip causing the wing to fly off. This combination causes a total failure of the wing and the plane is now a lawn dart. Any shooting at this plane will now be ignored. In this scenario, I get the kill.
my total = 150 (kill awarded)
---------------
aileron1 = 100
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
other total = 100 (assist)
---------------
wing tip1 = 100
Now if I attack the P51 and I damage the wing structure (not a complete failure yet), and some guy fly's over the top of me takes out the wing root causing the wing to fly off. This combination causes a total failure of the wing and the plane is now a lawn dart. Any shooting at this plane will now be ignored. In this scenario, He gets the kill. No way stop this type of "stealing".
my total = 50 (assist)
---------------
wing structure1 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
other total = 250 (kill awarded)
---------------
wing root1 = 250
Now if I attack the P51 and I take out the right aileron and wing tip, and some guy fly's over the top of me and takes out the left aileron and wing tip, and a third guy fly's in and damages the left wing structure causing a total failure of the left wing. Any shooting at this plane will now be ignored. In this scenario, I will NOT get the kill. The structure that I did damage on was not the failing component so my score is discarded. Oh well ... next time I will concentrate on the wing root.
my total = 200 (assist)
---------------
wing tip1 = 100
aileron1 = 100
2nd guy = 200 (kill awarded)
---------------
wing tip2 = 100
aileron2 = 100
3rd guy = 50 (assit)
---------------
wing structure2 = 50 (not tip/aileron)
I won't continue, you can apply the numbers yourself, but the key component to this schema is what was the failing component. Anything scoring outside of the failing component would only be considered an assist. Any programming solution, would not need a "gun camera", HiTech has a "program camera". He can keep track of every bullet that hit the plane and what component it hit, and what total damage it did to the component.
I can present this solution/viewpoint and 10 other people could propose sound solutions also, and no matter which way you slice it, not all will be satisfied. I have been in development long enough to speak from authority on this point. I put this in a post before and have told anybody that works for me ... don't come to me with a problem without also proposing a valid and solid solution.
Widewing ... you have some valid points ... its your delivery that needs work.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Widewing ... you have some valid points ... its your delivery that needs work.
Er, yeah, you are most certainly correct. I have little tact, and less patience. Forgive my blunt approach... Geez, if you could see what I deleted...... Never mind...;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I get alot of assists zipping around in my zero when I believe I should be getting kills, but I'm more worried about what's for lunch...
One thing that has me very concerned is the mental approach people are taking on this. Example; I was upping in my zero doing the defense furball thing and there was an nme close; think it was a p47; doesn't matter.
One of the AK guys (don't remember who but I would if I saw the roster) said something like "Stay away Ogun; if I need your help I'll ask."
What? Last time I checked, approaching a countryman in a 1-on-1 situation would be patriotic...I wasn't looking for his kill, I was interested in defending the field first and then getting back into the furball that was a few k off the field.
This "kill stealing" thinking is creating a bunch of individuals; the teamwork is suffering. I played for the rooks, then the knights to get into a squad, and the whole squad came back to rooks for various reasons including ma numbers balance and rumors of rook teamwork and friendliness.
I used to think people followed me around in my zero to wait til I crippled somebody so they could finish them off with less risk; ha, talk about paranoid. These maps are big :D
And whoever you were AK guy, I'm coming after the first nme I see nearest the field every time I up, like it or not. That's how I play, and I'm not changing the approach. You want to fight alone then you go follow Widewing somewhere into deep nme territory; I got a zero w/25% and I don't have time for you to serve your ego.
Other than that, just wanted to mention that "delivery" can be important; Widewing, you jumped my squadie bigtime for taking control of the cv one day; not cool. He know's what he's doing and the cv was just hanging out by the port without an nme closer than 50miles and that's why he told you to take it if you wanted it (he had you outranked by about 500 positions :D but if you'd asked nicely he'd have given you the cv)
Two cents and a nickel
-
Ogun,
I don't see kill stealing to mean killing a combat capable aircraft that I happen to be saddled up on.
I see kill stealing to be when I blast an enemy aircraft and his flaming, twisting carcass is tumbling downward on its inexorable path to the ground and some jerk comes in, hoses the wreckage down and gets the "kill".
I think most people see kill stealing the same way I do.
-
lmao!!!
I have yet to see that guy in the air =)
Kanthy
Originally posted by Hortlund
When I shoot down an enemy plane and only get an assist, I note who it was that got the kill, and then I haunt them with 385 Check-6 calls.
That is my policy on assists.
-
wide... never even heard of the "ghosts" couldn't care less and it has nothing to do with this. I fly for the BK's and there are one or two halfway decent sticks in it so what? Nobody cares..... Oh wait... you can compete with jg44 I think they are really into the same crap you are.
As toad said... a lot of us could care less about the score. We care about gameplay. You are suggesting something that would ruin gameplay for the sake of a, maybe more, maybe less realistic score system.
In everything I have seen about WWII assists were counted. Kills were often awarded without much documentation.. In fact, I would say that we have a far more accurate count than WWII eh? Many pilots got awarded kills of planes they never seen crash. I have never heard of a plane getting killed in a populated area that didn't get awarded to someone.
one other thing... I like the assist feature. It is very handy since it let's me know who it was I was fighting even if I don't get the kill. I think all of us who don't care about score like this about the assist idea.
lazs
-
oh... and in my squad it is a "game" (cruel and insensitive as the BK's are) to "steal" lazs's kills. the heartless bastards even take bets on it. check out my score for assists. They managed to steal 4 in one sortie last night. Oh well... another tear stained night for my pillow.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ogun
Other than that, just wanted to mention that "delivery" can be important; Widewing, you jumped my squadie bigtime for taking control of the cv one day; not cool. He know's what he's doing and the cv was just hanging out by the port without an nme closer than 50miles and that's why he told you to take it if you wanted it (he had you outranked by about 500 positions :D but if you'd asked nicely he'd have given you the cv)
Two cents and a nickel
That is not accurate desciption of the event.
Let's understand one thing. I have a low threshold for what I recognize as silliness. It's a character flaw, and I know that. Moreover, I was too harsh, and I will apologize the next time I see the person in question. But, doesn't make his decision correct, mind you. I do not dump on someones backside without cause. In the case you mention, your squadie was about to waste our only CV, with its spawning port about to be taken. Bad. Very bad. The radio suddenly came alive with Rooks asking "what the hell is that CV doing?" I checked the map, and sure enough, your squadie was sending the CV a full sector into enemy controlled airspace. We were short-handed, with no one to spare to fly from the CV in the first place, much less defend it from Buffs. Furthermore, the port it had spawned from was under attack with few Rooks, if any, available to defend it . So, I turned the CV around and headed it towards a Rook airfield, where it could receive some air cover. Your squadie then turned it back and refused to understand that what he was doing was, essentially, a suicide run for that task force. So, I jumped on his bellybutton and chewed till tender. I didn't want the CV, I wanted it sent to safe waters to prevent it being handed to the enemy. Sure enough, we lost the port within 30 minutes.
Gentlemen, Task Forces are team assets, not personal assets like the airplane, GV or PT you might use. Therefore, you have a responsibility to your team (country) to use that asset wisely. Clearly, some players have no clue as how to use the task force effectively. God knows how many times pig-headed people have wasted this valuable resource despite being repeatedly warned by teammates that the action was a mistake. When someone questions your motives and reasoning, listen carefully, they may be dead nuts accurate in their assessment of the tactical situation. That is why I always announce my intentions whenever I move a task force. It allows for open discussion before the force is committed. I do this because other teammates may ahve a differing need or a better idea.
Never, ever, send a task force into enemy territory unless there are enough resources to defend it. It's even more important when the spawning port is captured by the enemy.
I could care less about ranking. That's no evidence that any individual knows how to use a task force. Please, share you intentions with your teammates and be prepared to change your mind. After all, that's their task force too.
My regards,
Widewing
-
(I've been trying to respond to this for three hours but I had a quantum physics meeting and a luncheon with the Pope)
Widewing,
I like the Rooks. Have since I started playing, and when you look around at a country that you percieve to be friendly and good with teamwork, you notice those that stick out a bit off of center.
I don't give inaccurate descriptions, and I would challenge you to find somebody to back your description of the event (btw I have a few that would back mine). There was no nme near the port; there was no nme upping for the field we were attacking, and we did not lose the port for at least two hours because I was on that long after your "delivery" and our port was fine. The cv did get sunk I recall after said squadie handed it over to you to shut you up (about 25mins after).
It amazes me that you just assume that Your concept of where the cv should be and what it should do is the only correct concept. Defend defend defend unless you have the resources to protect...if that were the case, and we follow Your logic then anytime the rooks are outnumbered we should only cap our own fields. Your thought is at the base of the absence of progress.
What You percieve as silly in this case is what I call "planning and executing a sneak jabo attack in an attempt to win a field." Again, there was no nme near the port, and if they cv got sunk near the nme field where said squadie was directing it, whadYa know, it pops right back up where it had been "idle" anyway.
What I see is You peeing. And when somebody else pees farther, you get your panties in a bunch. If it's about brainpans, I suggest you not tangle with said squadie or myself because you'll get embarassed. Think back to the first day You played the game; remember how fun it was? The rooks are a fun group and friendly for the most part and that makes me (and I'll assume others) want to protect that.
Stop acting like a dictator, step away from Your megalomania, and play as if it were fun and You might find more of what You're looking for; self-assessed character flaws are repairable.
-
(I've already sent my check in for the long haul guys!!)
Even though I am relatively new, you can have my kills, if you want! I don't play this game with everyone for personal gratification. Every time a bail a fellow Rook out of a tight spot (i.e. my fellow comrade is being chased and shot at, and I save his heine) is enough for me, pure and simple. I don't give a toejam about the number of kills I have or getting an assist when someone probably ran out of ammo in his bird due to the net lag. I enjoy the company and my fellow comrades as I PLAY A GAME!!! The only kill that has been gratifying (besides bailing out comrades) was a cocky, Knight pilot taunting me by flying upside down and getting shot down while showboating. I play the game, been killed alot (still learning) but now, I have been getting a few 4 kill runs here, had my first 5 kill run, last night. I'd give all of those back if it meant a more skilled stick on my side, taking it. Get a grip Wingman.
I agree, leave it the Damn way it is. This useless whining about scoring is a null issue to me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
To Dale, NateDog and the rest of you in Tejas, keep up the F^&KING great work!!!!!!!!!!!
Jay
-
What is "score"?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
In the real world, kills would credited to the pilot who actually shot down the enemy, not to someone who merely pinged him at some earlier point.
I was with ya untill this comment...........
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
What is "score"?
It's a number, that's all, Edbert. It gets lower the more cautious you are. Believe it or not, lower is better here. Lots of people use it to help themselves decide whether they're having a good time, and to assure themselves that they're better than at least some other people.
- oldman
-
I too wanted to respond to this for the past three hours but that pesky middle east peace conference i was hosting followed by the ceremony inducting all of my squaddies into the AH Hall of fame for being the most respected squad with the most talented pille its..... well that stuff just kept getting in the way...
anyhow ogun.. I too have been in your position. I am as blind and deaf as you and have somehow come up with a totally different take on an incident that involved the magnificent and humble widewing in the recent past. I seen things one way and he saw them in a way that was completely different.
something is wrong if you have to tell everyone how respected you are and how good you are and then have to turn around and explain why it only appears that you suck.
it ain't rocket science.
respectfully yours
lazs
-
Widewing, you were robbed. Definitely WotW material here.
Implementation of your idea would most certainly cause more whining about kill stealing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
Ahem! Just because a plane has crashed with damage doesnt mean tht anyone HAS to be awarded a kill. think of the number of bombers -and fighters - that limped home damaged in WW2, unclaimed as a kill by any enemy, and yet that either crashed, or the crew chose to bail out rather than attempting to land?
In the example hitech gave, I'd say that if both pilots are within gun range, give 2/3 of a credit to the pilot closest to the crahed plane, and 1/3 to the other. If one of them is outside gun range when the target crashes, it gets no credit and the plane that IS within gun range gets full credit. If neither are within gun range, neither get any kill credit. Wheat yo do about perk points is another matter, but thats the way Id do it.
What has always seemed silly to me is someone being awarded a kill on a bomber they shot at half an hour and more before and by then 100 mies or more away. They wouldnt have claimed it in real life - after all, it survived to fly away - so why should they get awarded a kill in a flight sim?
On the other hand - I'm a Bomberpiloten. Succes to me is if I made it to target and back safely, and most importantly of all; did I have FUN doing it?!
In short, the kill stats only matter if you pay them attention, guys. Why not keep your own tally of kills? Surely the satisfying thing is what you KNOW you personally brought about the demise of, nevr mind what some logging system thinks about it..
Esme
-
Originally posted by lazs2
something is wrong if you have to tell everyone how respected you are and how good you are and then have to turn around and explain why it only appears that you suck.
That's "Great and Powerful Oz" to you bud.... And don't forget it.
-
Tell ya what Ogun, if you wish to write fiction, there are newsgroups up on usenet where you can post it for peer review.
The event I am referring to involved SELECTOR as the person who had taken command of the CV. If this is different from the one you are talking about then state so. If not, then you really need to consider therapy.
The situation was this: My squad was flying out of (I believe) A20 on the NDILSES map. Our CV had spawned from the port south of that field. We had just repulsed an attack by carrier aircraft from an enemy CV spawned at P39. They also controlled A40 and 41. This fight had taken place just southwest of our port (P21?).
This was when our CV was steered towards A41 and 42. It was not possible to defend that CV when we were undermanned by 30 or more people. CVs are offensive weapons, but they still need to be defended against airstrikes. Who was going to defend that carrier? Your squad? But wait, you were going on a secret sneak attack mission.... How many were staying behind to CAP the task force?
In addition, I stated then, and repeated before that I did not want the carrier. I, and several others, wanted it sailed to safe waters, where it could be protected until it was needed for something besides ill advised squadie boondoggles. Later, some other person took it up to A8 where it was sunk. By then I had already written it off in my mind. The one and only time that I took command of the CV was to redirect it east of 19, but your squadie sent it back west again. Later, we lost the port, and everything east from there to A18, where we held them. If you can name the date, I might have film from those sorties, complete with message buffer. You can speak with Hammer about what took place, because he and I were discussing this issue on the squad channel at that time.
Now for the rest of your comments:
When you have limited resources, you must limit your offensive fighting or you will over-extend and get crushed. Attacks must be limited in scope and objective, the primary focus being to keep the enemy off-balance and prevent them from concentrating their power at one location. Attacking in 8 different directions severely depletes combat power and virtually assures that you will be defeated in detail. Resources must be husbanded, and used with great care. A rare opportunity to launch a major offensive may present itself, but always exercise caution. Remember the Battle of the Bulge or Gettysburg as examples of over-extention that seriously diminished ability to defend what remains.
I suggest that any study of naval warfare science and history will be of benefit.
When you have at least parity, then you can begin to think about major offensive campaigns. Take note of how the U.S. fought in the Pacific during 1941-42. Learn from this example.
Where did I learn this? I have a background in Naval Aviation. I won't go into detail or Lazs will need additional self-esteem therapy.
Your comment: "It amazes me that you just assume that Your concept of where the cv should be and what it should do is the only correct concept."
My concept is based upon education, actual experience and 35 years of Naval wargaming.
This line is amusing: "If it's about brainpans, I suggest you not tangle with said squadie or myself because you'll get embarassed."
I'm already embarassed about my wasting time debating pointless issues. Beyond that, be advised, I'm not even slightly impressed. Oh, and remember your comment about rankings? Well, I've looked at the scores and stats you two guys have generated. Here's some advice, just to you: Park your plane at the end of a runway, wait for enemy aircraft killed by AI ack to crash nearby and get the proxy. Why? Because you'll accumulate kills 4 times faster than you're doing now, and you'll be able to honestly say that you only die when vulched. Leviathn was rated 1433 last tour. Do you consider yourself 800 ranks better than him? In your dreams......
I mean really, that comment is remarkable considering that it appears that you fly around with "SHOOT ME" painted on your plane in large letters. :rolleyes:
With respect to "having fun", I do have fun. However, I take my fun seriously.
My regards,
Widewing
-
By the way, sometimes it is more fun generating heat, rather than light. Nothing personal, just a little jesting at other's expense.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Oh well now that you put me in my place I apologize. You are correct. Aren't you always?
-
wide... i think it is obvious to everyone by now who suffers from the self esteem problem.
I studied the pacific campaign a little in my spare time and fail to see how the battle of midway had anything to do with parity. guadalcanal didn't seem to be about parity either... I fail to see how any of this has to do with the main arena in AH tho..
People in Ah all have different agendas... Yes, shock of shocks, somtimes their agenda my even differ from yours. this is a game that everyone pays an equal amount to play. Some have hours upon hours to spend and are, like yoursellf, anal and full of self importance... or if you prefer.... knowledgable and born leaders.. Doesn't really matter. Those who are in it to simply have fun and get some relief from the day to day grind for an hour or so are paying the same money as you are.
Look... I don't mind that you are hovering at alt above the furball waiting for some poor sap to get tangled up so you can blast em but quit ur whinin that you ain't getting enough credit for it. I think your getting too much. Hell... when you do get good... someone besides you will be saying so.
oh... and leviathn is fun to fight I have had a lot of good fights with him.
lazs
-
Well now we know your background and that you are very important. Widewing, how old are you? You come across as 14 or so but the 30 years or whatever of naval avaition training (ooh, aah) doesn't jive with that pubescent number.
Anyhoo, I don't film ma much and I don't record all the dates that you are biotching about something because my hard drive isn't big enough. Fiction? I love it; written a few books already. Therapy? Do you have training in that too? What if I told you I were trained in Air Force Aviation and Psychology; would that impress you? Not to say that I was, but hey, my worthiness isn't proved by ye olde pee contest, so you and your ego can relax. Imagine that you really are smarter than everyone else and that your ideas should be accepted by the masses.
I mean, what is wrong with all of these people who disagree with you? Shame on them! How dare they. Send us all for counseling, and your life will be much better.
You do indeed twist it, turn in, and paint it all the right colors for your specific need at the time. Facts don't matter; the only heat your generating is the hot air out of your windpipe and if you think I fly around with "shoot me" painted on my plane I'd be happy to meet you in the TA and school you a little. No, wait, your ego would implode. :D
:rolleyes:
-
You are cursed.
airhap
-
I think that the way it works now is better then the change proposed by widewing.
We dont fly in integrated squadrons with millions of ground troops to witness our kills nor all the other infastructure to confirm kills. Yet his proposal would relly on these things or fail to give a kill.
In my mind the pilot that damages an aircraft nearly to collaps has accomplished more then the pilot that adds the last straw.
Widewing doenst know if the damage he inflicted is in the exact same spot as the previos damage. If it is then the absence of the previos damage might have relagated his to the mere damage that he seems to despise.
In the absence of all the infastructure to support the system used by the USAAF in ww2...what we have is better....
I just wish that crippling damage rewarded the kill and further damage to the destroyed ac did not have the chance to transfer credit.
1/3rd and 1/2 kills are for counties that do not have target rich enviroments...In AH it seems unneccasary.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wide... i think it is obvious to everyone by now who suffers from the self esteem problem.
I studied the pacific campaign a little in my spare time and fail to see how the battle of midway had anything to do with parity. guadalcanal didn't seem to be about parity either... I fail to see how any of this has to do with the main arena in AH tho..
lazs
Apparently, you studied it very little. Midway was a defensive fight, a huge gamble. Guadalcanal was also defensive in nature. Midway contained the Japanese in the central Pacific, Guadalcanal contained them in the South Pacific. Both actions were initiated to prevent the Japanese from gaining important strategic positions. Both battles were won by the barest of margins and good fortune. We lost nearly every naval engagement at Guadalcanal. The few we did win came at tremendous cost. We came a hair's breath from losing at Midway. Essentially, these were spoiling attacks, limited in scope and objective (sound familiar?).
When the U.S. had achieved parity in the Pacific, they secured their grasp on the territory they occupied. Once they had the edge in manpower and material, then they began offensive operations. Everything up till that point was containment.
I suggest several required reading books, including Morrison's Two Ocean War, Walter Boyne's Clash of Titans and Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky. You wouldn't like Walt or Eric, being men of letters and natural leaders, they would only become focal points for your resentment. However, their works are worth the risk to your delicate self-image. All will be in your local library.
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I think that the way it works now is better then the change proposed by widewing.
We dont fly in integrated squadrons with millions of ground troops to witness our kills nor all the other infastructure to confirm kills. Yet his proposal would relly on these things or fail to give a kill.
In my mind the pilot that damages an aircraft nearly to collaps has accomplished more then the pilot that adds the last straw.
Widewing doenst know if the damage he inflicted is in the exact same spot as the previos damage. If it is then the absence of the previos damage might have relagated his to the mere damage that he seems to despise.
In the absence of all the infastructure to support the system used by the USAAF in ww2...what we have is better....
I just wish that crippling damage rewarded the kill and further damage to the destroyed ac did not have the chance to transfer credit.
1/3rd and 1/2 kills are for counties that do not have target rich enviroments...In AH it seems unneccasary.
Pongo, you may be right. However, my point was this, regardless of how much damage someone does to an aircraft, if it lands safely it was for naught. I believe that when that aircraft escapes its attacker, gets beyond visual range of the enemy, it is now a viable kill target for the next enemy that comes along. Why? Because if it doesn't get killed, no one gets credit. As it is, the software remembers who hit it before and how much damage they did. That is unrealistic.
However, feel free to disagree. Discussion is good. Maybe there are better ideas, but we won't know until people present them.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Substandard reply Ogun, you can shoot back better than that. Try harder.
By the way, Every Sunday night, 9 PM EDT, I'm in the TA training squad members. Feel free to drop by. Last week we worked on two on one and two on two ACM. We will likely continue this again. Squadies get to try shooting me down. They're getting better, 'cause I was having to work a lot harder at staying alive. At the rate they're going, I''ll be in deep bandini Sunday. I'm sure the CO would let you join in the fun, a guest "expert" would be welcome. See you there.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Widewing, you were robbed. Definitely WotW material here.
Implementation of your idea would most certainly cause more whining about kill stealing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Tell me about it. I feel Rude is snubbing me :D
Now I know how Spielberg feels...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Every time I think you can't prove yourself to be more of a pompous bellybutton you outdo yourself Widewing. I am truly amazed.
Hooligan
-
Substandard reply; if you say so. That's kind of like saying "That bullet didn't hurt, can you shoot me again?"
Nah, I'll let you suffer :D
My squad and I do pairs training too; I get shot down lots and I can only hope to be as good as most of them are someday, but take a line and put at the beginning "horrible pilot, never gets a kill" and at the other end "the best pilot, never gets killed and kills others at will" and you placed me waaaaay down on that lower end saying that I have a target on my back or whatever saying "shoot me." Now you contend that I'm claiming to be an expert. Is your world one of only extremes?
I will gladly take you on one on one; I'll win or lose, and you'll say what you want, but that target that says "shoot me" will be a bit harder for you to read than you might suppose. At the root of all this, you are a close-minded ahole with a need for control that you don't have. Hey, you got your WWII history in order; you've figured out all the right angles, numbers, systems and scores.
Make a game to compete with AH there hero. I'd enjoy reading the feasibility study, watching the failure, and the ensuing bankruptcy hearing :D
At any rate, I think the saddest part of this whole scenario is that you would have some outstanding ideas if only you'd picked up somewhere the education in diplomacy (and actually used it).
And I hope you remember, you struck first. And if you think rank doesn't matter (and perhaps it doesn't) then maybe you should have HTC change the ranking system too. It's all screwed up huh. I mean, as of this writing my rank is 195 and yours is 654. That can't be right. Can't be.
-
Widewing
you seem to be saying that you favour rewarding chance over actual accomplishment in our game.
The real accomplishment in ww2 was killing the enemy pilot or destroying his airframe. Because both were expensive to replace.
In our game those things are meaningless. So it is ok I think to award the real measure of success..did you hit the enemy aircraft and how much.
In the cases where two or more pilots hit an aircraft it seems ok to me to award the kill to the person that did the most towards that kill.
Its just a game thing..but this is just a game.
Certainly the system as is falls within the realm of common sense..
Just say it and see if it sounds sensible.
"The person that hurts an enemy the most gets credit for the kill"
sort of sounds common sensible to me anyway.
Now try this one.
"After a plane is crippled, an until then uninvolved friendly aircraft can shoot the crippled plane enough to get the kill themselves."
doesnt make sense to me...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
doesnt make sense to me...
I am telling y'all, what we need is a more rewarding assists as Badboy already pointed out. This thread wouldn't have started in the first place if it was.
As for the rest, I would say that is in the future... probably AH2.
-
Originally posted by Ogun
At any rate, I think the saddest part of this whole scenario is that you would have some outstanding ideas if only you'd picked up somewhere the education in diplomacy (and actually used it).
And I hope you remember, you struck first. And if you think rank doesn't matter (and perhaps it doesn't) then maybe you should have HTC change the ranking system too. It's all screwed up huh. I mean, as of this writing my rank is 195 and yours is 654. That can't be right. Can't be.
Look, I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else. I was just playing the role of boy genius/wiseass, and I clearly carried it too far. My apologies to you and the rest. One of these days I'll learn to stuff a sock in it, and at my age (old fart), I had better learn soon. Really, I had no cause to pull your chain in such a manner.:(
Sometimes what one thinks is funny, is really hurtful instead.
Again, I apologize for being the amazinhunk you so accurately described.
My wife has complained for years that I am a "perfectionist". Well, if she's correct, and I deliberately behave like an amazinhunk... That can only mean one thing....:eek:
I would be happy to play tag in the TA. It would be fun, and I'd be content to fly the Zeke too.
As to scoring, I appreciate that a lot of folks put their stock into it. However, it is not an accurate measurement of skills by itself. This is because many don't fly bombers, or fighters, or bother with vehicles. So their scores reflect a higher ranking due to that very large default number inserted into the calculation. I prefer to examine the Stat page, where only kills and deaths (real deaths, not discos) are counted. I can learn more from the Stats than from the Score page. If we look at Leviathn's score for the last tour, he was ranked 1433. That certainly does not reflect his skill level, and he is easily one of the top 5 pilots in this game in terms of skill. It merely reflects the fact that he doesn't do anything other than fly fighters and the occasional attack mission.
I fly only fighters, but with a much greater emphasis on attack missions. I'll grab an Osty to defend a capped field now and then, which is largely responsible for pulling my ranking down to the 600 range. Otherwise, it would be up in the 900s. Your ranking indicates that you are doing a little bit of everything. Keep it up and you might break into the top 100. I get bored with bombers, tanks and PTs. So, I avoid them, and my ranking reflects that.
Let me conclude with this: Hooligan is correct, I have behaved like a pompous ass, and I can accept the public spanking for doing so.
Perhaps we can revisit some of the issues with the scoring system and see if we can reach some consensus on the specific things people find troubling with it.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Widewing
you seem to be saying that you favour rewarding chance over actual accomplishment in our game.
The real accomplishment in ww2 was killing the enemy pilot or destroying his airframe. Because both were expensive to replace.
In our game those things are meaningless. So it is ok I think to award the real measure of success..did you hit the enemy aircraft and how much.
In the cases where two or more pilots hit an aircraft it seems ok to me to award the kill to the person that did the most towards that kill.
Its just a game thing..but this is just a game.
Certainly the system as is falls within the realm of common sense..
Just say it and see if it sounds sensible.
"The person that hurts an enemy the most gets credit for the kill"
sort of sounds common sensible to me anyway.
Now try this one.
"After a plane is crippled, an until then uninvolved friendly aircraft can shoot the crippled plane enough to get the kill themselves."
doesnt make sense to me...
I see your point, you believe the scoring should reward based upon contribution. I agree, however, I believe that the system should reward the final killer more than those who contributed, regardless of whether the killer did more or less total damage. Assists should get some perk percentage, or kills should be shared. IE: .33 kills or .50 kills, and so on. Also, non flying proxies should go away, along with proxies caused by AI ack.
Does this make a little more sense?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Every time I think you can't prove yourself to be more of a pompous bellybutton you outdo yourself Widewing. I am truly amazed.
Hooligan
You are absolutely correct. My apologies.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Still waiting for the punch line Widewing :D
-
"I suggest several required reading books, including Morrison's Two Ocean War, Walter Boyne's Clash of Titans and Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky. You wouldn't like Walt or Eric, being men of letters and natural leaders, they would only become focal points for your resentment. However, their works are worth the risk to your delicate self-image. All will be in your local library.
Widewing"
Eric Bergerud eh.... not the world renown Eric Bergerud? He is indeed a man of letters (a professor). Whenever he comes over I tease him about it. Eric is a squadmate and good friend. We get toghether with a couple of other squaddies several times a year at his or my house and have dinner and then settle in for some good conversation till long past midnight. I do indeed like Eric but I fear that he would find your vapid pomposity unbearable. He suffers pomposity badly.
plus....
-
plus... I would like you to clear something up. You claim to be a naval wargamer of 35 years.. You were in the navy for 35 years playing war games? Does that mean you are like on some kinda war game staff or that you are maybe an admiral?
As for AH and war in the pacific... there is no way to compare them or your use of one CV. both midway and guadalcanal were huge engagements compared to your little hissy fit with the CV in a ..... game.
Sorry if i injured your fragile little ego but if you insist on spouting off in a pompous manner ya gotta expect people to squeak slap yu a little..
oh yeah...your idea about scoring... it was dumb. It did allow us to get to know you tho. You wanted yourself and your squad to get attention... I think we can safely say you have accomplished that.
lazs
-
I agree with Widewing that the one who scores the critical damage should be rewarded instead of those who contribute to the damage without any decisive hit. You can compare it to any sports where a ball or puck is moved a lot and one guy just touches it slightly to score!!!! The last one is the scorer who makes the difference and the earlier ones get assists!
On the other hand there is the problem of kill stealing, thus the kill should NOT be awarded according to the last hit, but according to critical decisive hits.
Howabout this?
----------------------------
Suggestions for calculating the "kill points":
-All "kill points" from each plane part go to the pilot who actually spends the last structural point from that plane part scoring the critical hits. Not to those who only contribute to spending the structural points.
-Each plane part has "kill points" according to how important role they have for keeping the plane flyable. Thus scoring lots minor damage which still leaves the plane flyable would not so easily be better than some truly critical damage.
-If a plane explodes or crashes all "kill points" from all remaining plane parts are awarded to that pilot who scored last "kill points" before that (not hits only, but actual critical damage).
Killer would still be the one who got most kill points, but he would have actually scored the decisive hits.
Assists would go to all who got some "kill points" , but not to everyone who chewed some structural points without critical damage.
If a plane crashes without any previously lost plane parts the Proximity kill would be awarded according to present system of chewed structural points. If the plane was 100% fine before crash, then NO kills to anyone.
-------------------
With this system the one who makes the difference would be awarded and the possible kill stealing would still be kept at current level. The kill stealer would actually have to do some serious damage and a heavily damaged plane would not often likely have that many points left in it to help kill stealing.
What would be the flaws of my proposition?
-Less assists maybe?
-What else?
-
blauk it pretty much works that way now. the one who does the most damage gets the kill. We allready have guys following cons to the ground "doing the final damage" to a wingless tailess "threat".
In the war... guys would claim a kill.. no one actually seen it go dwon but someone on the ground would report an ememy plane down and the guy would get credit. Awarding kills in the war was by no means an exact science in any case... charity kills were awarded, propoganda kills... bomber gunners "i fired my guns it had to be me" kills were awarded. What we have is far superior to "real life".
Proximity kills.... that's a tough one. I guess HTC knows what they are doing cause it works out that I get credit and get caught by it about equal and... I believe their idea is that people would "suicide" rather than allow credit to be given to someone who had defeated them. In WB I recall people diving into the ack to "suicide" cause they had been bested and didn't want to give credit to the guy.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
blauk it pretty much works that way now. the one who does the most damage gets the kill.
But only PRETTY MUCH. The difference is that someone can spray away 90% of plane's structural points and nothing is actually DAMAGED. Lots of effort, but not competence. Then another comes and hits the pilot but only gets an assist from a complete destuction of a 100% functioning plane.
This is why I think awarding points for making the plane part damage happen instead of just chewing away the structural points makes a HUGE difference.
Another approach to this (maybe minor) problem would be to change this not damaged/damaged system for the plane parts into more stages of damage, but I think that would be MUCH more difficult.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"I suggest several required reading books, including Morrison's Two Ocean War, Walter Boyne's Clash of Titans and Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky. You wouldn't like Walt or Eric, being men of letters and natural leaders, they would only become focal points for your resentment. However, their works are worth the risk to your delicate self-image. All will be in your local library.
Widewing"
Eric Bergerud eh.... not the world renown Eric Bergerud? He is indeed a man of letters (a professor). Whenever he comes over I tease him about it. Eric is a squadmate and good friend. We get toghether with a couple of other squaddies several times a year at his or my house and have dinner and then settle in for some good conversation till long past midnight. I do indeed like Eric but I fear that he would find your vapid pomposity unbearable. He suffers pomposity badly.
plus....
Sometimes Lazs, you appear to have no sense of humor....:(
I have never met Eric in person, but have exchanged e-mail several times after his publisher asked me to review Fire in the Sky. He seems to be a very nice fellow. He teaches Economics up in the Bay area, right? His book is probably the definitive volume on the air war in the SWPA. Say hello for me. BTW, what's his arena handle?
My regards,
Widewing
-
You didn't answer my question.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
plus... I would like you to clear something up. You claim to be a naval wargamer of 35 years.. You were in the navy for 35 years playing war games? Does that mean you are like on some kinda war game staff or that you are maybe an admiral?
As for AH and war in the pacific... there is no way to compare them or your use of one CV. both midway and guadalcanal were huge engagements compared to your little hissy fit with the CV in a ..... game.
Sorry if i injured your fragile little ego but if you insist on spouting off in a pompous manner ya gotta expect people to squeak slap yu a little..
oh yeah...your idea about scoring... it was dumb. It did allow us to get to know you tho. You wanted yourself and your squad to get attention... I think we can safely say you have accomplished that.
lazs
I was in the Navy for 8 years, active and reserve. Never quite had time in service or grade for Admiral stars.... I began wargaming back in the mid 60's, primarily naval wargames. Me and a partner designed and sold a couple of games when we were teenagers, and that got me more deeply involved in tabletop and miniature wargaming. You may have seen one of those games, produced many, many years ago, titled Savo Sound, a simulation of the Guadalcanal naval battles. I still play them, and constantly make revisions to rules to facilitate ease of play and accuracy of historical conditions. Of course, tabletop games have lost much of their popularity since the PC revolution.
BTW, there's nothing you can say that I haven't seen before, being a longtime usenet denizen.... You're an amateur compared to some of the professional level usenet trolls.
I must disagree about CV usage. The basic principle is the same. Carriers need air cover to survive, be it here in AH or in the real world. Taking a CV deep into enemy controlled territory, without adequate air cover is suicide, here and in the world as we know it.
You don't know me at all, only the personna I choose to portray. However, those who do know me recognize that I will play that role to the hilt. You only know Widewing. He's a fictional character, created for my amusement. The guy behind Widewing, well, he's a REAL sicko... :D
My regards,
Widewing
-
Look at it this way BlauK, in many cases these guys would already have been filled so full of holes that their planes would of been more like 20% functioning and thus the pilot would of ditched.
Because of the current damage modeling, you don't see this.
Usually the guy who comes along and gets that single hit that causes a con to go down isn't getting a pilot kill, typically he hits them in the wing or something. So it wasn't like THEIR aim was any better, they just got that last hit on it.
Now if something were to be done, lets say the max # of people that can divide a kill is 3 people... then kills could be awarded based on the top 3 people to damage it. But it would be "Victory shared by xxx xxx and xxxx", and as you can see this would require rewriting the entire score system and changing the system messages...
In the end it's quite a pain in the bellybutton for something that is good enough as is.
-SW
-
Has it occured to u game boy that you don't know me either? I don't think you can stop thinking about yourself long enough to even cipher that one out tho.
In any case... I am speaking only to the pompous amazinhunk who is widewing. As such, I think my responses have been appropriate. but I guess maybe in real life you are a great guy and that you are only pretending to be a pompous pos.
Hblair... is this ok? I mean I definetly am not picking on someone half my age here eh?
Thing is... we don't really care if you played board games for 35 years (who would admit such a thing?).... AH is not a board game especially in the main. Guys are here to have fun for a few hours. They don't need some dipshit who played board games acting like a general.
thing is.... most guys feel that they should get credit for their work and not have to give their kills to some hovering vultcher that "finishes off" their kill with a nik or lag7 cannon after it has been drained of e and shot to pieces. Your particular talent should not be rewarded IMO.
lazs
-
Eric Bergerud = rickt and he is a History Professor (not economics).
So you piqued my interest. Who published "Savo Island" and what was the name and publisher of the other game?
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by lazs2
AH is not a board game especially in the main.
Though I keep hoping HTC will find time to write one. :D
-
thing is.... most guys feel that they should get credit for their work and not have to give their kills to some hovering vultcher that "finishes off" their kill with a nik or lag7 cannon after it has been drained of e and shot to pieces. Your particular talent should not be rewarded IMO.
If I see a smoker FLYING , he's going down, I don't care if there are three birds on his 6, I'll be the fourth trying to bring that wreck down. It isn't vulching, it isn't "kill-stealing", it is simply Elimination of the Enemy!!!. I don't care about getting points, I've been thanked countless times for saving their prettythanges, I can care less about the points involved, I just pray they do the same for someone else in a similar situation!
I'm supposed to sit back and follow him into his base, watch him land, come back up and then engage. Feel free to do such a thing. I'm not trying to come down on you AT ALL lazs2.
If you were part of a trio of birds shooting up a Lanc, would you be upset and demoralized if someone came in to lend a hand and got some points as well for helping you out? I guess teamwork is a null point in here, I don't know. Oh well, I'll continue helping my fellow Rooks (my squadron aside) when they are in need, A Rook is a Rook.
Hooligan - the Guadalcanal Savo Island?
jay
-
Teamwork is lending a helping hand when you need it, not killing something that is about to be killed anyway.
Maybe that's the common misconception here, some think teamwork means working together to kill an plane... while it's actually covering the guy while he kills that plane... and coming in to kill it IF he needs it.
-SW
-
If you say so. I can see why my buddy has been flying in here since its inception and stays away from the bb. Lopsided as all hell. I've noticed the trend.
Hooligan - Wasn't it part of Tokyo Express by Victory Games?
Jay
-
Tell me this Masherbaum, where is the teamwork of a friendly diving in on a con that you are about to deliver the final blow to?
There isn't, it's just the guy diving in to see if he can get the kill instead.
This happens a lot, but it's still not teamwork.
Teamwork would be covering the guy so when more cons come in you can help him out. It goes towards the efficiency of the "team", and therefore that is teamwork.
-SW
-
masherbaum... I got no problem with you finishing off a smoking wreck. I do it myself constantly. Point is, if you get an assist for doing it you don't come all unglued about it and feel robbed like our friend widewing. Wide believes that he should get the credit even if he has done less damage.
If you jump in and help that is more than fine with me. If you get the kill because you did more damage that is also fine with me but... if you jump in after I have done all the work and most of the damage and you puit the final bullet or two into his shot up wreck and you feel that you deserve credit for the kill.... that is not fine with me.
lazs
-
I do believe I discussed what are trying to point out to me SW. I always put my self in danger to help out a squad mate, with NO SELFISHNESS, that's teamwork and committment. It just amazes me what the human mind conjurs up when a good game such as this one comes along and people will do everything possible to point the negatives of it. You always have the "couldn't we do this?", "couldn't we do that?" attitude. When will mankind suddenly realize that this is a game? They way things are discussed in here sometimes gives you the impression that they, have flown combat missions in WWII and have 30 swastikas or meatballs on their warbird. When after all of the yelling, finger-pointing, and butchery we wake up and realize, "I wish I could create a game like this". Post done. Continue the misc. ramblings, because as my first post stated, "Keep up the good work in Tejas", this is a great GAME. Thanks Dale for creating a game like this, it beats anything store bought!
Jay
-
Masher: I have no doubt Tokyo Express has a scenario named "Savo Island", as do about 30 other games. I'm just curious as to what 2 games widewing worked on. It's quite likely I know somebody who has a copy of them.
Hooligan
-
Sorry, just tried to help you.
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Eric Bergerud = rickt and he is a History Professor (not economics).
So you piqued my interest. Who published "Savo Island" and what was the name and publisher of the other game?
Hooligan
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=savo+island+game
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Eric Bergerud = rickt and he is a History Professor (not economics).
So you piqued my interest. Who published "Savo Island" and what was the name and publisher of the other game?
Hooligan
Back in the mid 1960s, I hung around with several older guys who were deep into wargames. One of these guys, Brad Davis was into naval games. Now, back in those days most guys used commercially published rules. Brad and I designed a game for our own use. We played it on an old ping-pong table. I researched the various ships and cut out counters from cardboard, drawing the silhouete of each ship on the cardboard by hand. We used a sheet of drywall, on which we painted a map of the Gaudalcanal area. Over the course of time we worked out rules and debugged the system of play. Brad took to game (minus the map) to some club meetings. One day he called me and said that he had someone interested in purchasing the rights to the game rules and system. Well, I was 14 or 15 and when told we could split $200 I was more than happy to sell it. That was more money than I could even imagine. My parents had to sign the release as I was a minor. Brad was 18 or 19 at the time. I never met the buyer, but I did see the check and got my share. About a year later I received a published copy of the rules in the mail. Some things had been changed, but it was largely intact. Moving ahead about 15 years, I was stateside after a deployment on Saratoga and while in a hobby shop, I discovered a game manufactured by Quarterdeck Games, titled Ironbottom Sound. Intrigued, I bought it. I discovered that the rules and play system were very similar, except that it used the now more common hex type map. We used some old drafting triangles, indexed in yards with a scribe. Well, I suspect that there are only so many systems that work well with naval war games. But the system, the scenario and details were remarkably close. I suppose that our system nestled in between Avalon Hill's Jutland and the newer game. Really very similar, yet there were some significant differences. Our rules were considerably more complex, taking into account the effect of sea-state on torpedo running depth and other infinitely detailed factors. Clearly, in hindsight, I can see that our game would have been much more difficult to learn, and game play was very slow. Most of my really old games disappeared while I was in college or in the military. I haven't seen the Savo Sound booklet since I left for my first carrier based flying deployment in 1977. I guess that was the price of being the oldest in a house full of boys. Leave for a while and everything gets trashed. I'm sorry, I can't recall the publisher's name, but it wasn't one of the big-name game companies, and it wasn't published as a boxed game, just a rules pamphlet. Back then, you could find a wide assortment of wargame rules published this way.
The second game sold was largely the work of Brad, and was designed for using miniatures, rather than counters. Brad kindly gave me $50 for my efforts. I don't know if that game was ever published. I can't recall what Brad named it either. It was a long time ago, and I was at the age where my interests changed with the seasons, so to speak. You know how kids are. My father bought me a used Honda CB-160 motorcycle for my 16th birthday, and for the next 6 months all I thought about and talked about was motorcycles. In retrospect, that little Honda barely qualified as a "motorcycle", but in my mind it was wonderful.
These days, Brad owns an insurance agency and coaches baseball at his local High School. He served in Vietnam, oddly enough, in Special Services, in Da Nang I believe.
Anyway, I still wargame (still have Ironbottom Sound too), but I am now into miniatures gaming more than boardgames. back in '68 or '69, I play-tested (think beta testing) Avalon Hill's first hex based wargame, Panzerblitz. I probably played every game published by Avalon Hill, as well as many from GDW, Strategic Simulations and others. I also enjoy many of Talonsoft's PC games, such as West Front, East Front and all of the Civil war games. However, they don't run on XP, so until they provide a patch, I'm doing without, or use my old WIN98 machine.
So, Hooligan, are wargames a former or present hobby of your's?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I see your point, you believe the scoring should reward based upon contribution. I agree, however, I believe that the system should reward the final killer more than those who contributed, regardless of whether the killer did more or less total damage. Assists should get some perk percentage, or kills should be shared. IE: .33 kills or .50 kills, and so on. Also, non flying proxies should go away, along with proxies caused by AI ack.
Does this make a little more sense?
My regards,
Widewing
No, I don't think it does make more sense by itself. The "final killer" would simply be the guy that shot it last. It would make kill stealing far worse IMO. However, I think your idea of shared kills does have merit. Instead of doling out "assists", dole out .5 of a kill or some other fraction of a kill. However, it still needs to be based on total damage done to be workable IMO from a programming point of view. Maybe another improvement would be granting a "kill" after critical damage is done. Use the same determination for damage as you do now, just give out the kill and stop calculating after something really big breaks like a whole wing or entire tail section.
Still, changes like this are not trivial. I think what we have now works fine, although it could be improved. I'm sure HT would be willing to consider these ideas, and if HTC like them they'll prioritize and do their thing at some point. However, I submit that a much less contriversial thread posted in the Gameplay/Feedback forum would be much more likely to accomplish that goal.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Teamwork would be covering the guy so when more cons come in you can help him out. It goes towards the efficiency of the "team", and therefore that is teamwork.
-SW
That's it in a nutshell, Masherbaum. Once a teammate saddles up, you should lag back and provide cover. Should the teammate run out of ammo, or the con shake him off, then its okay to move in. Until then, your job is to cover his 6. Competition for the kill is not teamwork. Shooting over another's shoulder is not teamwork. Flying through his airplane while he's concentrating on hitting the enemy is most definitely not teamwork, especially if that results in his being killshootered.
Teamwork will not result in less personal kills, you will probably get more because enemies are being chased from your 6, allowing you to pursue the enemy unmolested. That means you will likely suffer less deaths too. Teamwork means better scores for all involved. Teamwork means people will be glad to see you on their wing, instead of dreading your presence. Being a reliable teammate means that when calling for help, someone will come. There is no down side to being a good teammate. And, you don't have to be in a squad to be a teammate. Any member of your country is a teammate. Hell, I'd even cover Lazs if he needed it. :D Although I suspect he'd rather die..... ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Ogun
Still waiting for the punch line Widewing :D
No punchline, Ogun. I was grossly out of line. Making smug comments about another player's scores is a low as it gets. I sincerely apologize for that.
Just say the word and I'll delete any post that belittles you in any way.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Eric Bergerud = rickt and he is a History Professor (not economics).
So you piqued my interest. Who published "Savo Island" and what was the name and publisher of the other game?
Hooligan
Back in the mid 1960s, I hung around with several older guys who were deep into wargames. One of these guys, Brad Davis was into naval games. Now, back in those days most guys used commercially published rules. Brad and I designed a game for our own use. We played it on an old ping-pong table. I researched the various ships and cut out counters from cardboard, drawing the silhouete of each ship on the cardboard by hand. We used a sheet of drywall, on which we painted a map of the Gaudalcanal area. Over the course of time we worked out rules and debugged the system of play. Brad took to game (minus the map) to some club meetings. One day he called me and said that he had someone interested in purchasing the rights to the game rules and system. Well, I was 14 or 15 and when told we could split $200 I was more than happy to sell it. That was more money than I could even imagine. My parents had to sign the release as I was a minor. Brad was 18 or 19 at the time. I never met the buyer, but I did see the check and got my share. About a year later I received a published copy of the rules in the mail. Some things had been changed, but it was largely intact. Moving ahead about 15 years, I was stateside after a deployment on Saratoga and while in a hobby shop, I discovered a game manufactured by Quarterdeck Games, titled Ironbottom Sound. Intrigued, I bought it. I discovered that the rules and play system were very similar, except that it used the now more common hex type map. We used some old drafting triangles, indexed in yards with a scribe. Well, I suspect that there are only so many systems that work well with naval war games. But the system, the scenario and details were remarkably close. I suppose that our system nestled in between Avalon Hill's Jutland and the newer game. Really very similar, yet there were some significant differences. Our rules were considerably more complex, taking into account the effect of sea-state on torpedo running depth and other infinitely detailed factors. Clearly, in hindsight, I can see that our game would have been much more difficult to learn, and game play was very slow. Most of my really old games disappeared while I was in college or in the military. I haven't seen the Savo Sound booklet since I left for my first carrier based flying deployment in 1977. I guess that was the price of being the oldest in a house full of boys. Leave for a while and everything gets trashed. I'm sorry, I can't recall the publisher's name, but it wasn't one of the big-name game companies, and it wasn't published as a boxed game, just a rules pamphlet. Back then, you could find a wide assortment of wargame rules published this way.
The second game sold was largely the work of Brad, and was designed for using miniatures, rather than counters. Brad kindly gave me $50 for my efforts. I don't know if that game was ever published. I can't recall what Brad named it either. It was a long time ago, and I was at the age where my interests changed with the seasons, so to speak. You know how kids are. My father bought me a used Honda CB-160 motorcycle for my 16th birthday, and for the next 6 months all I thought about and talked about was motorcycles. In retrospect, that little Honda barely qualified as a "motorcycle", but in my mind it was wonderful.
These days, Brad owns an insurance agency and coaches baseball at his local High School. He served in Vietnam, oddly enough, in Special Services, in Da Nang I believe.
Anyway, I still wargame (still have Ironbottom Sound too), but I am now into miniatures gaming more than boardgames. back in '68 or '69, I play-tested (think beta testing) Avalon Hill's first hex based wargame, Panzerblitz. I probably played every game published by Avalon Hill, as well as many from GDW, Strategic Simulations and others. I also enjoy many of Talonsoft's PC games, such as West Front, East Front and all of the Civil war games. However, they don't run on XP, so until they provide a patch, I'm doing without, or use my old WIN98 machine.
So, Hooligan, are wargames a former or present hobby of your's?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Masher, I believe we are talking about two different circumstances.
You are referring to diving in to help someone out that appears to be in trouble- that's team work.
Back in the day (in the long long ago ;-) people would ask before engaging.
Now-a-days, they just dive on in thinking you need help when chances are some guys don't.
That really isn't teamwork, but it isn't really intentionally going in for the kill for yourself. It's more like "I thought I was helping"
If I get one of those in replies, I could care less if the guy came in to kill the bogey.
But, if no response to "why'd you join the fight? I didn't need help", then that's just kill stealing.
I dive in to help squad mates when they need help all the time when I'm online. It's just natural to help out "your boys", I'll help someone who is outnumbered too... I would expect anyone to do the same (although a few won't)...
In any event, I think we just misunderstood each other.
-SW
-
widewing that was very touching... It was also the most long winded way I could imagine for someone to say that "yeah, I developed 2 games but don't bother to check cause my name won't appear on either one of em."
My fragile self esteem seems to be in little danger of having you shatter it.
respectfully
lazs
-
Widewing:
Hmmmm .... I'm sure that Jack Greene would be surprised to discover that his game is based on your prior work that he never heard of.
As far as PanzerBlitz being AH's first hexagon based game: You're (not surprisingly) wrong.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1730325384
Somehow I also doubt that you playtested PanzerBlitz.
Masher:
Nothing to be sorry about, you didn't really answer the question I had asked WW so was clarifying. Thanks anyway.
Hooligan
-
Ok class, you must setup up the bandit before the reversal. Now that we have learned that, watch how easily they slip in front of your guns...
Drex
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Widewing:
Hmmmm .... I'm sure that Jack Greene would be surprised to discover that his game is based on your prior work that he never heard of.
As far as PanzerBlitz being AH's first hexagon based game: You're (not surprisingly) wrong.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1730325384
Somehow I also doubt that you playtested PanzerBlitz.
Masher:
Nothing to be sorry about, you didn't really answer the question I had asked WW so was clarifying. Thanks anyway.
Hooligan
I can see why you and Lazs get along so well, both of you being such accomplished condescending jerks. Who the hell do you little pipsqueaks think you are? Rude, nasty and visious, and without remorse. Typical online bully boys.. about as rough and tough as Barney Fife in person, yet, hiding behind their keyboards, bold as brass. So typical. Twist, distort, misrepresent what people write to suit your own perversions. Sad....
Quote: "As far as PanzerBlitz being AH's first hexagon based game: You're (not surprisingly) wrong."
Yeah, you're right, I was incorrect. Faulty memory. I'll bet that makes you want to puff out your beer belly and strut for all to see, doesn't it? I guess that makes you feel like a real man, huh? Yeah, you and Lazs, a couple of real he-men. (Pardon me while I stifle a wretch)
Now that I think about it, weren't Tactics II or Waterloo the first Hex based game? Or would you actually know?
Quote: "Somehow I also doubt that you playtested PanzerBlitz."
Do you honestly think I, or anyone else, gives a damn what you doubt? As far as I'm concerned, your opinion carries less weight than a gnat's fart.
The facts are, a member or friend of a member of the local wargaming club brought to a meeting at one member's home, what he said was a "pre-release" (or words to that effect) copy of the game. Everyone had an opportunity to play it over the course of several weeks. He also asked that we write down comments. That was about 33 or 34 years ago. Details of memory can be a bit vague. What were you doing 34 years ago?
As to your comment about Jack Greene: Clearly you must realize that wargaming (land and naval) has been going on for thousands of years. There have been countless systems and games developed, many resembling those most commonly seen today. For God's sake, there are have been and currently exist many clubs that develop their own unique rules and gameplay. Game companies make their money from people who don't wish to, or can't design their own. Some play with miniatures, some with counters. Indeed, some of the most interesting games were those designed by local clubs. Either way, your comment was remarkably obnoxious and equally cheeky.
You know, I may very well be a "pompous ass", but it appears that you and the Lazs monkey resent the competition.
Life's a squeak, ain't it?
-
If I could only do it in the arena eh drex?
lifes a blast ain't it?
lazs
-
This seems like an appropriate time to quote you:
Again, I apologize for being the amazinhunk you so accurately described.
Your self-assessment has merit. On this at least we can agree. You are a pompous condescending braggart and a liar. I particularly like the part about you helping design 2 games and not being able to remember the name of one. I would think anybody who has published a book or game or anything substantive would tend to save a copy. Even if they forgot the title they could just look at their copy to refresh their memory. Well at least you now have one post in this thread which does not celebrate your past illusory accomplishments.
Hooligan
-
If during WWII, there were computers that tracked every round fired by every shooter, every hit and damage, and tracked the status of all damaged enemy planes after the pilots lost sight of them, (basically AH's score system) would they have used it?
I bet they (all countries) would have.
They used the best and most accurate information that they had available. Why shouldn't we?
eskimo
-
I've been reading this thread so long I forgot who supported the idea of awarding the kill as soon as "fatal damage" is done...
Here's the problem with awarding the kill as soon as "fatal damage" is done:
Imagine that you spawn on the runway, start your engine and then I vulch your wing off. Should I get a kill for this? You are not wounded, sitting on your own runway in a busted plane, ready to end the "flight", yet your death (or my kill) has already been awarded to me....? Now THAT would really suck!
A kill should only be awarded when a pilot: dies, bails or is captured. As it is now.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
This seems like an appropriate time to quote you:
Your self-assessment has merit. On this at least we can agree. You are a pompous condescending braggart and a liar. I particularly like the part about you helping design 2 games and not being able to remember the name of one. I would think anybody who has published a book or game or anything substantive would tend to save a copy. Even if they forgot the title they could just look at their copy to refresh their memory. Well at least you now have one post in this thread which does not celebrate your past illusory accomplishments.
Hooligan
Ha, Moron! I don't keep copies of these either.
One patent example (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft95&s1=Aerodyne&s2=Switch&OS=Aerodyne+AND+Switch&RS=Aerodyne+AND+Switch)
There's seven more like that one
Sample magazine article (http://www.flightjournal.com/store/viewissue.asp?issueid=F018)
Again, how many do you need?
Further references-
Feel free to contact:
Warren Bodie, Author and President of Widewing Publications
(that's right dipshit, that's where my user name comes from)
at: Widewing@dnet.net
Try the Editors at Ghostwings magazine at staff@ghostwings.com
Contact John Armstrong at: editor@airpowerint.com (Air Power International)
Visit http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
This is my aviation history website, read by more people annually than the top 2 aviation magazines combined!
Finally, do a search on yahoo using my name, Corey Jordan or Corey C. Jordan... That will keep you occupied for the evening.
You "think anybody who has published a book or game or anything substantive would tend to save a copy."
That was your first mistake, thinking. Your second mistake was assuming that you had a clear view despite having your head stuffed firmly up your ass.
You may kiss my bellybutton by appointment only.
Widewing
-
And yet..
you can lose a kill to someone that hit the enemy more then you and light up one of the world class most pompous whines of all time.
sigh
-
Little rusty on my biology; do gnats really fart?
-
Originally posted by Ogun
Little rusty on my biology; do gnats really fart?
You see, eveyone thought that buzz came from their wings....;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wow Widemouth:
That's a very impressive display of chest-beating. Perhaps you should add it to your sig just in case we forget to be in awe of you.
Hooligan
-
I think pongo summed it up...
Look widemouth... all your accomplishments in life are fine.. Plenty of guys here have even more impressive lists and they seem to be handling their egos just fine.
Read your posts.. they are a mixture af braggart, pompous ahole, lies and condencending crap. Not only that but your ideas are half thought out and you show no special grasp of what happened in WWII and it's score system despite all your supposed exposure.
lazs
-
Keep ranting ladies, you grow smaller with each empty word.
Widewing