Modification of kill award system

[Lucifer]

<S>

Would be a good thing imho to modify the actual kill system :

Many times i hear in chat "sry that was your kill" or "sry u should have get this kill", and here is the reason :

I thought the kill system awarded the kill to the pilot that dealt the most dmg, thats what i was told.

But, in fact, what HTC means is that the pilot that land the more bullets (or cannons rounds -no dif is made by program-) is awarded the kill.

This is why first i didnt understand why a guy that landed 20x0.303 bullets on a b17 (with no visible dmg like smoke or a part falling off) scored the kill
 when i landed 7x30mm on same b17, blowing one of his engines then exploding it.

i confirmed this with a simple test : a friend was attacking a Tiger II with his Panzer, i decided to strafe that Tiger II, landed 17 x 13mm rounds on it.

My teammate then scored 3 shells hits on TigerII , it then exploded and guess what...

I was awarded the kill ! i clearly didnt make more dmg with my bullets than the Pz shells!


HTC plz modify the kill system when u got time.


Ty.

[Skuzzy]

It is, in fact, the pilot who does the most damage who gets the kill.  Once the object is determined to be unuseable, the system stops tallying the damage done.

[lunatic1]

yep on 2 different ocasions this past weekend i put about 1500.50cal  rounds from my mustang into a panzer--and another tank finally destroyed it i got the kill both times.

[guncrasher]

lucifer if that was true then all of us who mark gvs for tanks with our planes would get the majority of tank kills.



semp

[danny76]

yep on 2 different ocasions this past weekend i put about 1500.50cal  rounds from my mustang into a panzer--and another tank finally destroyed it i got the kill both times.

Now this really is ridiculous. You could fire. 50's at a MBT all day long and do no damage

[Chilli]

Thanks Skuzzy, that was interesting.  Perhaps when determining "unuseable" may provide some challenges, but the way that most of us would "ideally" wish for it to work.

If a pilot is wounded, but the aircraft is undamaged, there could be a good argument for compromise, if another pilot actually downed the aircraft, and both pilots were still in pursuit. 

Actually, the system will never be as accurate as AAR.  Receiving a kill message after the pursuit has ceased and another friendly "has to" finish the "unuseable" aircraft may be a benefit of my use of 50 cals instead of cannon and hitting more surfaces. 

I seem to be a very good assistant  but then again, I very seldom continue to fire on a plane that is obviously out of control and destined to become dust.  Yet, I have seen rounds fly in on a plane with one wing floundering to the ground.

If HTC decides to change the way Kills are recorded, one way or the other, would be absolutely fine with me.  I am more interested in the explanation of how it is determined than whether or not I get one, with the exception of any huge gap between effectiveness of types of rounds that did not actually exist during conflicts.

So basically, Skuzzy, the more I know about what the coad refers to as "unuseable" the more I become satisfied with whatever I get.  Honestly, just recently learning from Snailman, that amount of damage (in assists) counts toward score/ or rank, along with a discussion about which surfaces actually cause damage or not (example: fuselage hits to large bombers), helps to combat frustration and lessens expectations of becoming a leet  pilot.

[ONTOS]

I have fought planes that were flying very well with seemingly no damage and I blew them appart and not even got an assist.

[Lucifer]

Skuzzy, i dont know what HTC told u, but u can do the test : 20 bullets will get you the kill on a Tank when 3 shells fired at it (really) dealt the -true- damages.

If u need Films, just tell me.

[shotgunneeley]

Slightly off topic, but I'd like to see a country icon next to every player's name that is awarded a kill or lands a score. I'd also like to see what the enemy player that shot me down was driving (would be a quick way to discern where the fatal shot came from when in a gaggle rather than relying on film viewer).

EX - SYSTEM: [Rook] Player landed 6000 damage points in a B17G
EX - SYSTEM: [Bishop] Player shot you down in a FW-190A8.

[Wiley]

Would it maybe make more sense for the kill system to award the kill to the person who did the most damage to whatever parts on the plane wind up actually 'damaged'?  I'm thinking of the times I've hosed someone with my jug wingtip to wingtip but didn't knock anything off, someone took a wing, and I got the kill.

For example, if I put a bunch of rounds into it but nothing was 'damaged', then someone put a concentrated burst into the right wingroot and tore it off, the only damage that would count for me would be the damage to that wingroot, the hits all over the rest of the plane wouldn't.

Now if I actually removed parts on the plane and someone came in and finished it by blowing a wing off, it would weight the damage I did versus what he did to end the plane.  if I only shot one ron off, it wouldn't compare to the damage to the wing, but if I shot all his control surfaces off and oiled him, the guy that finishes him shouldn't get all the credit should he?

Shared kills if it's within a certain amount perhaps?

It seems to me like it might be decent, although the devil is in the details on how to weight damage.  Wings, pilot kills, and engine kills are easy.  Where would an oiling fit in though if the engine isn't dead yet?  Control surfaces would be weighted less than something that actively 'killed' the plane too, although if you have enough of them it should count in your favor.

Wiley.